TED Conversations

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

Robots Work, Human Beings Perform

"Robots work, human beings perform" was an idea proposed by the American psychologist and writer Tim Leary. He meant that it was an insult for any human being to be forced to do a job that can be done better by a machine.

Looking at the trend of technological unemployment and the suffering as a result of that, it seems that we are more than ready to push forward a technological revolution on a global scale that will improve the lives of mankind.

Aspiring towards this new paradigm, many futurists and social activists such as Jacque Fresco, the founder of The Venus Project have proposed a global redesign of our economic, social and cultural systems to a holistic, collaborative and sustainable system that meet the needs of all people and not just a selected few.

Imagine a world where all repetitious, monotonous, boring and dangerous jobs and labor, that wastes human talent, creativity and ingenuity, were fully and deliberately automated by machines, so that human beings could do what they really want to do and focus on whats really important to our happiness and our very survival.

The question remains. Are we ready for a new paradigm, a technological revolution that will improve our lives many times over, meet the needs of mankind that will truly liberate us from the shackles of our current outdated socioeconomic system?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +1
    Oct 4 2012: If we are not ready now, we may be when the economy collapses.
    • Oct 4 2012: The lost faith in the current system and the bio-social pressures that emerges as a result of a collapse would definitely increase the chances of people looking for an alternative. Hopefully for a sustainable one. I don't subscribe for a collapse however. It would be nice if we could get a new set of values that value collaboration, common good and sustainability instead of narrow self-interest and private ownership before it collapses.
      • thumb
        Oct 5 2012: I agree, but religion (Abrahamic) has too much power.
        • Oct 5 2012: I think we should at least try to bridge the differences and see if we can come through to them. Actually, most religions has many core values that talks about common good and collaboration, but doesn't show how. If we can pitch how a technological revolution would become a "second garden of Eden", I think we could have a chance on getting through.
      • thumb
        Oct 5 2012: I don't. Most religions do have stated core values that talk about common good, but I live in America, and what the christians do is not consistent with their stated core values. Need to fix that in order to restore the equality that would allow and encourage an equitable alternative to thrive
        • Oct 7 2012: I agree that most religious people don't fully understand the core values of their religion thus their behavior is not consistent with their stated core values of that religion, however, I think this is merely an educational issue. If people are shown the benefits of access over ownership, regardless of religions and ideology, they will eventually move towards that society. This is why communication is so important. We need to find common ground with all people and show them the future.
      • thumb
        Oct 5 2012: I do suspect that an actual collapse would render economy disfunctional enough that the economies of scarcity (what we have now) would come back in full strength. Does it matter if we have the factories and the materials to produce everything for cheap, if the owners had no reason to turn them on? And taking them over by force would easily lead to material destruction, which again would cause scarcity.

        What we would need is governments that approached the supply of more "zero price" goods the way we approach urban sanitation. We don't build and maintain sewage as if it was an economic industry itself, but because it enables economic activity. We should be moving more stuff from the goods category into the infrastructure category, including food, shelter, access to information and basic professional certification.
        • Oct 7 2012: "I do suspect that an actual collapse would render economy disfunctional enough that the economies of scarcity (what we have now) would come back in full strength."

          I fear that too. But a military dictatorship, as a result of a collapse, can only sustain for that long. People will eventually invade and demand a fairer distribution of wealth.

          "Does it matter if we have the factories and the materials to produce everything for cheap, if the owners had no reason to turn them on? And taking them over by force would easily lead to material destruction, which again would cause scarcity."

          This is an educational issue. When people see the benefit of access over ownership, the society will hopefully move towards that in a peaceful way. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but it's something that we should at least strive for.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.