TED Conversations

charlize burstein

This conversation is closed.

Debate: Technology will eliminate the need for human employees, and the unemployment rate will increase.

Technology is an easier and faster way to get a job done. It is obvious that technology increases the profitability of companies throughout the world. So why would I hire a human rather than purchasing the technology when the costs of them are the same?

Discuss the situation where you are going to choose one of them with equal conditions (conditions means the costs and several types of expenses).

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 22 2012: Technology has created very dumb and enslaving jobs. It began with agriculture and got worse with the age of industry. So a member of the most outstandingly creative species on this planet can be witnessed to sign a 30 year contract for a job that requires half a dung beetle's brain.
    This is the self-perpetrated crime against humanity civilizations are responsible of.

    But if technology is the poison, it is also the cure. Boring jobs will eventually disappear. Where I live, it's hard to find a job similar to that of Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times. Not just because someone in Bangladesh has it covered, but because brainless tasks have become automated, as they ethically should.
    To get rid of dumb jobs you need technology. You need innovation. And this is the future of employment : jobs that contribute to the effort of killing stupid jobs.

    ps : everyone on earth was unemployed before the presence of technology. Technology creates jobs, period.
    • thumb
      Nov 23 2012: 'ps : everyone on earth was unemployed before the presence of technology. Technology creates jobs, period.'

      But this is no answer to the original question. It is not asked if technology creates jobs, it is asked, if this technology which creates jobs is going to 'eliminate the need for human employees'.

      Would you share your view on this aspect?

      And what do you think about jobs which do not require 'Charlie Chaplin' style 'dumb people' but also those which require high skills, education and creativity?

      In chess technology already managed to outrun our human grand masters. And what will happen to employees when the first 'intelligent and creative' robots become available and this at a price of a fraction of long term human employment?

      For example, some very high skilled, trained and 'intuitive' people - jetfighter pilots - are becoming already and also in another way an endangered species by Drones.

      Any geek would be able to play those 'games' without dealing with any g-forces, stress and fear. And the military is already working on autonomous systems to replace even those geeks at one day.

      What do we do with all the people who will, sooner or later, have no alternative jobs to earn their living?

      The scope of this questions goes way beyond 'dumb and enslaving jobs' as technology will not stop there and so will the economy...
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2012: Don't stop there. What are people, in the end, but bits and pieces of machinery that technology could easily mimick?
        What then, when technology allows you to build people?
        With everything available all around you for nothing. With machines willing to pick up anything you dropped on the floor, you'd still want to get busy at something. People nowadays might call it recreation, but in the future, people's jobs might be playing videogames with virtual salaries, just useless scores. Or people might work on their TEDcred.
        Wealth and employment are drifting away from each other.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2012: 'Wealth and employment are drifting away from each other.'

          Yes, but for this I don't even need any advanced technology. What is your opinion on this your statement? Is this ok for you? Do you mind? Could you be affected by it? Are you affected by it already?

          What can this 'virtual salarie' buy? Food, clothes, housing, energy? Or just 'upgrade items' for my videogame avatar?

          Access to basic needs is wealth to me, what is it in your scenario?

          I have no trouble to picture your idea of this 'bright future', what trobles me is the process of transition to finally get there. The current system does not lead to it and it uses technology for its own simple 'greed' mechanism only. So how do you get to your point in time without poverty of the masses, without hunger, starvation and even more wars for resources?

          Technology still is our tool, not our master, so how do we use it wisely? Any suggestions?
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2012: "So how do you get to your point in time without poverty of the masses, without hunger, starvation and even more wars for resources?"

        I have access to the same technology, pretty much, as any billionaire. This is because companies like Samsung are greedy. They know that if they find a way to make cell phones cheaper, they'll sell more of them. Someone building cheap solar panels will be rich. He might be environment-concerned, or he might be a capitalist bastard, who cares : the result would be the same.
        The current system allows technology to be democratic.

        'Wealth and employment are drifting away from each other.'

        Yes I think that's a good thing, because wealth-driven employment is not homo-sapiens friendly.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2012: I understand that you have no suggestions. You choose to ignore that cheap products often stem from cheap labour and that those who made them can't affort them. Do you think Apple is successful because their design team is based in California? Or is it China who makes this possible? And how many Chinese assembly line worker do you think have their own i-products?

          The current system only seem to allow technology to be democratic, but think globally, look at the whole picture and you may understand what I was trying to make understandable. Well, probably not ...

          '... wealth-driven employment is not homo-sapiens friendly' to you, yet you seem to react provoked if someone states that capitalism is driven by greed. Honestly, I don't understand your true thoughts on this, as you are not explaining how a 'homo-sapiens friendly' system would look like to you. Maybe you could share this view in case it differentiate from the 'status quo'.

          And no, not any result justify the means. The pollution of this planet is one sign that is doesn't. But on the current wave of ignorance you probably don't care as well.

          In this case we then desagree.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2012: " those who made them can't affort them."

        That's true. But it seems to be on the decline. The gap between rich countries and poor countries is diminishing, everyone knows that. And the cause of this is not philanthropy.

        The polution on this planet is only due to expensive and wasteful technology. It's a necessary transition towards a greener (cheaper) way of life.
    • thumb
      Nov 23 2012: it is the opposite of the truth. in fact, the jobs that gets automatized are the most monotonous, less satisfying, most back breaking jobs. nobody wants them back. nobody wants to plough with an ox or horse, let alone without it. nobody wants to pick fruits by hand. nobody wants to wash clothes in the river. nobody wants to carry around water on their shoulders. machines save us from these awful jobs.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2012: You missed my point, I think, because I agree with everything you say. Let me clarify.
        Hunter-gatherers "worked" two days a week, and had the rest of the time off. The back breaking activities you mention came with agriculture. Plows were perhaps supposed to create constant food with little effort, but in the end, people just started to work their asses off, tempted by the wealth their could build. I was suggesting that we might be heading towards a ballance between our biological needs to laze about as much as possible and our limitless appetite for wealth. Hence I expect our descendants to have exciting jobs for a couple days a week, with every dumb task left to machinery. Unemployment would not necessarily result in misery, but people like to have jobs nonetheless.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2012: "Hunter-gatherers "worked" two days a week"

          i'm not convinced about that. animals seek food all the time. tribes in abandoned parts of the world too.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2012: The hunter-gatherers I've read about are the !Kung San and the Ache, to name a few. They behave as I've described. You can now check
        As for other animals, baboons and lions, for instance, only seek food 3 hours a day.
        I don't just speculate!
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2012: interesting. i wonder what made man abandon leisure, and start to work more when agriculture came about? certainly they had a choice, as they could just opt for doing farming on a lesser scale. maybe that "leisure" was more like unwanted idle time during which they could do nothing to further improve their condition.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2012: Why you ask?
        I see people all around me who are willing to trade 30 years in a factory for a home with three bedrooms and a shiny car. They could do just fine if they work three times less. So why don't they?
        Children in settled tribes spend a lot more time left to themselves, crying, while both parents work their asses off, and play time is replaced with field work and household chores as soon as they can stand. So much for "improving their condition". But people always want more. Right?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.