• BrikoXOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not significant in a vacuum, but if you scale up the numbers to the current level of human production, it becomes significant.

    • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have no numbers to back me up, so this isn’t going to be a hill I die on, but I feel like even though we produce more than we did in that time frame, we use robots significantly more than we used to, as well, so there are less humans to be harmed.

      • BrikoXOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Don’t disagree with you there, but the safety issues should be improved before scaling up more.

        • Kushan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What safety issues? It’s less than 2 people per year, I guarantee you that way more people are killed in manufacturing due to other reasons.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          My dude, more people die from constipation every year in the US than they do from robots. Like, two orders of magnitude more people. Industrial robots are way more common than you think, all this statistic means is that robots are MUCH safer than, say, lathes, hand drills, hammers, god forbid ladders, stubbing your toe…

          What is the point of this? More people starve to death every year because a robot took their job than are directly harmed bybsaid robot.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re right, in a vacuum the death toll would be much higher.