Gransnet forums

News & politics

The 4th Industrial Revolution

(114 Posts)
daphnedill Mon 06-Mar-17 11:18:55

A recent article by Bernard Marr in Forbes:

The 4th Industrial Revolution And A Jobless Future - A Good Thing?

It’s estimated that between 35 and 50 percent of jobs that exist today are at risk of being lost to automation.

Repetitive, blue collar type jobs might be first, but even professionals — including paralegals, diagnosticians, and customer service representatives — will be at risk.

This isn’t just science fiction, it’s happening now. Manufacturing are the first places we see robots and automation eliminating human jobs, but it’s hard to think of an industry that will be left unaffected as robots and AI become more affordable and widespread.

Rather than fight this advancement and wring our hands over the robots “stealing” our jobs, maybe it’s time to envision a jobless future.

Most people are in jobs they don’t particularly enjoy, with lots of mundane and repetitive tasks. Is it not our obligation to pass those jobs to machines?

From a business standpoint, any consultant would tell you that any task that can be systematized and automated should be. Many jobs are not jobs humans should waste their time doing.
The challenge is to rethink our economic model to ensure the people who will do something more interesting and enjoyable can afford to do so.

What would a jobless future look like?

All these technological advances that we are creating today — big data, artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things — represent a significant challenge to capitalism.
The more we automate and systematize, the more we see jobless growth and productivity. Taken to its logical extremes, we have a paradox of an exponentially growing number of products, manufactured more and more efficiently, but with rising unemployment and underemployment, falling real wages and stagnant living standards.

The 4th Industrial Revolution has started.

In other words, more products produced more cheaply and efficiently — but no one able to afford to buy them.
In fact, it’s already begun.

The rate of technological progress and worker productivity is on the rise, but wages are stagnating, factories are eliminating jobs, and researchers estimate that anywhere between 35 and 50 percent of jobs that exist now are in danger of being lost to automation.

But what if the prognosis weren’t all doom and gloom? What if all this automation were instead to provide so much luxury that we enter a post-work era, when humans are required to do very little labor and machines provide everything we need?

Fully Automated Luxury Communism describes an idea and ideology that in the (relatively near) future, machines could provide for all our basic needs. Humans would be required to do very little work on quality control and similar oversight, and have much of their time free to pursue other things. The result would be attainable luxury for everyone.
Robots, AI, machine learning, big data, etc. could make human labor redundant instead of creating even further inequalities. It could lead to a society where everyone lives in luxury and where machines produce everything while humans are free to pursue the creative explorations that robots and machines are incapable of: science, art, music, poetry, invention, and exploration.

How a jobless society must work

The trick, however, is subordinating the technology to global human needs rather than to profits.

Putting modern technology to work for the people is an excellent goal, and democratizing the advantages of our advances is already happening in some sectors. Bringing governments and nonprofit organizations onto the same technological footing as for-profit companies is a good step forward and could result in huge strides towards improving living conditions, decreasing crime, ending poverty and other problems.

I believe that if we can collectively turn our technology to the good of everyone, technology would not just be pruning away the jobs that are too mundane for humans to do, but also create new opportunities to replace the ones that were lost. Crucially: the jobs will be pruned regardless, but it is up to us to create the opportunities.

It’s the idea that the next Mozart, or Einstein, or Edison may be waiting — but because of inequalities like poor schooling, hunger, inadequate housing, etc., they may never reach their full potential.

If technology can provide an equal playing field for those children of the future, providing for all their needs, and that is done through the loss of the low-wage, monotonous, unfulfilling jobs we are clinging to today, then I say, destroy those jobs. Make way for the new generation and give them the tools they need to create incredible things.

Any comments?

Ankers Tue 07-Mar-17 17:06:28

Yes, but when you made your comment to me, you yourself were only talking about paid work as well!!!!!!!!!!

durhamjen Tue 07-Mar-17 17:06:51

Pathetic fallacy, daphne.

MawBroon Tue 07-Mar-17 17:45:54

Lost me DJ.

