Social Issues facing near total automation
Throughout history we have seen people doing less and less mundane work and machines being used to do such work.
This however causes the social issue of reducing the number of jobs available for people.
The old story of man vs machine comes to play here - and as always machine wins where it is highly specialised at a specific task.
Therefore over time, industries have become more automated and in many cases ended up needing less people to do the work.
If we could drop all automated technology and reinstate people (assuming such a thing was possible) we would have more jobs than people available but most likely have much more inferior products and far less productivity.
We should thus logically push in the direction of automation, but from personal experience have already witnessed cases where technology have been throttled back in order to keep people in the loop.
Some of these cases did not involve replacing someone doing donkey work but threatened the positions of certain chemical and electrical engineers.
From other sources I have learnt that there exist various systems and models that can replace numerous other high profile professions within the medical, legal and engineering fields.
At what point do we as society embrace the next level of technology (near total automation) and how do we cope with the fact that work as most people know it will cease to exist?
This however causes the social issue of reducing the number of jobs available for people.
The old story of man vs machine comes to play here - and as always machine wins where it is highly specialised at a specific task.
Therefore over time, industries have become more automated and in many cases ended up needing less people to do the work.
If we could drop all automated technology and reinstate people (assuming such a thing was possible) we would have more jobs than people available but most likely have much more inferior products and far less productivity.
We should thus logically push in the direction of automation, but from personal experience have already witnessed cases where technology have been throttled back in order to keep people in the loop.
Some of these cases did not involve replacing someone doing donkey work but threatened the positions of certain chemical and electrical engineers.
From other sources I have learnt that there exist various systems and models that can replace numerous other high profile professions within the medical, legal and engineering fields.
At what point do we as society embrace the next level of technology (near total automation) and how do we cope with the fact that work as most people know it will cease to exist?
| SIK wrote: |
|---|
| At what point do we as society embrace the next level of technology (near total automation) and how do we cope with the fact that work as most people know it will cease to exist? |
"We" won't. Society changes automatically as old generations die and new generations take over.
What I'm trying to say is, we probably won't experience such a drastic change ("near total automation") within our lifetimes... for the very reason that we're still alive and as a majority we won't allow it.
I hope I made sense.
Edit: and of course, I could be totally wrong!
Last edited on
Well, I always thought of such a thing like this (prepare to be mind-raped) but here is a list of events:
Machines make products for Company A. Who makes those machines, you ask? Your answer is probably other Machines. Well, who makes those machines? Company B. Well, assuming Company B has machines that make machines for Company A, who makes those machines? Are there just a gigantic chain of machines making machines? Somewhere along the line, humans have to do SOME of the work, right? Sure! So...
Company A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J all make machines for each other.
Well, Company K and L hire humans to make the initial machines! On average, big companies like these have a workforce of around... say, 10,000 each? Well, out of the world's 7 billion people, 10,000 have jobs! That is a 1 in 700,000 people have jobs!
But then... a scientist, sick of all these homeless unemployed people, develops a computer virus to make the machines go crazy, putting all of these companies out of business, thus forcing humanity to use actual people for the next 100 years, until it all happens again with better technology, sending humanity into a infinite recursion of this, with a Y2K-like scenario along the way, causing a stone age to happen.
Assuming you are still reading this, here is my serious answer.
I agree with your... theory, I'll call it. Unfortunately, computing and machinery is becoming such an important and rapidly advancing industry, that corporations (being obsessed with money and all), will continue to produce and innovate on these, to make more money, and soon you will have companies with a staff of all advanced robots / machines.
Like what Catfish5 said, that will either not happen in our lifetime, or will begin to be noticeable around our late 70s (guesstimate), when we are all retired and soiling our pants uncontrollably, and it will be 2-3 generations ahead of us
Machines make products for Company A. Who makes those machines, you ask? Your answer is probably other Machines. Well, who makes those machines? Company B. Well, assuming Company B has machines that make machines for Company A, who makes those machines? Are there just a gigantic chain of machines making machines? Somewhere along the line, humans have to do SOME of the work, right? Sure! So...
Company A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J all make machines for each other.
