
Ask HN: Will automation generate social massive protests? - Mister_Y
Like it happened with the industrial revolution when the luddit movement tried to stop it and how can we face it nowadays with the next automation revolution
======
alphonsegaston
Yes, but if we continue down our current path, they will not be directed at
automation itself. Instead, advanced propaganda and bot networks will organize
discontent against whichever targets allow the protesters to feel temporarily
empowered, but that pose no actual threat to entrenched powers. The Russians
are far further down this road than the US. Go read about how Surkov
simultaneously creates Neo-Nazi movements, gives money to anti-Putin
protestors, and props up the Russian Orthodox Church.

[https://www.amazon.com/Nothing-True-Everything-Possible-
Surr...](https://www.amazon.com/Nothing-True-Everything-Possible-
Surreal/dp/1610396006)

~~~
fsloth
Automated stochastically generated fads and hate campaigns as political
camouflage -

Oh my. In the future it's not rogue internet devices which will cause only
trouble - it's fallible individuals who will create critical mass for social
proof for any random idea.

Soon we can buy actual online cults as easily as stolen credit card numbers
:). But I suppose this is already happening at a nation state scale, but only
in the mechanical turk sense of automation. Who will be the first automated
propaganda unicorn ...

------
Joeri
It's unlikely that people will identify automation as the cause of the
problem. Take a look at the U.S. manufacturing sector. What is the story? Jobs
are being shipped overseas, and the manufacturing sector is dying. What is the
reality? Measured by output the U.S. manufacturing sector is bigger than ever
before and has grown by a fifth since 2000, while cutting the number of
workers by a third. Profits have soared, double what they were in the 90's.
Automation is the cause of manufacturing job loss, but people blame nafta and
elect trump to close the borders.

------
yummyfajitas
The modern luddite movement is already here.

A few days ago I was unable to get an Uber out of Hyderabad airport because of
a "strike". "Strike" might be the euphemism of the year - it refers to angry
taxi drivers/autowales striking Uber drivers who continue to drive.

This is not an isolated experience, many other countries (Columbia, France,
Brazil) have the same problem with violent angry mobs trying to shut down
automated competition. Politicians mostly side with the luddites; here in
Maharashtra, Shiv Sena (racist party of Maharashtra, for those unfamiliar) is
strongly opposed to Uber. French politicians similarly surrendered to the
terrorists.

~~~
chinathrow
> French politicians similarly surrendered to the terrorists.

How do you feel calling someone striking a terrorist?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Why are my feelings relevant?

If you must know the answer, I feel like a person who's read a dictionary and
knows that terrorists are people who use violence and intimidation to achieve
their political goals.

~~~
chinathrow
I assume you're from the U.S.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f)

"(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence
perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine
agents;"

Rough words for a few Uber drives in France.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I know it's confusing when white people are called "terrorist", but the
definition clearly fits. If it helps you to understand, think about the
Pune/Bombay examples I linked to above (where the perpetrators and victims are
all brown).

------
hacknat
I want to echo, in agreement, with the many people here who are saying that
there will likely be protests, but not against automation itself. Present
evidence suggests that it is true.

However I want to push back against the idea that current protests against,
for example, lack of manufacturing jobs are totally misdirected or will be in
the future (if they are not against automation). While I think blaming NAFTA
and outsourcing for a loss of jobs is ridiculous at least people are
recognizing that the problems are structural and public rather than
technological.

What would protesting automation even look like? Stop the machines? The last
movement to do that was small, ineffectual, and was perceived to be
ridiculous.

Some kind of safety net or redistribution of wealth is needed in my opinion.
The classic response to redistribution is to say that it's paternalistic, but
if automation doesn't make up for the jobs it destroys what are the
alternatives?

If modern civilization survives climate change ours and the next few
generations are going to be judged with a very heavy hand and rightly so.
There is no dearth of knowledge or critique in our culture, but there is an
exceptional amount of inaction and passivity.

~~~
slake
> What would protesting automation even look like?

How about truckers stoning or blocking an automated truck that wheels into a
rest stop to refuel? Maybe rest stop operators refuse service to automated
trucks. (Can they do that legally?)

------
rm_-rf_slash
Stephen Hawking made a great point last year when he wrote that
automation/robots aren't the problem, capitalism is the problem.

Most of the world takes for granted a system that allocates resources and the
results of production in a way that encourages the highest profits with the
least costs. Since humans are the highest cost, they are the biggest target
for automation.

We have a golden opportunity to create a better, more equitable way of living
now and in the future. Let's not let this moment go to waste.

[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5616c20ce4b0dbb8000d9f15](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5616c20ce4b0dbb8000d9f15)

~~~
jayjay71
How do you think the new governments will unfold? Will there be gradual
changes in multiple countries around the world, or will there be violent
uprisings?

Historically speaking, at least in the United States, the citizens are far
less powerful than the state simply due to the imbalance in weapons. The point
of the 2nd amendment was so the people would be more powerful than the
government, but due to the ban on machine guns and numerous other
restrictions, I don't think anybody would argue the masses have nearly as much
firepower as the military/police.

Exciting times ahead? I have to agree it feels like a change is coming, mostly
due to the rapidly growing number of humans and dwindling of limited resources
combined with growing inequality, but it's hard to predict what will happen
(if anything) and when.

You think we'll see anything resembling a post-capitalist society in our
lifetimes?

~~~
evgen
> The point of the 2nd amendment was so the people would be more powerful than
> the government

Sorry to drag this off-tangent, but that statement is not even close to the
reality of why the 2nd amendment was proposed or ratified and you should
really stop saying it. It makes a nice post-hoc fairy tale for NRA types, but
you desperately need to read some history of the colonial period...

