The creation of robotics has allowed human beings to take their hands off of the system, and let something else do the work for them. While in the short-term this has resulted in lost jobs, and an entire area of work (U.S. Postal Service) to be nearly useless, in the long-term, with government pay, humans can live in a world where the only work that needs to be done is keeping the machines running and calibrated, and science. It would be a near-utopia where work was almost unneeded, and all of our needs are met.
Being able to use technology in place of human labor is a great option. It will likely save a lot of time and may save a lot of lives. If we can get the technology to all the same things that human labor accomplish I only see the advantages to it.
First, let me say that it really saddens me to see that 52% (at the time of my post) of people vote 'No', especially after reading all the arguments on both sides of this 'issue'. This points to a keen lack of basic economic understanding.
(1) 'Jobs' are not finite - a 'job' is a service performing labor in some sort of direction which another desires. As long as humans have desires, then there will be jobs. Meaning, there is an UNLIMITED amount of 'jobs' to be performed. If, somehow, we have every desire and need provided for us by automated means, then see #4.
(2) So, given above #1, as jobs are being done by more and more automation (and continually lowering the cost of these services, mind you), the economy will adjust itself and new 'jobs' will become available for humans to do, and these jobs will tend to be higher paying vs the jobs that were automated.
(3) The configuration of the economy will shift, with basic needs and necessities becoming close to or equal to Zero cost and then provided for free - just as air is free because it is so abundant. Remember that the price of a good or service is a pure VALUE judgement of the consumer and the price will always tend towards the basic cost to produce over time, so as automation gets cheaper and the costs to produce things get cheaper, then the final price will get cheaper. This continual rearrangement of the economy will forever be with us, meaning the frictional unemployment of changing 'jobs' will be there, but it will be impossible to have massive unemployment and poverty... Unless artificial restrictions are introduced (government policies/regulations)
(4) If this cycle of continually providing for human needs/desires somehow discovers a point at which we are all satisfied, at no cost, with everything in our lives... Then we have basically achieved Godhood (I think an impossibility because it is in our nature to always want 'more'). I don't think this would be a bad thing either...
So, YES, bring on the automation... It will make everyone's lives easier and better, and there will be folks who lose their 'jobs' and must then find other valued uses to sell their labor towards, but there will ALWAYS be 'jobs'.
To say that it is wrong to allow technology to replace labor, then why not cut down trees with spoons? Or outlaw automobiles or any other technological invention which multiplied the value of our labor many times? Ultimately, it is NOT 'jobs' that we desire, but the things that 'jobs' allow us to consume (food/shelter/entertainment/etc) and if these things get cheaper to produce, why not? It is simply impossible to have the economy be structured in such a way that everything is produced automatically but no one can afford to purchase these same things... A ridiculous argument...
People need to know how to do things and in the future, we need to know them to get a good job or life. Once you "finish" your job, you wouldn't be able to earn money because you know nothing. If you earn no money, when you get married (if you aren't already), your wife or husband will be mad because you only have a few dollars. How will you buy a house? Use your wife or husband money?
If technology were to replace human labor, people would be able to look for other paths in life and have time to finish their education completely. Comparing our modern day to a few centuries ago, it is clear that technologies have helped societies evolve. People have more time on their hands.
Technology replacing all human labor could be seen as the final stage of production and competition in the marketplace from a capitalist society. I think that this is what Karl Marx envisioned, that once machines have replaced human labor, and just about everyone is unemployed besides the big businessmen, the economic conditions will be right for either revolution or reform towards a communist society. By this point all of humanity will be able to benefit from the production and labor that is produced by technology through the common ownership of the means of production. Technology could even serve as the dictatorship of the proletariat in this transition towards complete equality, as it could be incorruptible, as opposed to the failures of this attempt with Stalin and the USSR.
The couter argument will normally be that people will loose their jobs. And what do you think happenens when everything is produced by machine with no human involved in the actual per piece production.
Prices will fall and purchasing power will also fall because no one has jobs. That might initially seem like a bad thing, but its just a transition.
Our current monetary system is man made and in a society were we only have to contribute very minimal to keep the machine going goods and services need not have a price tag. It will also say forever goodby to "planned obsolecence" and competition. From a mankind perspective is dumb that many corporation are doing the same stuff. It's wast of time, energy and ressources.
This question is sort of like closing the door to the barn after the horses escape. Technology has, in many cases, replaced a great deal of human labor. Such progress has been going on in the auto industry for decades. Also, when was the last time you talked to a telephone operator?
