/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15983095]

Was labor specialization a mistake?

[Anonymous No.15983105]

was /lit/ a literature board?

[Anonymous No.15983111]

Yes
/thread

[Anonymous No.15983120]

>>15983105
do you not see the text?

[Anonymous No.15983349]

Historically in the middle ages masters didn't want to take on apprentices. The idea that they wanted to pass on their craft or build a business wasn't desirable at the time, they wanted free labor.

These days, it takes about six months tops to train for a majority of the blue collar work that comprises a majority of the available jobs in developed countries. However, since its labor, even though it's skilled, it's shunned.

People want high status low labor jobs, leading to an increasingly uneducated workforce being tasked with more an more complex jobs.

If anything, we need more labor specialization, not less. There's no indicator automation will swoop in and delete a majority of jobs anytime soon, even when Covid-19 took out a third of the workforce.

[Anonymous No.15984160]

You can't get advanced technology without it
Geniuses that can have a deep understanding in many fields are few in number, high specialization is the only way to be able to understand and work with modern technology. Take a computer for example, there are many fields of specialization in order to deisgn, fabricate, power, program, and network it. Inconceivable to the common man beyond a basic understanding of each component. Unless of course you consider the creation of complex systems a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.15984166]

>>15983111
/thread and check'd

[Anonymous No.15984190]

>>15984160
>You can't get advanced technology without it
Yes, which is why radical thought is truth. From the Presocratic, then the gospels, to Kaczynski is an unbroken chain of radicality - all of it congruent.

[Anonymous No.15984365]

>>15983095
Source?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15984429]

>>15983111

[Anonymous No.15984439]

>>15984160
What? a single person can understand to the point of being able to 'deisgn, fabricate, power, program, and network' a computer, It doesn't even take a genius.

[Anonymous No.15985030]

>>15984365
Shimeji Simulation

[Anonymous No.15985054]

of course, because everything was so much better before writing/medicine/plumbing/diplomacy/readily available food
it's so unfortunate that now, with labor scpeicalization, some people have more than others. what would really be great is if we were all equal in squalor, killing each other over the beans left over in a roving predators turds.

[Anonymous No.15985080]

>>15984439
It literally did take a genius

[Anonymous No.15985084]

I seem to remember Adam Smith lamenting in Wealth of Nations that it made people stupid, though he was probably talking of the guys sitting at production lines in the early industrialization.

[Anonymous No.15985092]

>>15983095
>be humanity
>evolve in squalor, suffering and ignorance
>despite the hardships, perservere
>strive
>adapt
>become literally the opposite of harsh, unfeeling nature manifest
>create beyond the scope of the natural world
>literally reconceive of the universe solipsistically: there is no life without human sentience
>suffering imminent in the world now at bay
>the weakest in society can now strive for agency and a life well-lived
>generations of this
>the suffering is now distant, forgotten
>be bored; decide to fuck it all up for a laugh
pottery

[Anonymous No.15985100]

>>15984439
yeah after someone else has mass-produced parts and reference manuals
are you really this retarded? you think you can just whip up some silicon chips during your day at the beach using some pebbles? jfc, kids these days, amirite?

[Anonymous No.15985107]

>>15984429
You can't do shit, though

[Anonymous No.15985162]

>>15984439
ok bud. Start drawing latches and gates. Tell me when you're done.

[Anonymous No.15985171]

>>15985100
You can't "whip" up a silicon chip, you can however "whip" up relays and with enough build a very rudimentary electro-mechanical computer.

Your understanding of computing is woeful.

[Anonymous No.15985197]

>>15985171
not nearly as woeful as your grasp on reality, but please, shut me up and do what you claim is so damned easy, you fucking brainless child

[Anonymous No.15985214]

>>15984439
>network a computer
so in this scenario you essentially accept that OTHERS are specializing and advancing enough to create a network you'd like to access, because in a non-specialized world who the hell would you be networking with? people can't just go out and buy cheap computers in a generalized world.

[Anonymous No.15985224]

>>15985092
>the suffering is now distant, forgotten
????????????????????????????????

[Anonymous No.15985243]

>>15985197
Don't be upset because you forgot computers existed prior to microchips.

[Anonymous No.15985259]

>>15985224
do you know many women who give birth to ~12 women in their life, only to have 6 die in child birth, and two more set to be exposed by their husbands?
anyone you know ever die on a gazelle hunt?
do you know anyone who has ever left a judgement in a legal case up to a deity in the sky?

[Anonymous No.15985270]

>>15985243
weird b8, my stupid nigga. like, really weird...

