"Progress" or: How I learned to stop worrying and love robots. 2

[Jabberwocky]

Ok, I'm sure this is a discussion that has gone 'round and 'round - but I want to ask my question fresh:

Is it inevitable that technological progress (defined as increasing efficiency allowing fewer people to do more with less) will result in the unemployment of the majority of the population?

Put another way, if we can outsource (to machines) every task that is repetitive in the least, won't the only jobs left be on the creative/design side?

It seems to me (in my limited experience) that the worldwide population is increasing and efficiency is reducing the physical number of jobs overall. If you keep reducing the middleman, isn't the end result a creative person who manifests their ideas through the simple push of a button?

 

[epoisses]

Re revolutions, ziggi, may I remind you that the Russian revolution led to Stalin and the French one to Napoleon, there's a natural tendency for the pyramid to form and to point upward, even if it's thrown over from time to time. That's because everybody is trying to get richer, some people manage better than others and a small group manages much better. It's the same pattern observed everywhere when you measure people's performance, in sport, at school, etc.
The rich/poor pyramid will never become higher than a certain critical height because the ultra-rich become rich thanks to the fact that the poor have something to spend, there is no interest for the rich to let the poor become ultra-poor because the rich would lose their income.

 

[epoisses]

ziggi, re poor/rich, let's start and define rich and poor, because it's not an easy topic, and then look at some data..?

 

[ziggi]

epoisses,
Actually the French and Russian revolutions did not lead directly to Napoleon and Stalin. Those two got to their positions by luck, their own wits and some friends. They also led their countries to great as well as terrible things, in my opinion that's better than the stagnation these countries were experiencing prior to the revolution.

I agree with you regarding the pyramid that society takes, and yes I agree that people come in different levels of ambition regarding wealth, personal happiness, power etc.
However there will always be something that the haves can take from the have nots, and it may not come in the form of money, there are more valuable things than money.

As for defining rich/poor, I am basing it purely on personal wealth, basing it on anything else will complicate the matter.

 

[ruggedscot]

It was a dark wednesday morning -

nothing out of the ordinary but it was a defining moment - a moment that was to change the face of civilisation as we knew it. Some chip in some location developed a sense of being - and it decided that it wanted to be the alpha species. And that was it - the robots took over.......

Hmmm sounds like a Hollywood movie ?

who knows !

 

[TheTick]

Given Hollywood's track record with scientific accuracy, I wouldn't worry.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Glad to see this thread is inspiring some good debate, although it's all too easy to get caught up defining rich/poor and better/worse. Nailing down the definition of "bare essentials" is no cakewalk easier, I personally would throw in Internet access to that.

Anyways - back to robots - I had a theory while in high school that we should give robots all the freedom and creative license we can, with the exception of being to change their own batteries. They should not even be able to concieve of batteries. So, in the event of revolution, we can all hide out for a few days, weeks, whatever - then they'll power down and we can start over.

Viva Humanity!

Another biggie: are the poor now truly less well off than the poor 100 years ago? Internet seems a major pro, and isn't college attendance generally up? (if that's an indicator of success)

 

[2dye4]

Wealth is truly measured in the amount of anothers
labor you can purchace.

So if the poor get poorer the holders of capital get
richer as long as the currency holds up.

 

[rb1957]

jabberwocky,

didn't they try that in "jurassic park" ?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Something like that yes, but I think the gist of Jurassic Park was that "nature finds a way" Hopefully robots aren't privy to such intervention.

Anyways, on NPR lately they've been doing pieces on poverty and why it exists. The only interesting point I've heard is that when the poor get too poor, they can't afford to buy things - so ultimate poverty doesn't help anybody.

 

[ziggi]

I agree with Jabberwocky, and a few others in this thread, when it comes to a general lack in buying power on the part of the middle and lower classes hurting everybody.
That's also why I think that many companies which outsourced their work will ultimately return to the western world, especially if most of their consumers are here.
Its all fine and dandy to spend 10 cents to make a shirt which costs $30 here, but if no one here can afford the shirt, then what's the point.

 

[RDK]

Anyone else remember Henry Ford?

He paid his workers $5 per day when the going rate for industrial labour was $2 or so.

His rationale was that if he raised the wealth of his workers then they could afford to buy his cars.

The result was that there had to be a general raising of wages and the middle class and the prosperity of the early 20th century was established.





Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[kchida]

I think that automation frees us all from menial labor/projects and gives us more time/resources for new endeavors. As long as we maintain our entrepreneurial spirit, we shall not fear the robots (BTW, that's a really jacked up word to spell. Yes...you know which one.) I also think these changes are inevitable so "resistance is futile". But, then again, I'm probably a bit too much of a progressive thinker. There are still problems of today (and yesterday) that need to be solved.