I believe technology should replace human labor when the technology reaches the level that it can perform the tasks just as well as a human, if not better. This does put people out of work, but overall it gives humanity time to develop in new and varying ways, because old industries no longer require the workforce. For example, as manufacturing fell in the United States, informational technology jobs became far more abundant.
Allowing technology to fall behind to maintain a traditional paradigm of society inevitably fails, as it always has. However, it is necessary that if such an advance is made that we allow for societal changes to benefit those displaced by the change in the labor systems of countries throughout the world.
Many people would lose their jobs should technology replace human labor . Should technology take over , there would be little need for people who was previously working. This could cause massive unemployment if technology really did take over human labour. I feel that it should not COMPLETELY replace but should work together with the help of technology
Cleaners, clothing makers, chefs, shelf stackers and many other occupations involve human labor. If technology were to replace this labor a huge percentage of the world would be unemployed. With a growing population this sounds more like a worldwide suicide attempt than anything! Unemployment also increases crimes such as theft which is not desirable.
Laziness may also increase too. For example: Cooking and cleaning your house is 'human labor', does this now mean that technology will be doing such tasks for you? Sure, for busy people this is beneficial but for many it just seems unnecessary and expensive.
There is something to be said for an ideal society where technology replaces all human labor, negating the need for a work state, but technology, like humanity, is not fool-proof. Considering the potentially slow rollout of technology replacing workers, this might contribute to either short or long-term unemployment in a work state, making life harder for people rather than easier.
Except in dangerous industries, technology should not replace human labor. It's important to keep jobs in the hands of Americans rather than handing them over to automation. The economy needs more jobs to thrive right now, and a simple way to do that is to avoid converting thousands of jobs over to automated technology.
Absolutely wrong because India is on the verge of unemployment In our world 800 million peoples are loosing there jobs due to increase of technologies. I think technologies and human labors should work together so we ca reduce unemployment to a certain level.Remember machines are just machines they don't have human feelings so human should be there to lead technologies we are not to lead by technologies ...............
-Mathew S Mannamplackel-
This would just ruin everything, the town, the wealth of the city and the economy. More machines means less jobs and more pollution. Is this really what we want? More people going on strike, more animals dying but happier managers. He makes money out of all this, no one else benefits, in fact everyone is hurt by this. Robots care for getting the job done, it has no feelings and even if the item turns out bad, it doesn't care, people do care, people can follow instructions better and the machine costs about a few hundred million dollars. Do the world a favor and vote no to pollution, vote no to less jobs and vote no to more machines, after all, humans made the machines so the robot is as perfect as its creator made it.
Many people will lose their jobs and of course the gov. Wants us to get lazy for their plans. This will not only hurt or economy, but ourselves as well. Technology should be for benefiting us. Not hurting the human race. Technology cannot understand tasks and such, only to a certain point. Technology cannot master what the mind can. Technology is dead and brainless, has no heart or soul. Only depending on technology will weaken our society as a whole. We will all become robots if technology is used to replace humans for labor.
Completely replacing technology would disrupt the economy by narrowing the job market. Rather, technology should assist human labor rather. Although it could be argued that technology is less expensive than human labor, that argument could be easily countered by pointing out that the maintenance of highly specialized technical equipment is actually more expensive than human labor.
I say ejc dnnd mdndcn n nijn b b b bgbbbb bjnnnb nbbno jonj nj n nnji nnponp nj nj np n nn jipj injn pbipbij ji bj ib hcdfvc df c d c d c d c ewc fr f ffg tgtf hy uj h I say ejc dnnd mdndcn n nijn b b b bgbbbb bjnnnb nbbno jonj nj n nnji nnponp nj nj np n nn jipj injn pbipbij ji bj ib hcdfvc df c d c d c d c ewc fr f ffg tgtf hy uj h I say ejc dnnd mdndcn n nijn b b b bgbbbb bjnnnb nbbno jonj nj n nnji nnponp nj nj np n nn jipj injn pbipbij ji bj ib hcdfvc df c d c d c d c ewc fr f ffg tgtf hy uj h
Grj fgjghj jergjh n rfe dj eik eik eik nr ghk mnyk mnhk jykl myjm mtjk jtj ktjfjirjntyhi jtikjbik jtj jtj jmoth jrn n ewio ei ngy itgn ng bo n hngrdhvbb w fwb bhehfvhfgfgfghf heh bhf jedb nf fjh bn ejfhfbhf nd b jed ndb eik ej eujqqwqq kfb rdjgbfjke. Thereeeee. No more to say