Alternatively, American society values a human's worth by economic output and the economy has shifted to value humans who can successfully navigate the new more intelligence-based economy.
Human worth is intrinsic and absolute. It depends on nothing and is granted simply for existing. It cannot be taken away. The commission of crimes will result in a loss of freedoms and rights, but not human worth.
Economic value however is not meaningless. It represents a measure of contribution to the capital engine that powers our lives. The whole system however is completely unfair and biased since the actual economic value created by workers is not realized by them. Workers create value that companies could not survive without but these companies do not then redistribute gains from that value in commensurate with the work done.
As such I don't have a problem with us looking at being able to generate economic value as meaningful, I have a problem with the skewed system that distributes the rewards and opportunities unfairly.
> Economic value however is not meaningless. It represents a measure of contribution to the capital engine that powers our lives.
I think you need to define "economic value" here. GP, I believe, was referring to actual exchanges of money for value.
The problem is that lots of very important, valuable jobs aren't compensated accordingly. One could say that being a good parent is one of the most important and valuable jobs, but it pays very little. The same is true of teaching and scientific research. A huge amount of value (almost incalculable) is created for others, but the creator is able to capture very little of it.
Additionally we have created a system where ownership of capital probably creates too much economic value relative to work. Which ends up centralising the capital, to the detriment of society.
```
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...
```
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
...
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. . .
...
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind. . .
. . .
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
In an economy where work is increasingly automated, those humans who can do things which machines can't are finding themselves more valued. That seems expected, and I am not convinced it is indicative of any problem or unfairness.
The unfairness component comes from your genetics and upbringing, both outside your control - some combinations are better suited to navigate this economy than others.
So what do we as a society do with those at a disadvantage, sometimes severe (eg IQ below 90?) we can move toward finding ways to include them, or we can move toward excluding them. The problem from the article is a societal one trend toward exclusion, not economic as you pointed out.
Someone who is personable or eager or hardworking (or the opposite) is as much so because of the cards they are dealt by nature or their upbringing as a person who is intelligent (or the opposite). When you get down to it, everyone is exclusively a product of their genes and the environment, and they are in control of neither.
A just society judges and rewards people based on what they contribute. Racism, sexism, ageism, and the like are unfair not because they select based on something "outside your control", but because they deprive a person of the opportunity to succeed or fail based on merit.
Intelligence is a direct factor (though not the only factor) in a person's success at performing just about any job. If it is not a fair criteria by which to judge, then there are no fair criteria.
I'm more concerned about the act of "judging". What does that involve exactly? I'm fine with giving everyone A, B, C, D and F grades. I wouldn't care if you made people sew them into their clothing. But I'd like a person who got an F to have food and shelter. I don't see how they'd ever get another grade otherwise.
In theory, 25% of the population has an IQ below 90. If that's a severe disadvantage we're talking about ~75M people just in the US.
Edit: I read comments before the article as the HN discussion is typically more interesting than the article itself. Didn't realize this exact stat is in the article.
How will actual automation impact small and in some cases medium-sized businesses? If I'm running a restaurant chain with 2-3 locations, does it make economic sense to employ robotic sweepers and chefs? Granted that won't replace all jobs lost, manual labor would still be valued in such areas.
the capitalist class has always been an intellectual one. The labor class is dying; I don't think this indicates a higher premium on intelligence. If anything, this indicates a lower value than before as people take intelligence for granted.
A large part of the economy is still labor driven and will be. Many infrastructure tasks such as complex welding(possibly the job where automation has happened the most) are still outside the realm of full automation.