[Anonymous No.15985283]

>>15985259
>give birth to ~12 women
children* obv, but hey, there's your typo so i guess you'll be able to disregard that argument

[Anonymous No.15985309]

>>15985214
>who the hell would you be networking with?
Yourself? the type of computer being discussed >>15985171 probably wouldn't be generalized.

Ever transferred the results from a calculator to paper? congratulations you've established your very own network.

[Anonymous No.15985346]

>>15985259
Asking a 4chan fag this is extreme sampling bias and such self-centered mind set almost guarantees that you are a mutt (even if you deny this disability), but no matter. I do see people suffering everyday: homeless people, the terminally ill, the rampant mental disorders. To say what you say is sensationalist nonsense and intellectually dishonest. Have we alleviated suffering? In most places yes, greatly. That is not at all the point. I would advice you to be more precise with your language next time. Being witty and winning internet arguments is not as important as rigor and honesty.

Especially egregious is your deeming suffering "forgotten". I can't understand why someone living in a society so dominated by ideology and media overload would ever say this.

[Anonymous No.15985347]

>>15985309
what you're implying is so unbelievably stupid and self-defeating just to make a point for a retarded 4chan thread-- why would you need to network WITH YOURSELF on a homemade computer? i mean, good lord... please seek help immediately

[Anonymous No.15985360]

>>15985346
>mindless ad hominem and posturing: check
>quietly admit defeat (Have we alleviated suffering? In most places yes, greatly.) then quickly evade for unknown reasons (That is not at all the point. (yes it is, i should know, I was the one who made it)): check
>more ad hominem: check

quality b8; freely offering up this (You); the mutt meme was a little ham-fisted, but obligstory I suppose

[Anonymous No.15985374]

>>15985360
I would advice you to be more precise with your language next time. Being witty and winning internet arguments is not as important as rigor and honesty.

[Anonymous No.15985389]

>>15985374
says the guy who, apparently unironically, posted this bizarre digression >>15985346

here's your precision: the areas of suffering you've isolated that still exist aren't the issue, and aren't being denied. what is being challenged is the idea that we ALL OUGHT to live like that in the name of ill-informed virtue. the best chance anyone who is suffering has for not suffering is some residual impact of long term specialization questioned by OP.

[Anonymous No.15985418]

>>15985347
>why would you need to network WITH YOURSELF on a homemade computer?
Why do you need your brain to network with your body?

[Anonymous No.15985423]

>>15985389
>the suffering is now distant, forgotten
Is 100% false, sensationalist, cringe, imprecise, dishonest, and faggy. A correct sentiment doesn't equate to a correct argument. Open the news and explain how suffering is forgotten.

[Anonymous No.15985435]

>>15983349
>There's no indicator automation will swoop in and delete a majority of jobs anytime soon,
t. retard
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/25/these-workers-face-the-highest-risk-of-losing-their-jobs-to-automation.html#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20researchers%20found%20one,70%20percent%20of%20their%20tasks.

[Anonymous No.15985463]

>>15985418
you don't. it already does that on it's own, although clearly not for you
>>15985423
>if i keep up the insults he won't notice I have literally no argument
we're not going backweards, retard; the honus is on you, as it has been for a few posts, to find universal squalor tier suffering, I've never denied people suffer, only that they sufer less than they did when people were hunter gatherers-- stop evading and address that point you fucking waste

[Anonymous No.15985570]

>>15983095
The primary reason why labour specialization was not a mistake is because the introduction of labour specialization is a prerequisite to increased productivity. An increased standard of living is only possible once labour specialization is in place. Productivity is determined by how efficient a labour force is. If all people are undertaking all tasks that they possibly can in a given day or week it will be extremely difficult to increase the standard of living. This is because increasing productivity is an economic choice, it is a choice which must be made on an individual level.

The second reason why labour specialization was not a mistake is because labour specialization increases labour productivity. This helps to avoid the stagnant economic equilibrium (stagnation). As discussed in the 'Essay on the Principle of Population' by Thomas Malthus it was inevitable that there would be mass poverty, starvation, disease, and ignorance. The view of labour specialization promoted by Karl Marx helps to avoid this scenario.
In order to be able to sustain the population size there has to be an increase in productivity (a different concept than productivity).

The third reason why labour specialization was not a mistake is because the economic system developed the capacity to produce more goods and services with the same quantity of labour. In other words, productivity was increased. As a result, labour specialization was a good decision.

[Anonymous No.15985910]

>>15985570
Based. Even today, these romantic thoughts of whatever pre-industrial, pre-modern, pre-whatever 'we were once better off' ideas stem mostly from clear ignorance of how much lower the standard of living one time was, and how ridiculously well-off we are today by historic standards.