>By the same token, people have horses because they are a high-status thing to have. These so-called “horseless carriages” will never really catch on!
Talking with the historically ignorant is always fun.
>QUESTION: Just how big is the market for human servants? I mean, how many people today in America are working as actual domestics? And whom would you rather have cleaning your toilets, sorting your undies, or drawing your bath? A human servant (who might be secretly spitting into your food, inadvertently sneezing onto your bedsheets, unthinkingly picking his nose while he folds the napkins)? Or a gleaming android?
Me? I’d take a robot. However, as you mockingly noted the rich continued to ride horses despite them being outmoded because they’re expensive and high status. Human societies are built around status, not economic cheapness and ordering other people around will always be high status. Thus there will always be jobs either in serving the rich or in producing handcrafted items for them.
Read the diamond age for a primer on how this works.
Unnecessarily combative, I'd say.
However, as you mockingly noted the rich continued to ride horses despite them being outmoded because they’re expensive and high status.
The statement "The Rich continue riding horses..." is meaningless unless quantified.
The fact is that the automobile has grabbed almost all of the niches once occupied by the horse. Of course certain status-conscious people who can afford to do so still own a few pure-breds - but that has failed to compensate for the vast number of other people (and businesses) who once would have had no choice but to own (or rent) a horse, and who now no longer do so, because cars are cheaper, faster, etc. No one can deny that the number of horses alive today in America has decreased, largely due to the automobile.
Human societies are built around status, not economic cheapness [...]
Status-consciousness certainly plays a limited role - but hard economics has been the major driver in all societies since time began. Of course, it's possible that, in a post-scarcity society, time-honored rules and economic paradigms will change.
[...] and ordering other people around will always be high status. Thus there will always be jobs either in serving the rich or in producing handcrafted items for them.
That market will certainly exist - but it won't be large enough to compensate for the loss of meaningful, gainful employment on the part of 95% of the population.
Read the diamond age for a primer on how this works.
Thanks for the book recommendation - but I've already read it.
Nota bene: The above assertions are only that - I can't prove them. They are based only on commonsense and many years of thought on the subject.
Regards,