Well, Company K and L hire humans to make the initial machines! On average, big companies like these have a workforce of around... say, 10,000 each? Well, out of the world's 7 billion people, 10,000 have jobs! That is a 1 in 700,000 people have jobs!
But then... a scientist, sick of all these homeless unemployed people, develops a computer virus to make the machines go crazy, putting all of these companies out of business, thus forcing humanity to use actual people for the next 100 years, until it all happens again with better technology, sending humanity into a infinite recursion of this, with a Y2K-like scenario along the way, causing a stone age to happen.
Assuming you are still reading this, here is my serious answer.
I agree with your... theory, I'll call it. Unfortunately, computing and machinery is becoming such an important and rapidly advancing industry, that corporations (being obsessed with money and all), will continue to produce and innovate on these, to make more money, and soon you will have companies with a staff of all advanced robots / machines.
Like what Catfish5 said, that will either not happen in our lifetime, or will begin to be noticeable around our late 70s (guesstimate), when we are all retired and soiling our pants uncontrollably, and it will be 2-3 generations ahead of us
and as a majority we won't allow it. |
but then as a majority we admit that our inferior processes are acceptable.
inferior here is to be taken in same sense as we moved past the horse and carriage to motorized vehicles, so why not move past the phase of being afraid of letting a machine do the work for you?
i'm not saying that no one should work - if someone studies to be a doctor and opens a practice then people who want to be treated by a real person will have that option - those who wish to let a computerized expert system do it for them have that option too.
what won't then happen in society is someone becoming a doctor simply for the sake of it and not then doing a 100% job when it really counts - ie only passionate people will end up following certain fields and advancing them ...
AceDawg45 - you almost created the matrix there :)
your point concerning major corps is true.
so what happens if a large enough group of engineers/scientist/computer scientist decide to provide these corps with solutions that would increase their productivity with a fraction of their workforce?
your point concerning major corps is true.
so what happens if a large enough group of engineers/scientist/computer scientist decide to provide these corps with solutions that would increase their productivity with a fraction of their workforce?
Like what Catfish5 said, that will either not happen in our lifetime, or will begin to be noticeable around our late 70s (guesstimate), when we are all retired and soiling our pants uncontrollably, and it will be 2-3 generations ahead of us |
so what would happen to society at that time?
will there be a society full of unemployed people while very, very few have jobs - if so how will the unemployed people survive?
surely society will not allow itself to die out so will most likely evolve - but how will it evolve.
on the other side for the very few having jobs is that society will not be what it was - might not have as much shops to buy from - due to shops not existing because there is very little people to sell to. ie whole society scales down.
I'd say industrial employment would go into the toilet (factories, power plants, recycling plants... anything with an assembly line, etc.), and commercial employment would skyrocket. More businesses open up, and assuming owners want people that don't get "errors" or "malfunctions" to work for them, then they would hire people.
Does this mean you are guaranteed a job as a waiter or cashier?
I'd say... no. Assuming that we are on a C++ programming forum, you all are looking to be programmers or in the computer industry. Sure, robots & machines would make the hardware, but it would be really complicated to create the operating system that they run on... so programming would be a booming line of work. And I wouldn't think robots build themselves, so there are more jobs.
And Safety (police, healthcare, fire dept) wouldn't really be affected. I can see the fire dept affected, with the robots responding to the address given and shooting water at anything with a temp over 100 (or whatever fire burns at). But I can't see Robocop becoming a real thing, but if it does, robocop is just human + robot, so technically, a human is still in for a job. As for healthcare, as what SIK said before, people want actual people to heal them, so healthcare == unaffected.
Does this mean you are guaranteed a job as a waiter or cashier?
I'd say... no. Assuming that we are on a C++ programming forum, you all are looking to be programmers or in the computer industry. Sure, robots & machines would make the hardware, but it would be really complicated to create the operating system that they run on... so programming would be a booming line of work. And I wouldn't think robots build themselves, so there are more jobs.