MawBroon Tue 07-Mar-17 18:48:24

you could choose to 'work' at caring, learning or making or nothing

for your whole life ?
I have to admit this led me to believe that paid work was at issue. I was clearly not alone.
But now I either have to take issue with this, or just laugh
Different lazing around (my bold) after having worked for 40 years, and now in your 60s......

I hope those of us who are guilty of "lazing around" are feeling suitably chastised.
Childcare for DGCs, caring for elderly parents or poorly partners, U3A and other courses of study, volunteering, all of these dismissed at a stroke as "lazing around"

Get back to work you lazy lot!! gringrin

Nobody is denying that work is not usually satisfying, a part of self confidence, giving a sense of identity and of worth in the community and nobody is trying to deprive this with physical or mental learning difficulties of this experience.
But "the disabled" like everybody else are entitled to an opportunity for education, for self fulfilment , for a satisfying role in life and "job satisfaction". Not the deadbeat , mind numbing repetitive tasks in an industrial environment which thank goodness can be performed by machines.
They are not ersatz robots.

durhamjen Tue 07-Mar-17 18:57:46

That's a problem that the DWP has, seeing only paid work as worthwhile.
That is surely what the 4th industrial revolution will have to address, by seeing all work as useful, and worthwhile.

GracesGranMK2 Tue 07-Mar-17 19:05:15

I'll conspire happily if it gets reasoned repliessmile When shall we three meet again? I wonder how those poor rich people who don't 'work' manage?

Economy apparently comes via Latin from Greek oikonomia meaning 'household management' It would be nice to think that governments thought more about households.

Thanks for the information DD. I'm like you and learning seems so worth-while. I have now piggybacked on three degrees (no jokes) and current a masters. My children are kind enough to teach me as they learn themselves but I have to admit I wouldn't always have chosen their subjects grin

varian Tue 07-Mar-17 19:12:54

I believe that however many robots we might have, there will always be worthwhile things for human beings to do.

At times in history there might have been be difficulty transforming work into jobs but perhaps we are now getting to a point where it should not be about jobs but how we share our resources fairly and encourage everyone to lead a purposeful life.

There have always been rich people in every society, particularly rich women, who did not have to work but still found ways to spend their days, and some of the them did make meaningful and important contributions.

Ankers Tue 07-Mar-17 19:16:22

^Ankers People such as Charles Darwin never 'worked' for an employer, but his 'work' has greatly influenced the lives of all of us

But he was financed! By his brother inlaw in the first instance. Or perhaps his family before that.
He couldnt live on fresh air alone.

I find some of the points here now, akin to cloud cuckoo land. So I will leave you all to it.

MawBroon Tue 07-Mar-17 19:43:02

Got it DJ - a bit slow these days, must be all that "lazing around".

durhamjen Tue 07-Mar-17 22:33:54

Someone else off to laze around and leave us to it. Is she allowed to? After all, it's not proper work, is it?

daphnedill Tue 07-Mar-17 23:07:30

That's exactly the point I was making Ankers. Darwin had independent financing, so didn't need to work for an employer or run a business. He was free to follow his own interests.

Lady Edwina Grosvenor is filthy rich and doesn't need to do paid work, so she's been free to do what she wants, which has been to help prisoners.

Bill Gates could, if he wanted, buy a fleet of super yachts and live a celeb lifestyle. He could even build a gold tower in New York!

These people have played useful roles, precisely because they've been freed from having to earn a living.

daphnedill Tue 07-Mar-17 23:12:08

Well said, varian, particularly the second paragraph. Sharing resources fairly and putting people's well-being at the heart of decisions should be priorities.

When I was in the sixth form in the early 1970s, I remember being told that one of the problems we'd have in the future would be deciding what to do with our leisure time. hmm

MawBroon Tue 07-Mar-17 23:20:41

I realise the argument has moved on but this is a very good article from the Independnt saying precisely why people with learning difficulties should NOT be paid less than others - not an enabling initiative at all, but nothing short of exploitation.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/rosa-monckton-disability-minimum-wage-charity-spectator-a7609231.html

If it is irrelevant, feel free to ignore but it does put a clear case for not undercutting wages.