There have been a lot of predictions about the future of automation as it relates to jobs. The counter arguments to fears of mass automation seem to usually follow the suggestion that as some jobs automate, other jobs will open up. Maybe that is true. I think that a future form of mass automation could be different though. In the past, automation has pushed people from labor intensive or monotonous jobs into jobs that require intelligence and creativity that machinery couldn't compete with. Maybe its possible that the next revolution in automation leaves us with few outlets where we can be more effective than a machine.
For sake of this thread, I'd like to assume that AI and robotics will someday be able to replace all farming, production, packaging, shipping, driving, doctoring, nursing, care givings, lawyering, engineering, banking, mining, construction, soldiering, policing, programming, teaching, etc. Lets say that AI and automation has this potential. There will always be some human jobs. . . . but not billions of jobs.
1) What is the impact something like this would have to the world? I read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut about a decade ago, but the book dives into this. The world is run by machinery and a few people that oversee the process. Most people are government employed and are given simple tasks for the purpose of giving people something to do. One part of the book describes something like a large group of road construction workers working 8 hours a day to fix a pothole. The majority of people simply have no real use and they suffer psychologically as a result.
I could see an automated world where there is still large scale employment in fields like sports, leisure, hospitality, art, theater, interior design, gaming. . . basically things that double as hobbies for a lot of people. Would you feel satisfied in life if you were given a salary to do follow whatever hobby you wanted? Part of me thinks that I could. I get a lot of fulfillment out of spending time with my children, I love to cook for people, I like to host. But, I also like the feeling of having a job that fulfills a need for society.
2) Should anything be done on these large scales to protect jobs from automation? I'm very uneasy about this prospect. It feels anti-capitalist and anti-progress and inefficient. Is there merit to an argument that suggests that keeping people 'useful' is a valid reason for holding down technological progress for the sake of the quality of life of those people?
For sake of this thread, I'd like to assume that AI and robotics will someday be able to replace all farming, production, packaging, shipping, driving, doctoring, nursing, care givings, lawyering, engineering, banking, mining, construction, soldiering, policing, programming, teaching, etc. Lets say that AI and automation has this potential. There will always be some human jobs. . . . but not billions of jobs.
1) What is the impact something like this would have to the world? I read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut about a decade ago, but the book dives into this. The world is run by machinery and a few people that oversee the process. Most people are government employed and are given simple tasks for the purpose of giving people something to do. One part of the book describes something like a large group of road construction workers working 8 hours a day to fix a pothole. The majority of people simply have no real use and they suffer psychologically as a result.
I could see an automated world where there is still large scale employment in fields like sports, leisure, hospitality, art, theater, interior design, gaming. . . basically things that double as hobbies for a lot of people. Would you feel satisfied in life if you were given a salary to do follow whatever hobby you wanted? Part of me thinks that I could. I get a lot of fulfillment out of spending time with my children, I love to cook for people, I like to host. But, I also like the feeling of having a job that fulfills a need for society.
2) Should anything be done on these large scales to protect jobs from automation? I'm very uneasy about this prospect. It feels anti-capitalist and anti-progress and inefficient. Is there merit to an argument that suggests that keeping people 'useful' is a valid reason for holding down technological progress for the sake of the quality of life of those people?