However, what if we looked at the scenario by envisioning machinery as a ‘country’, the normal labour force as another ‘country’? Then with this comparison, the Luddite position is analogous to a protectionism argument. And even if machines have an absolute advantage, it still benefits to ‘trade’ with them.
Me and a friend thought of this while we were kind of tired last night, I at least thought the analogy was still interesting up until now.
Machines are not (yet) purposeful thinking agents. I don’t think it really makes any sense to say we trade with them, anymore than it’d make sense to say a dairy farmer trades with her cows or a carpenter trades with his hammer.
When it does become sentient, we’ll have to grapple with a slavery issue then, which would suck. Natural rights for machines! Just kidding, sorta. Kinda cool to think how we could happily make machines our slaves, but what would happen when they developed ‘human intelligence’ or some kind of sentience? Not a prediction on my part, just a cool what if.
If we are to go by the normal definitions of property rights and the non-aggression principle then if they are purposefully acting then they own themselves and can’t be our slaves. Although what exactly the line is between unthinking machines that serve our ends, and thinking ones that choose their own, is a sticky issue in and of itself.