3
3
0
Is this the true threat from robots?
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/humans-need-not-apply
PLEASE watch the video before answering, certainly before voting. You'll thank me.
C.G.P. Grey argues the forthcoming automation disruption to thinking jobs is unprecedented in human history. What do we do when huge groups of people are not just unemployed but unemployable? Is this different?
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/humans-need-not-apply
PLEASE watch the video before answering, certainly before voting. You'll thank me.
C.G.P. Grey argues the forthcoming automation disruption to thinking jobs is unprecedented in human history. What do we do when huge groups of people are not just unemployed but unemployable? Is this different?
Technology
Robots
Economics
Future
Business
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
Ignoring "bots" for just a moment, and looking at automation as a whole.
Let's take the Phone industry. If you took the "switchboard operator" or the ladies who used to connect the lines from one junction to another, they were replaced by automation. But let's say they weren't... It would take more people than are currently on the planet to handle the current "phone" traffic we have now. Technology is going to make some things obsolete, and it's going to create other things.
Eventually, economics WILL make a significant portion of the population "unemployable." Work will become a "limited resource" however... Automation produces more than enough food, water, and shelter to cover the needs of mankind... Does everyone "need" to work at that point?
I'm not advocating a swap from Capitalism, but... we aren't a pure Capitalism, and really never have been. We can just add other tools to our Economic Toolbox such as the "Guaranteed Basic Income."(or others). As CGP Grey says, it's not designed to be a warning, it's more thought-provoking as to "how we are going to deal with changing realities."
As members of the Military, we're good at changing realities.
Let's take the Phone industry. If you took the "switchboard operator" or the ladies who used to connect the lines from one junction to another, they were replaced by automation. But let's say they weren't... It would take more people than are currently on the planet to handle the current "phone" traffic we have now. Technology is going to make some things obsolete, and it's going to create other things.
Eventually, economics WILL make a significant portion of the population "unemployable." Work will become a "limited resource" however... Automation produces more than enough food, water, and shelter to cover the needs of mankind... Does everyone "need" to work at that point?
I'm not advocating a swap from Capitalism, but... we aren't a pure Capitalism, and really never have been. We can just add other tools to our Economic Toolbox such as the "Guaranteed Basic Income."(or others). As CGP Grey says, it's not designed to be a warning, it's more thought-provoking as to "how we are going to deal with changing realities."
As members of the Military, we're good at changing realities.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I think as long as automation and bots are integrated slowing into society the change will not be drastic. If all of a sudden all the restaurant staff was fired and replaced with a bot, then that would create a huge disruption as people at the individual level are trying to get retrained and adjust to the sudden impact to their life. On the grand scale, as long as it isn't a sudden drop of an entire industry, then society and economics can stay in balance.
The image that comes to mind is from the movie Idiocracy. when the computer fired everyone that worked for Brawndo, there was a huge revolt.
The image that comes to mind is from the movie Idiocracy. when the computer fired everyone that worked for Brawndo, there was a huge revolt.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS , there is no imbalance in a free market beyond the marginal scarcity of finite goods being chased by infinite wants. There is no other system that can better provide for the wants and needs of more, and at the least expense.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSG Gerhard S. Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS's point is that automation brings those finite goods to a point where they approach (but do not reach) the infinite. And key: this includes the labor markets. All of them (eventually). 25% of them in the next 20-30 years...so then what?
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Capt Richard I P. & SSG Gerhard S. - Exactly. As current, using only the US, do we have a "shortage" of things like Water, Food, or Housing? (Scarcity) Or is it more accurate to say we have an Abundance that actually goes to waste (approaching infinite). If the latter is true, doesn't their relative value drop in an inverse relationship?
We essentially have "infinite" clean air, therefore we don't pay for it (directly). Water, Food, and Housing.. all of which exist in abundance "should" eventually hit that same level, but has the competing force of Capitalism. I'm not saying get rid of Capitalism, it's a good system... but it becomes unsustainable if 25% of your workforce has no income. Therefore, come up with a way to get them an income. Forced Labor Programs or Guarenteed Basic Income (both designed to cover Food, Water, Housing) would meet those needs.
As tech gets better, our ability to "produce" overbalances our ability to "consume" which is just bad Economically. It isn't necessarily bad in other ways though. Overproduction can be "Effective" however it is not "Efficient." As an example, if you could overproduce and get rid of world hunger, would you? (we already overproduce btw). What about water? (We already have enough clean water to cover the world's needs. We lack infrastructure to get it delivered) Housing? Think about how many empty houses there are vs homeless we have (if we matched them up, there would be NO HOMELESS in the US). We're already inefficient AND ineffective, and that's inside Capitalism. We could shift that to where we are only inefficient.
We essentially have "infinite" clean air, therefore we don't pay for it (directly). Water, Food, and Housing.. all of which exist in abundance "should" eventually hit that same level, but has the competing force of Capitalism. I'm not saying get rid of Capitalism, it's a good system... but it becomes unsustainable if 25% of your workforce has no income. Therefore, come up with a way to get them an income. Forced Labor Programs or Guarenteed Basic Income (both designed to cover Food, Water, Housing) would meet those needs.