And Safety (police, healthcare, fire dept) wouldn't really be affected. I can see the fire dept affected, with the robots responding to the address given and shooting water at anything with a temp over 100 (or whatever fire burns at). But I can't see Robocop becoming a real thing, but if it does, robocop is just human + robot, so technically, a human is still in for a job. As for healthcare, as what SIK said before, people want actual people to heal them, so healthcare == unaffected.
| as what SIK said before, people want actual people to heal them, so healthcare == unaffected |
not really what I meant - just meant people would have the choice - personally I wouldn't mind an expert system diagnosing me - such systems would also ultimately drive down the cost of medical bills - or at least for those who don't mind using a medical expert system ...
| and commercial employment would skyrocket |
not sure what you mean exactly here but if it is what I'm thinking then I would disagree - when I see the number of spread sheets and copy and pasting going on in typical offices I often think how easy it would be to automate much of what people do and may even find a far more streamlined process ...
| robocop is just human + robot, so technically, a human is still in for a job. |
sure - but then we would need like 10 less normal cops = 10 people out of work.
Hey, maybe a lower employment will result in a smaller population. Need to curb that overpopulation anyway, and this certainly seems to be less insane than forced options.
OP describes one of the biggest fundamental flaws in capitalism.
A utopian society is one where no one has to work. Capitalism only functions when everyone works. Therefore, in a way, capitalism strives to be as far away from a utopian society as possible. "Job creation" is seen as a good thing, when really it should be the exact opposite.
EDIT:
And really.. in the US... we've crossed the tipping point where we have more people than there are jobs that need to be done. It's never going to balance out again. Unless government regulations do something to bring production jobs back to the States.. which they won't, because that would be expensive for big businesses, and big businesses will lobby to oppose it.
We're going to have high employment forever.
/EDIT
How do you figure? Do you think unemployed/poor people don't have babies?
A utopian society is one where no one has to work. Capitalism only functions when everyone works. Therefore, in a way, capitalism strives to be as far away from a utopian society as possible. "Job creation" is seen as a good thing, when really it should be the exact opposite.
EDIT:
And really.. in the US... we've crossed the tipping point where we have more people than there are jobs that need to be done. It's never going to balance out again. Unless government regulations do something to bring production jobs back to the States.. which they won't, because that would be expensive for big businesses, and big businesses will lobby to oppose it.
We're going to have high employment forever.
/EDIT
| Ispil wrote: |
|---|
| Hey, maybe a lower employment will result in a smaller population. |
How do you figure? Do you think unemployed/poor people don't have babies?
Last edited on
No, no. They'll have kids. The welfare industry will become so overwhelmed that it won't have enough money to hand out to those who need it, resulting in a slow reduction in resources for those who cannot afford them. In a sense, a massive poverty movement would slowly cull off population due to a lack of access to food, water, and medical care. It sounds horrible, sure- starve the poor- but it isn't going to be out of choice. So long as the population exceeds any reasonable level, not everyone will have access to what they need- and, coupled with the basic premise of capitalism, those who cannot earn the income to provide for themselves won't necessarily be able to be provided for by others for much longer.
| Need to curb that overpopulation anyway |
no arguments concerning overpopulation - but culling by starving out people is very far from humane.
overpopulation can be controlled if no 2 couples in the world are allowed to have more than 2 children - that way our human population should never increase but remain virtually the same or decrease slightly if there are untimely deaths ... way to enforce is through sterilization of couples that already have there 2 children - much more humane than other option.
currently we humans do overpopulate the world in many senses but don't believe that we are at the point where this planet cannot support all of us - just think of the politics around product dumping instead of feeding people ... and there likely exist many other inventions that could helps us quadruple the efficiency of our energy and resource usage - problem is we based on a Capitalist society where such inventions gets archived away.
if such conditions can be reached - population growth controlled and there are more than enough resources for everyone due to the high productivity mechanisms put in place by next phase of technology, then why would the majority of people still allow a Capitalist dogma to lead them to their deaths?
