Topic: I found the origin of the engineers vs lawyers meme
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 hours ago #136,736
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #1,450,783
Live&Lemon joined in and replied with this 2 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,784
Live&Lemon double-posted this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,786
I just find it interesting that China went from being poorer than most African countries but somehow people don’t think that if Africa will have 40% of the world population by the end of the century, that might have some consequences for the distribution of economic power in the world.Live&Lemon triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,787
@previous (Live&Lemon)Image is of Lagos Nigeria btw.
I just find it really interesting that nobody is talking about this.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 hours ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,789
@1,450,786 (Live&Lemon)
Economic power is not a simple function of how many people you have.
Humans are expensive to maintain, and the labor they can perform is quickly being replaced by machines that do it faster and more accurately.
What good is a large population when those people are all slower, more expensive, and more prone to error than machines?
They may as well be the #1 producers of abacuses.
This has been pointed out to you before, but every time you change the subject instead of refuting this point and hope no one notices.
Economic power is not a simple function of how many people you have.
Humans are expensive to maintain, and the labor they can perform is quickly being replaced by machines that do it faster and more accurately.
What good is a large population when those people are all slower, more expensive, and more prone to error than machines?
They may as well be the #1 producers of abacuses.
This has been pointed out to you before, but every time you change the subject instead of refuting this point and hope no one notices.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,791
Live&Lemon replied with this 1 hour ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,798
Live&Lemon double-posted this 1 hour ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,799
The laws of physics are the same in Lagos as they are in Shanghai. The reason why China was able to develop so fast is because the west had already industrialized first so all they had to do was implement solutions that had already been tried before in the west and because they had such a large population that gave them a massive workforce to be able to implement industrial solutions at scale. If technology gets more advanced, that’s not bad for Africa, it’s actually beneficial.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 hour ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,800
@1,450,798 (Live&Lemon)
Marxism will do that.
@previous (Live&Lemon)
> The laws of physics are the same in Lagos as they are in Shanghai.
What about the laws of biology?
> The reason why China was able to develop so fast is because the west had already industrialized first so all they had to do was implement solutions that had already been tried before in the west and because they had such a large population that gave them a massive workforce to be able to implement industrial solutions at scale. If technology gets more advanced, that’s not bad for Africa, it’s actually beneficial.
The difference is that when you look at input costs and economic output, humans were the best option at the time. Today, humans are obsolete for most labor.
Africa is using a strategy that no longer makes sense.
Marxism will do that.
@previous (Live&Lemon)
> The laws of physics are the same in Lagos as they are in Shanghai.
What about the laws of biology?
> The reason why China was able to develop so fast is because the west had already industrialized first so all they had to do was implement solutions that had already been tried before in the west and because they had such a large population that gave them a massive workforce to be able to implement industrial solutions at scale. If technology gets more advanced, that’s not bad for Africa, it’s actually beneficial.
The difference is that when you look at input costs and economic output, humans were the best option at the time. Today, humans are obsolete for most labor.
Africa is using a strategy that no longer makes sense.
Live&Lemon replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,801
Honestly I find the whole attitude that technology is hopelessly advanced to be rather annoying.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Live&Lemon double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,802
@1,450,800 (D)
> What about the laws of biology?
Yes. There’s nothing anatomically different about Nigerians and Chinese people.
> What about the laws of biology?
Yes. There’s nothing anatomically different about Nigerians and Chinese people.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 hour ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,803
@1,450,801 (Live&Lemon)
"Hopelessly advanced" isn't what I said. I said human labor is no longer the best performer when you look at the ratio of input to output.
"Hopelessly advanced" isn't what I said. I said human labor is no longer the best performer when you look at the ratio of input to output.
Live&Lemon replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,804
@previous (D)
No, it’s not what you said, and I didn’t say it’s literally what you said. I said it’s your attitude.
No, it’s not what you said, and I didn’t say it’s literally what you said. I said it’s your attitude.