As tech gets better, our ability to "produce" overbalances our ability to "consume" which is just bad Economically. It isn't necessarily bad in other ways though. Overproduction can be "Effective" however it is not "Efficient." As an example, if you could overproduce and get rid of world hunger, would you? (we already overproduce btw). What about water? (We already have enough clean water to cover the world's needs. We lack infrastructure to get it delivered) Housing? Think about how many empty houses there are vs homeless we have (if we matched them up, there would be NO HOMELESS in the US). We're already inefficient AND ineffective, and that's inside Capitalism. We could shift that to where we are only inefficient.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Here's an interesting fact. A little over 100 years ago nearly 50% of the American population was necessary to provide food for the other 50%. Today, only 2% of the population is necessary to supply food for the other 98%. This transformation did not result in a net loss of jobs, for people were needed to build tractors, and mine ore, and build trucks and trailers to haul tractor parts, ore, and food.... Etc... Innovation and mechanisation are not to be feared, they end up creating jobs and giving us the potential for more leisure, AND Productivity.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSG Gerhard S. That sounds like the first two minutes of the video, did you get to the part about massive unemployability?
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Admittedly, I didn't watch the video before making my economics statements above. But having now watched the video it is Clear there will be some challenges in the future, but (and I'm not saying at some point the following won't be attainable), machines, and automation are great when they "keep in their lane", the problem is, though bots, can perform complex tasks, they (at least now, and in the foreseeable future) can't coordinate efforts. For example.. the Pharmaceutical machine CAN test loads of pharmaceuticals, but once it comes up with a good one.. does this machine KNOW how to coordinate their acquisition, testing, production, distribution, and proper use? For example, where the raw materials are to be found, how they are to be extracted, harvested, and processed, gotten onto pharmacy shelves, explained the benefits of a particular drugs to a PERSON over all other drugs for this same purpose.
Clearly these leaps CAN create efficiencies, and increase safety, they can, or will, increasingly take over ever more complex tasks, and will be able to out-think, out-process, and out-perform humans in any number of ways. So, there will actually be an increasing number of jobs for humans directing these new automated activities, and YES, prices will come down... hopefully wages deflate along with those falling prices. The price, however will never be zero, as there is still the acquisition of the raw materials, the price of the creativity that went into the hardware, and software, and coordination processes that make such efficiencies possible.
So, the challenge, is not so bleak as it sounds, in fact the "bots" mentioned are actually a great place to start, by being able to take less skilled people, and expounding on their skills by making them user-friendly teaching modules that are not only taught BY humans, but that also teach humans to be valuable players in the coordination of efforts necessary to turn as yet undiscovered raw materials into finished, useful, and valuable products. As to the idea of bringing products into automated production to the degree there is a lack of want (infinite, or near-infinite supply) I would point out that not only are certain resources finite, but also that the human desire or need for the new, the improved, and the more refined, or the more efficient, IS limitless, and therefore imposes it's own limits on the need for over-saturation of any product or service..
It's also important to note that people had to work 12-18 hours a day just to eek by in centuries past. Automation, and horse power have created specialization, and the ability to have time for both leisure, and creativity. The answer, to adapting to greater productivity may not be as simple as suggesting there will be mass unemployment, but rather it could be that doing so could simply create even more time for people to be creative, foster relationships, and live with greater comfort, at less expense.
Great video though that raises a plethora of interesting questions, that though are not likely to be at issue in the near future, likely will become ever more relevant as technology, and productivity continue to increase. Thanks for posting.
Clearly these leaps CAN create efficiencies, and increase safety, they can, or will, increasingly take over ever more complex tasks, and will be able to out-think, out-process, and out-perform humans in any number of ways. So, there will actually be an increasing number of jobs for humans directing these new automated activities, and YES, prices will come down... hopefully wages deflate along with those falling prices. The price, however will never be zero, as there is still the acquisition of the raw materials, the price of the creativity that went into the hardware, and software, and coordination processes that make such efficiencies possible.
So, the challenge, is not so bleak as it sounds, in fact the "bots" mentioned are actually a great place to start, by being able to take less skilled people, and expounding on their skills by making them user-friendly teaching modules that are not only taught BY humans, but that also teach humans to be valuable players in the coordination of efforts necessary to turn as yet undiscovered raw materials into finished, useful, and valuable products. As to the idea of bringing products into automated production to the degree there is a lack of want (infinite, or near-infinite supply) I would point out that not only are certain resources finite, but also that the human desire or need for the new, the improved, and the more refined, or the more efficient, IS limitless, and therefore imposes it's own limits on the need for over-saturation of any product or service..
It's also important to note that people had to work 12-18 hours a day just to eek by in centuries past. Automation, and horse power have created specialization, and the ability to have time for both leisure, and creativity. The answer, to adapting to greater productivity may not be as simple as suggesting there will be mass unemployment, but rather it could be that doing so could simply create even more time for people to be creative, foster relationships, and live with greater comfort, at less expense.
Great video though that raises a plethora of interesting questions, that though are not likely to be at issue in the near future, likely will become ever more relevant as technology, and productivity continue to increase. Thanks for posting.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google