I know "jobs" are a goal with good intentions, but I have to disagree. While it's political suicide to claim otherwise, aiming for job creation simply plays into the idea that more jobs are the things we desire, when what we really want is a comfortable existence and a sense of fulfilment.
What new consensus might we converge on if we continue to automate away jobs quicker than retraining can reasonably be expected?
Personally, I'm excited when technology can expose the lie that 40-hour-per-week paying jobs are required to be a contributing member of society. Unfortunately, exposing that lie likely involves some period of high unemployment before a critical mass of people start to reject the premise that holding a job equates to worthiness in society.
I've recently come across the term "accelerationism" on HN, and it seems to at least partially describe the above position:
> Accelerationism is the name of a contemporary political heresy: the insistence that the only radical political response to capitalism is not to protest, disrupt, critique, or détourne it, but to accelerate and exacerbate its uprooting, alienating, decoding, abstractive tendencies.
What new consensus might we converge on if we continue to automate away jobs quicker than retraining can reasonably be expected?
Personally, I'm excited when technology can expose the lie that 40-hour-per-week paying jobs are required to be a contributing member of society. Unfortunately, exposing that lie likely involves some period of high unemployment before a critical mass of people start to reject the premise that holding a job equates to worthiness in society.
I've recently come across the term "accelerationism" on HN, and it seems to at least partially describe the above position:
> Accelerationism is the name of a contemporary political heresy: the insistence that the only radical political response to capitalism is not to protest, disrupt, critique, or détourne it, but to accelerate and exacerbate its uprooting, alienating, decoding, abstractive tendencies.