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Denial isn't the same thing as argument. The text of the 2nd Amendment is
pretty starkly clear.

~~~
evgen
The text of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear. Especially the first thirteen
words.

Those words are obvious to anyone who understand the history of the period,
what those words meant at the time, and the arguments made in favor of the
amendment. But for some strange reason everyone seems to forget they exist or
claim that they are some rhetorical flourish that is found nowhere else in the
first ten amendments.

So please, show off for us and explain them.

------
jhoechtl
Before that will happen, we will likely see insanitites like a 25 hour workday

[https://myprivate42.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/lets-shift-
to-2...](https://myprivate42.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/lets-shift-to-25-hours/)

or the abolition of cash.

------
diego_moita
No, automation is not new anymore and unions are declining. Besides, domestic
appliances and cellphones changed the way people look at machines and
technology.

It is easier to demonize immigrants and globalization. That is already the
main target of anger.

~~~
Pica_soO
If you demonize globalization, the result is local automated recycling and
production. Thus this actually increases as in decentralizes automation.

------
cdiego
We are destroying the natural world, without respect or harmony with nature.
Itsn't the automation the real problem, its our relations with others people
or kind of life.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Perveresely, with automation taking jobs that leaves people _more time_ to
spend in nature. So we'll be returning to harmony?

~~~
eswat
Doubt it. We’ll just create other work opportunities for those being displaced
by automation. Google "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren" or
[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/26/no-
time](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/26/no-time)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Yeah weird. In the '50s we wrote stories about automation removing the yoke of
labor from everybody, freeing us up to be our better selves. Now we panic that
Capitalism is threatened and invent stupid ways to patch it up (make-work,
mandatory service etc).

------
slake
I do believe there will be a tipping point if it really creates large scale
unemployment even in a certain sector. Without an appropriate safety net
people won't have enough money to buy food which will trigger substantial
social unrest.

------
cixin
I doubt protests will be prompted by automation explicitly. Take Britain as an
example, it used to be the largest manufacturer in the world [1]. Now less
than 13% of its economy is based on manufacturing.

This hasn't cause massive protests at the level I think your proposing. The
question therefore is if automation is likely to have knock-on effects,
resulting in widespread poverty. This might well result in popular unrest.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_Kingdom)

------
rocqua
Indirectly. The protest will follow from unemployment combined with the huge
income divide. These will be the results of automation, but the protest will
focus on the inequality.

Perhaps some countries (kinda like France at the moment) will take action to
strengthen job security by legislation, those countries will lose out
economically though.

(gotta append this with stating this is guesswork)

------
sbmthakur
There might be small protests but massive protests are unlikely. Back in 1980s
in India there were massive protests against introduction of computers in
banks. At that time people were not much aware about the positive role
computers can play in society. Today things are different and people are more
aware about technology.

------
usgroup
probably not because it's happening slowly and has been happening for 2
centuries ...

------
spangry
I think that if the public continues to putter along on auto-pilot for much
longer, absolutely not. Acknowledging that I sound like some nutbag conspiracy
theorist, we can already see systems of mass control being quietly put in
place. At the moment, the general public appears to be very accepting of these
systems, or just totally unaware that they can (and will) be used to control
society in the future.

I'm not just talking about your three letter agency direct dragnet
surveillance type programs, I'm also talking about stuff like cloud-based
voice & speech recognition that is only one FISA warrant away from being the
NSA's very own voice-print database. I don't even think many of the people
implementing these systems intend them to be used as systems of mass control.
But they will, and they will be used very intentionally to stifle any kind of
popular 'neo-luddite' movement.

Why? Because automation will result in massive concentration of wealth
(remembering the 'auto-pilot' assumption). Production will become extremely
capital-intensive (i.e. people replaced with machines), and the few people who
are not owners of capital yet still 'employed' will probably be paid
astronomical salaries due to their similarly astronomically high 'labor factor
productivity'. So you will have a handful of extremely wealthy 'neo-
capitalists' with much greater scope for 'free political speech' (i.e. buying
politicians with their mountains of money).

Last time we had a huge jump in the amount of capital used in production (the
industrial revolution), while I wouldn't call it a 'fair fight', workers at
least had a fighting chance, because:

\- Capitalists had relatively less resources than future neo-capitalists will.
To analogise, if 'industrial revolution capitalists' could employ professional
strike-breakers and private security forces, future neo-capitalists will have
the resources to field entire armies. With laser rifles.

\- Society hadn't, just prior to the industrial revolution, constructed
massive and intricate systems of total social control. We're doing this right
now, in many cases not realising it.

\- The state was at least sort of impartial in most cases. In some historical
periods the state even sympathised with workers' concerns, due the formation
and mainstream success of political parties representing 'labor'. Even now,
these 'labor' parties seem totally adrift, like rebels without a cause. And
the effect of money (er, I mean 'political speech') in politics will only get
exponentially worse as capitalists become exponentially richer (er, more
eloquent and verbose).

\- There were clearly identifiable groups of people (i.e.'the workers at
factory x', 'the workers in industry y', etc.) with identifiable and specific
common goals and interests (i.e. 'get industry y to share more of its profit
with labour', 'get factory x to build fire escapes so we all don't burn to
death next time' etc.). In the context of future automation, this simply will
not exist. Good luck organising a strike at, say, googles robot factory, when
you're not actually an employee (as you're not employed at all).

Under the 'auto-pilot' assumption, the only power we will truly have is as
consumers. Even just typing that last sentence makes me feel a little
ridiculous. Because of the factors outlined above, there will be no counter-
revolution. There will be no Karl Marx. There will be no new 'extreme
opposites' (like communism), nor will there be new 'moderate balancing forces'
(like labor unions). They will be killed off in their infancy or, ideally,
never conceived to begin with.

So if you don't want this future, the time for action is right now.