Live&Lemon double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,805
I find this attitude irritating. You think that people won’t catch up to technology. Where do you think technology comes from? Technology doesn’t come out of thin air.
Live&Lemon triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,807
It’s magical thinking. You think that countries that have technology now will continue to produce it in the future, and countries that don’t have technology now never will have technology. That’s inconsistent with what has actually happened historically. That’s why I brought up China. The United States went to the moon while Chinese people were starving. Your intuition is backwards.
Live&Lemon quadruple-posted this 1 hour ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,808
Or take Japan for instance. How did Japan industrialize? There was a time when the west was industrialized and Japan was behind. It doesn’t make any sense to think that things will stay the same forever when if you look back, things weren’t always as they are now.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 hour ago, 24 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,809
@1,450,804 (Live&Lemon)
And this is what happens each thread.
I frame matters in material terms, and you start derailing the discussing with wishy washy nonsense.
Economies follow material reality, not vibes.
And this is what happens each thread.
I frame matters in material terms, and you start derailing the discussing with wishy washy nonsense.
Economies follow material reality, not vibes.
Live&Lemon replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,810
@previous (D)
You haven’t said anything about material realities. You’ve never explained why what you think is the case will continue to be the case. You haven’t provided any explanation why you think the most advanced technology in the world can’t be produced in Africa in the future.
You haven’t said anything about material realities. You’ve never explained why what you think is the case will continue to be the case. You haven’t provided any explanation why you think the most advanced technology in the world can’t be produced in Africa in the future.
Live&Lemon double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,811
It’s just an assumption that you’re making that the west will continue to produced advanced technology forever and that Africa will continue to not do that forever, but you haven’t stated any reason why you think that.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,812
@1,450,805 (Live&Lemon)
@1,450,807 (Live&Lemon)
No, I gave a very specific point.
Humans were the best option for a lot of economic activity for a long time, and now they are not.
You gave examples of countries increasing humans and seeing economic results, during that time. Now you expect that to continue, even though humanity just lost its edge in most ecpnomic activity to machines.
@1,450,808 (Live&Lemon)
This post makes it clear you fon't actually understand my argument, because Japan did this when humans were still the best economic option.
You don't make any argument here against my actual point, you just critique my attitude.
Humans are material, and have economic costs and benefits. The cost-to-output ratio was so good that more people was a key way for a country to succeed.
Now humans are no longer the best investment from a purely economic analysis, so why do you think the old rule will continue?
@1,450,807 (Live&Lemon)
No, I gave a very specific point.
Humans were the best option for a lot of economic activity for a long time, and now they are not.
You gave examples of countries increasing humans and seeing economic results, during that time. Now you expect that to continue, even though humanity just lost its edge in most ecpnomic activity to machines.
@1,450,808 (Live&Lemon)
This post makes it clear you fon't actually understand my argument, because Japan did this when humans were still the best economic option.
You don't make any argument here against my actual point, you just critique my attitude.
Humans are material, and have economic costs and benefits. The cost-to-output ratio was so good that more people was a key way for a country to succeed.
Now humans are no longer the best investment from a purely economic analysis, so why do you think the old rule will continue?
Live&Lemon replied with this 1 hour ago, 39 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,813
Anonymous D replied with this 1 hour ago, 40 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,814
@1,450,810 (Live&Lemon)
I did, I explained that the cost to output ratio of humans was no longer the best, and you never responded to that.
You didn't even challenge the claim, because we both know that if we look at just about any industry today, humans are a liability that is either tolerated while they roll out automation, or a purely sentimental part of the experience.
I did, I explained that the cost to output ratio of humans was no longer the best, and you never responded to that.
You didn't even challenge the claim, because we both know that if we look at just about any industry today, humans are a liability that is either tolerated while they roll out automation, or a purely sentimental part of the experience.
Live&Lemon replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,815
Japan was still a feudal society while European powers had already industrialized. But Japan managed to develop their own industry and support an expansive empire. That doesn’t fit your story about what should have happened.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 hour ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,816
@1,450,813 (Live&Lemon)
Humans still had a lot of labor that couldn't be substituted with machine labor after the industrial revolution, so no, you're wrong.
