TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Work vs Automation.

Should we or should we not automate as much work as possible? With the current technological advances it wont be long before almost every existing job will/can be automated.

And from a capitalistic viewpoint it makes sense, why have workers when you can have robots that do the work faster, better and cheaper?

And do we really even want to "work" as it's defined today.

There will probably always be the need for humans, but to a lesser and lesser extent.

To get some insights into what's happening with automation today, check http://www.reddit.com/r/automate

And to see some of the jobs that were automated in 2013 read this article by The Washington Post "Eight ways robots stole our jobs in 2013" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/23/eight-ways-robots-stole-our-jobs-in-2013/

Do you have a job that you think can't be automated or won't be in a long time? Are you "safe"?

Topics: automation work
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Lars G

    • 0
    Jan 12 2014: I believe that robots will take our jobs eventually. And this should be a good thing. The problem is that we will probably end up without an income and the economy will collapse, which is very bad. To prevent this we have to make the robots work for all of us, not just the owners. I don't know exactly how to do that though. Any ideas?
    • thumb
      Jan 12 2014: A basic income for everyone and destroying capitalism.
      But it's just a sweet dream, because it's what keeps the economy in move,
      so another non-ideal solution, can be stopping after every technology (worker-replacement ones) and check about social employment, and be sure nobody gets hurt by this improvement, by employing them in other fields.
      Any solution for this problem prevents making more benefits for capitalists, unless we decide to reduce our population, and all be one of them.
      • Lars G

        • 0
        Jan 12 2014: Hi. Thanks for the reply.

        I agree that some sort of redistribution is necessary. Not sure if we need to destroy capitalism in the process. The capitalists are smart people, I'm sure they can see that technological unemployment will leed to reduced purchasing power and in turn make their business unsustainable. When it becomes clear that technology has come so far that human labor no longer is competetive they will see the need subsidize humans to keep things going.
        • thumb
          Jan 12 2014: You're right, if people cannot afford buying their products, the production will be stopped.
          But, what if they own all the sources and the mines they need ?
          If they have them all, neither human labor forces nor their money are needed. I mean, if they don't care about people, they see no need to give them the money they have earned before by selling some products to them. They don't work for fun !
          I don't want to exaggerate the situation we're in, but we already can see what cheap human labor forces has done to the global economy, and just imagine if it goes further, to a world of no-salary machines.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.