samanual

Imagine getting stopped by the police for being suspected of breaking e bike laws, then you hit them with this whilst slapping your thighs aggressively. Come get sum!

Sounds like a market researchers wet dream lol wakey wakey my dude

Where Dick Pound

@Segamethod: just pick a chainstay length and be a d*ck about it.

@Dougal-SC: likely so on conflation, for reason mentioned but apologies. Call it a rant if it makes it easier to dismiss. Good point on consistency. Never made that claim, just the example of clothes. I think the issue is having trouble realising two seemingly counterposing things can be true at the same time i.e. that automation is both good and bad.

@Dougal-SC: Automation and mechanisation literally does replace people. That's been one of the main benefits all along, alongside efficiency, both for the reason capitalists can extract more profit as they a) don't have to pay the wages of living human beings who (unlike machines) can only work a certain amount of hours per day and b) they can produce higher volumes of goods. Some human input will always be required, so wages are unavoidable, however if you outsource that labour to south East Asia, you can minimise those costs and increase profits. Through reinvesting some of those profits into production (machines/ technology) to maintain competitiveness, over many years yes we have arrived at a point where automation can produce cheap goods, like clothes quickly and efficiently, as you say. That said, many of these goods are of poor quality and are not built to last. In the USA it's something like every garment is only worn an average of 6 times before going to landfill. The labour used in these factories, for example in Bangladesh, is basically slavery and the environmental cost of production and disposal is huge. Is this something to be celebrated? Whatever the case, thanks to this process and despite it's harm, we have the technology to produce high quality clothes (and other goods) that last. But we don't...why is that? Because the investment required to do so is too high and the profit margins are too slim compared to the maintenance of the current rotten system and continued profit extraction. The irony now is that through this process, production costs (which includes wages) in South East Asia have risen as they have become more skilled. And as we have deindustrialised in the name of profit in the global north and west, the cost of producing these goods back in the Europe or the US is immense. Hence the current economic crisis. So what do capitalists do to get around this? If they want to bring production back to Europe, it's going to cost. And the capitalists sure as hell aren't going to foot the bill, it's the workers/ customers who will. But how do the capitalists brand and advertise this increase in costs? Ah yes, let's call it sustainability. This isn't to say it's not progressive or a good thing in the general sense, but as per my original comment, it is highly ironic their argument is to use European automation to avoid paying European workers fair wages so as to sell European workers the product. For me this is capitalism tying itself in knots trying to justify itself. It's bonkers and workers can and will see right through it. I've typed this response out in a rush on the train, so sorry it is not succinct. But I have these conversations alot with people. I am all for sustainability but i think it is important we call stuff out for what it is. I am fully willing to change my view if I'm presented with other solid arguments. But you haven't done so far.

@Dougal-SC: elaborate if you feel misrepresented as I'm trying to understand your original point.

@Dougal-SC: Ok, I did that. Damn It took a long time. You are correct. Automated machines based on 100s of years of technological innovation are in fact faster and more efficient at producing clothes. With this in mind, I now retract my criticism of the global supply chain and all of the associated exploitation and environmental destruction. This is because logic dictates that no matter what, I cannot have one (the robot clothes) without the other (oppression and environmental degradation) and it would be hypocritical of me to say otherwise.

@Dougal-SC: Did people not have clothes before automation? Does the fact im wearing clothes made by a robot mean I cant question the current socio-economic system? These questions do not warrant an answer. Please dont insult your own intelligence by making such statements.

....