Technicians, white collar workers, the service industry all expanded after the industrial revolution.
What will humans do in a world where machines get better performance at cognitive work?
Humans still had a lot of labor that couldn't be substituted with machine labor after the industrial revolution, so no, you're wrong.
Technicians, white collar workers, the service industry all expanded after the industrial revolution.
What will humans do in a world where machines get better performance at cognitive work?
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 hour ago, 44 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,817
@1,450,815 (Live&Lemon)
The industrial revolution did not replace all human labor, but it did move a lot of people away from purely physical labor.
The industrial revolution did not replace all human labor, but it did move a lot of people away from purely physical labor.
Live&Lemon replied with this 1 hour ago, 46 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,818
@1,450,814 (D)
Your argument fundamentally doesn’t make sense, because you have to understand that we live in a world that is governed by physical laws and one of those laws is that nothing can be created or destroyed only transformed. A robot or a human technically can’t produce anything, we can only manipulate things that already exist in the natural world. Even if the rest of the world is industrial, Africa is necessary to supply raw materials to that industry. That’s part of why Europe colonized Africa because Europe didn’t have the natural resources necessary in order to build the wealth that they have now, they had to steal it.
Your argument fundamentally doesn’t make sense, because you have to understand that we live in a world that is governed by physical laws and one of those laws is that nothing can be created or destroyed only transformed. A robot or a human technically can’t produce anything, we can only manipulate things that already exist in the natural world. Even if the rest of the world is industrial, Africa is necessary to supply raw materials to that industry. That’s part of why Europe colonized Africa because Europe didn’t have the natural resources necessary in order to build the wealth that they have now, they had to steal it.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 hour ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,820
@previous (Live&Lemon)
You aren't defending your original point that more humans leads to success, you're defending a new argument that owning the raw materials is what matters.
Clearly you're trying to abandon your original argument because you made several posts ignoring my counterpoint, and now you're switching.
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
You aren't defending your original point that more humans leads to success, you're defending a new argument that owning the raw materials is what matters.
Clearly you're trying to abandon your original argument because you made several posts ignoring my counterpoint, and now you're switching.
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
Live&Lemon replied with this 59 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,821
Live&Lemon double-posted this 57 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,822
The two things are directly connected to each other. If other parts of the world can produce more because of more automation, they’ll need more raw materials. There’s no reason why in a world where Africa has less automation than the rest of the world that Africa’s economy will stop growing. It’s the other way around.
Anonymous D replied with this 56 minutes ago, 30 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,823
@1,450,821 (Live&Lemon)
As usual you switch to personal attacks when you lose.
As usual you switch to personal attacks when you lose.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous D double-posted this 56 minutes ago, 17 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,824
Live&Lemon replied with this 56 minutes ago, 6 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,825
And if Africa’s economy keeps growing, and they have a very large population, the more likely it is that someone with an idea will have the resources necessary to implement that idea and improve the productivity of Africa.
Live&Lemon double-posted this 55 minutes ago, 52 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,826
Anonymous D replied with this 54 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,827
@previous (Live&Lemon)
If you can't refute an argument, and think spamming ad hominems is a substitute, then bye.
If you can't refute an argument, and think spamming ad hominems is a substitute, then bye.
Live&Lemon replied with this 53 minutes ago, 37 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,828
@previous (D)
Well I just refuted your argument and instead of responding to it, you decided to act like a toddler.
Well I just refuted your argument and instead of responding to it, you decided to act like a toddler.
Live&Lemon double-posted this 49 minutes ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,829
Maybe if you come up with a great argument why Africa will not develop the satellite images will change their mind.Live&Lemon triple-posted this 46 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,450,830
It’s also just kind of stupid because economic growth isn’t a zero sum game. It would be smarter if white people in the west reacted to this by engaging in mutually beneficial trade instead of white nationalism. Because this is essentially missing out on the biggest investment opportunity of the century because it hurts your ego.