Post #1944369

2026-03-11 03:01 UTC

Now, engineers get a lot of accusations of "you're replacing jobs", but while economists reply with "people will get other jobs", engineers usually want to say "we are creating things which are more than the sum of their parts, so society needs less to do more. That's efficiency". Efficiency is also tied to sustainability, obviously. If you are using something at 2% efficiency, you might run out, but if it's used at 99.99% efficiency, you might have enough forever. There are economic laws around if something is used extremely efficiently society counter-intuitively uses more of it, but that's for economists. I'm here for engineering. There are two kinds of job replacements. The first is the one everyone knows: Replace artisans with industrial equipment. A lot of political change is associated with the technical change of industrialisation, and I'm going to ignore the politics -- let's say the people own the "private" property of industrial machinery. Movable type, large scale production, etc. The second kind, where a device is made for individuals to use, and that device automates a task. It "replaces" artisans, but also it is distributed among the people. That is, artisans themselves can take it and use it. A camera is a good example. This, I would say, is strictly better than industrial tooling but both have social ramifications that need to be adjusted for. So the question: Is industrialisation (both kinds) greater than the sum of its parts? On the one hand, unequivocally, yes. I can make a cup for a fraction of the price, higher quality, less material waste. Nice. But also, it'd be nice to have an artisan cup. Something made by hand. A single cup is maybe 20-40 minutes of work (amortised). You'd have to pay maybe $50-100 for a cup assuming you find someone who can do this for a living. I think this makes sense, right? The industrial machinery is still really valuable, but you'd ask people "hey, maybe if you can afford a nice cup, it'd be nice to have a nice cup", and maybe the government chips in to subsidise artisans. This way you get the efficiency, but you don't really lose the spirituality. But for purely aesthetic things, industrialisation does not create a one for one replacement. Obviously a camera does not make the same thing as a painting, and as painting has become more of an art, the more we can see they are not the same. It is not a difference in scale, but also difference in kind. Is that a "system"? Well, I'd say "yes, but also it's not a system which displaces labour in theory, only in practise". This kind of gets us to what is the practical purpose of purely aesthetic things? It's a long journey but I'm getting there. 2/n

Replies (1)

@bakuninboys@aus.social 2026-03-11 11:35

Why / where do aesthetic things have practical value? Well, I *think* the answer is: the dress code. When you make a product, you have to "dress it up" in a particular way. If you make toothpaste, you have to give it nice packaging, a picture of a smile, etc etc. so people know you take "making toothpaste" seriously. A stock tube with a brown box does not scream "quality". Part of that reason is also artisanal. You want to associate yourself with artisanal work, so you say "well I'm an artisan so I used these other artisans to create this thing for me". Perfume needs a nice bottle, etc. People will smell it and say "yes this will smell nice because the bottle is nice". Overall, aesthetics matter because aesthetics signify that there is both skill and attention paid to a thing. Hopefully it's clear that this kind of job is only really "replaced" in the sense that some artisans are liars. They want to pretend to work with other artisans while not really doing so. They want a nice looking bottle but actually it's mass produced. They want to scream "quality" but it's actually low-quality goods manufactured the same way as all the other low quality goods, but with a veneer of authenticity. Engineering itself is kind of artisan work. The difference is that there are standards bodies which tie into regulations and they protect the quality of the work. I don't need beautiful fasteners, my screws are instead standardised and meet certain specifications. The interaction from artisan to artisan is actually the interaction of standards which connect to each other. Systems of systems, interconnected. That is, engineering is itself a system! That's how electrical engineering works. There's a term "jellybean component" to mean "standard components to the extent that you may not even know the manufacturer". That's how civil engineering works. There are types of concrete or steel and they meet specifications. Don't do it, and it's painful for the manufacturer. There are checks and balances and regulations and this is why buildings don't fall down. Except, the system of engineers isn't filled only with engineers. It's filled with businessmen, charlatans. They say "well we could make more money if things were non-standard". "Well, we could make more money if we lied about so and so". "We could just claim to be secure but really who's checking?". Most types of engineering have somewhat avoided this fate, but software hasn't! Hopefully it's clear to see these lies have a parallel to artisans. Realistically, engineering is about having rigorous connections to other engineering, same as it's about artisans valuing other artisans, which in turn increases the value of their own work. 3/n

Open ##1944370