Well, the difference there isn't the fact that one is more inhumane than the other- both are pretty awful in my opinion. However, sterilization by force is... well, you are enforcing physical change on people and preventing them from having kids, by choice. A slow-death-at-the-bottom due to a collapse of the welfare system out of a lack of money, by contrast, isn't by choice. People tend to react better when you're not forcibly neutering them but instead shrugging when they go hungry and say "we just don't have the money." Still awful, but at least you can pass the blame around.
| In a sense, a massive poverty movement would slowly cull off population due to a lack of access to food, water, and medical care. |
with capitalism dictating the flow of events as depicted above we can assume that the ratio of those that have to those that don't is going to be extremely large.
this could cause the vast majority in poverty conditions to revolt against the tiny minority living in luxury - sounds like history repeating itself?
self preservation is the number one rule - so I don't think the majority designated for death is going to take it lying down - regardless of what the minority may think they have on their side to maintain their control the shear mass of the majority will eventually lead to the majority being able to muster up more smarts, resources and skills than the minority has on their side.
Well, I spent a lot of time pondering this...
The issue is... well, multi-fold, and so must be our thought process. Now, as we know, there are several industries ripe for a replacement of menial labor with robotics. For example, the factory setting- humans can be all but replaced there. Now, if those jobs are going to be taken up, then we need to create more jobs with higher wages- thinking jobs, in other words. I would consider the job market broken up into two categories- thinking jobs and non-thinking jobs. You can take a guess as to what jobs might fit into either category. Now, non-thinking jobs are being eroded with robotics, requiring a rise in thinking-jobs to meet the need. However, most people consider those jobs to be purely in the sciences.
They would be wrong.
What I've found is a massive under-appreciation of the arts, including liberal arts. Yes, you can't do much with a degree in art history... but maybe that's the problem. If the government actually provided those jobs a relatively decent income to do what they should do- practice philosophy, et cetera- then those jobs would have an obvious influx in participation. Hell, the government could actually pay commissions for the arts- video games, music, et cetera- so that those things could be publicly available and have the makers still earn a profit. But where would that money come from? Well, if you remove the non-thinking jobs, the remainder of the jobs would be that of a higher-income variety. Naturally, a higher tax rate would be much less of a dent, making it far more acceptable.
Now, we also need to encourage people to migrate over to eduction instead of continuing their non-thinking jobs. For example, there needs to be incentive beyond increased pay to go to college- perhaps companies would be willing to pay the bill partially? That way, we could at least speed up the process rather than sitting on our thumbs, waiting for people to understand how necessary college is. That, and up the reduction in low-wage jobs with robotics as to encourage, with a shrinking job pool, the need to up the game and head to university and end up with a job that actually requires thought. It would be amazing if companies invested more in potential employees, paying their college on the obligation that they join their workforce upon completion. However, this is usually bundled as some sort of scholarship that lets the company pick-and-choose the "potential" of the candidates, i.e. their income bracket. Maybe that needs to be removed? I mean, it would be fantastic if such opportunities were pay-blind, so that those in a crummy economic situation could still end up with their school paid for and a job waiting for them.
As for overpopulation... well, I imagine that would somehow work itself out during all of this. If not, then maybe the increase in science would at least let us expand beyond Earth so it isn't such a big deal.
The issue is... well, multi-fold, and so must be our thought process. Now, as we know, there are several industries ripe for a replacement of menial labor with robotics. For example, the factory setting- humans can be all but replaced there. Now, if those jobs are going to be taken up, then we need to create more jobs with higher wages- thinking jobs, in other words. I would consider the job market broken up into two categories- thinking jobs and non-thinking jobs. You can take a guess as to what jobs might fit into either category. Now, non-thinking jobs are being eroded with robotics, requiring a rise in thinking-jobs to meet the need. However, most people consider those jobs to be purely in the sciences.
They would be wrong.
What I've found is a massive under-appreciation of the arts, including liberal arts. Yes, you can't do much with a degree in art history... but maybe that's the problem. If the government actually provided those jobs a relatively decent income to do what they should do- practice philosophy, et cetera- then those jobs would have an obvious influx in participation. Hell, the government could actually pay commissions for the arts- video games, music, et cetera- so that those things could be publicly available and have the makers still earn a profit. But where would that money come from? Well, if you remove the non-thinking jobs, the remainder of the jobs would be that of a higher-income variety. Naturally, a higher tax rate would be much less of a dent, making it far more acceptable.
Now, we also need to encourage people to migrate over to eduction instead of continuing their non-thinking jobs. For example, there needs to be incentive beyond increased pay to go to college- perhaps companies would be willing to pay the bill partially? That way, we could at least speed up the process rather than sitting on our thumbs, waiting for people to understand how necessary college is. That, and up the reduction in low-wage jobs with robotics as to encourage, with a shrinking job pool, the need to up the game and head to university and end up with a job that actually requires thought. It would be amazing if companies invested more in potential employees, paying their college on the obligation that they join their workforce upon completion. However, this is usually bundled as some sort of scholarship that lets the company pick-and-choose the "potential" of the candidates, i.e. their income bracket. Maybe that needs to be removed? I mean, it would be fantastic if such opportunities were pay-blind, so that those in a crummy economic situation could still end up with their school paid for and a job waiting for them.
As for overpopulation... well, I imagine that would somehow work itself out during all of this. If not, then maybe the increase in science would at least let us expand beyond Earth so it isn't such a big deal.
That's completely ridiculous. Automation will increase production and allow the world to support more people.
Regardless, I find it morbid that what comes to your mind is that it will be a good thing because it will cause massive depopulation by starving the poor to death.
Regardless, I find it morbid that what comes to your mind is that it will be a good thing because it will cause massive depopulation by starving the poor to death.
Well, tell me, what would be the solution to overpopulation? It isn't like we can discourage living. To reduce overpopulation would have to be exceptionally intrusive or morbid.
And yes, I tend to be a bit morbid since I think a bit too much in the long run and forget that people are... well, people. But then again, I just find it hard to wrap my head around supporting completely unproductive members of society- I mean, it gets to the point where their only purpose is to put government money back into the hands of people, and there are a hell of a lot of better ways to do that. Yes, they are people, but... it is hard to explain my way of thinking to others without it sounding exceptionally cruel and devoid of emotion. Then again, that is essentially what it is- yes, people are people, but damn could they at least try to have a purpose in society other than the exchange of money?
And yes, I tend to be a bit morbid since I think a bit too much in the long run and forget that people are... well, people. But then again, I just find it hard to wrap my head around supporting completely unproductive members of society- I mean, it gets to the point where their only purpose is to put government money back into the hands of people, and there are a hell of a lot of better ways to do that. Yes, they are people, but... it is hard to explain my way of thinking to others without it sounding exceptionally cruel and devoid of emotion. Then again, that is essentially what it is- yes, people are people, but damn could they at least try to have a purpose in society other than the exchange of money?
| To reduce overpopulation would have to be exceptionally intrusive or morbid |
what about my points regarding population control?
| What I've found is a massive under-appreciation of the arts, including liberal arts |
I agree with this. To explain my thinking further consider this:
we don't all have the same nor the same level of abilities.
society has however forced people with "less" abilities than others into certain categories.
these categories cause people to become jobless, homeless, starving, ...
contrast this situation to one of a common house hold where there exist a father and mother and multiple siblings. it is fair to say that usually these siblings will not all posses the same abilities or levels thereof.
does the parents of that household then force the siblings who "under perform" into certain categories, ie no supper during week nights, no lunch money for school, ...
the answer is no
the parents may reward those siblings who excel with later curfews, getting to borrow car over weekends etc, but not (never) inflict the inhumane conditions as listed.
shouldn't society (government) be seen as our parents - ie the members of society are like its children.
since we don't all posses the same abilities or levels thereof - is it correct to inflict the inhumane conditions upon those "less able"
| Now, we also need to encourage people to migrate over to eduction instead of continuing their non-thinking jobs |
I agree with this and would take it one step further in saying that people to be be called to a higher purpose (no religion intended here).
having more people being educated and continuously striving for higher learning will drastically shorten our time achieving many things like base humans on another planet ...
another benefit that can be gained is allowing people to use their unnoticed gifts that could benefit society. ie. imagine some lady that has a gift for playing with and teaching toddlers at the playground. in the current world we live in she has to find a job that pays, like being a cashier. in a better world she would not have to be tied down with menial labor in order to survive but instead can do what she loves - play with and teach children at the playground. to me as a father, this would be a far more beneficial use of her time and abilities as opposed to utilizing her for menial labor.