…their ongoing rollback of Wal Mart in the grocery biz? Somehow I just don’t think neo-Luddites are the answer…

The other thing to take into consideration is that when the computing power of a single robot begins to equal and then exceed that of a human mind, do they achive concienceness?
That opens up a whole nother can of worms that I’m sure we’ve all speculated about. From mediocre ‘robot riots’, to a world takover ala “the matrix”. In any event, the outcome of any machine/man war will not be pretty. Most likely fought with EMP bombs on one side, and neutron bombs on the other.

There was a Star Trek: TNG episode in which a roboticist tried to claim the android Data as being the property of Star Fleet. Picard defended him, trying to prove that Data had consciousness, and therefore could be no one’s property. He went further, though, and speculated that if the roboticist succeeded in making thousands or millions of androids as sophisticated as Data, what would we do with them? Use them for dangerous missions so that humans wouldn’t have to get hurt, of course. But wouldn’t millions of consicious androids be considered a race? And therefore wouldn’t it be unethical to force them to do our bidding?

There used to be rooms filled with telephone operators using plugboard wiring to manually connect people…jobs obviously wiped out by full electronic automation in 40s-50s.

There used to be huge rooms full of accounting clerks processing paperwork using mechanical adding machines…wiped out by computer revolution of 60s-70s-80s.

There used to be rooms full of people working over drafting tables (back to the drawing board, etc)…now all gone because of CAD programs etc.

You see anybody welding or painting on the assembly line at an automobile factory?…jobs wiped out by robots in the 70s-80s.


What kind of Ludite are you, afraid of a few kiosk and self serve checkout stations?

…or maybe you actually want to stand in line at the bank or to buy gas…or you want one of the jobs mentioned above??!!

…is that there’s nothing on the horizon that represents a pervasive replacement job category for the displaced workers, as there has been for the examples in the past you cite, and the replacement by robots will be much more fundamental and structural than has been seen in the past because it will be SO pervasive and not just limited to a room of a certain kind of specialist. I think the Census figures quoted in the main article are pretty convincing. I’m not a Luddite at all…in the words of wisdom of our Illustrous Leader, “Bring ‘em on.” I just worry about “then what”. There’s been some pretty good examples lately about the perils of saying BEO and then getting your wish. There’s a lot of stuff in the papers right now about how unusual the current “jobless economic recovery” is and how something we don’t understand and haven’t seen in the past is afoot…

Working in the high-tech field myself, I find that article really scary. I’ve met one of the out-of-work people in that article too. I remember how only a few years ago, computer programmers had no worries of job security because they find another job in days. Not anymore…

This is something I’ve pondered quite a bit on over the years. Machines (and now “robots”) act to enhance human capabilities; that means fewer people are needed to do things than before. But despite huge machine-related productivity improvements, somehow we stay pretty close to full employment… why is that? There are obviously fundamental economic issues involved, but it has seemed to me the most obvious reason is that machines fill out the low-skill, routine, monotonous side of work, leaving humans to do the interesting stuff, of which there is a lot more now that we are so much more productive. This isn’t necessarily a low-skill/high-skill division, although that’s part of it. It’s more a separation between the type of job requiring a unique individual, and the type of job where employees are interchangeable parts. Jobs that are essentially routine and scale with the size of the population (gas station attendant, retail sales, fast-food production, etc.) end up being filled by “interchangeable parts” employees; these types will certainly be filled by machines in the long run (whether humanoid robots or not). But jobs that depend on the uniqueness of the individual – athletes, scientists, artists, entrepreneurs, politicians, etc. will, I believe, never become replaceable by machines; at least not until the machines truly are our equals.

…today, really.

Since humans started to develop technology we’ve been able to guarantee our survival (food, shelter, etc) with less and less effort. We’re now in the extreme reaches of that trend. Besides the desire to advance our civilization or exersize our creative tendencies, do we really have to work as much as we do?

So what would happen if you took a hard look at our current workforce and rearranged the workforce for maximum efficiency? I bet you’d have enormous unemployment problems. To cover the unemployment gap you’d start spawning circular industries, like the number of telemarketers employed to sell you long distance by phone company A vs the same number of telemarketers employed by phone company B: Workforces that could grow arbitrarily based on a balance in the market, but don’t contribute to human survival or advancement.

In ‘Brave New World’, Huxley describes a future where no one HAS to work, but people do anyways because not doing so makes them terminally unhappy. In my career as a computer programmer I’ve seen the work of 4 people spread over a group of 20 simply “because”. (Actually, it’s usually because there is a breaking point where if you have too many people involved in a project the critical and hyper-effective workers are too distracted by the communcations needs of the crowd and you have to have even more people to cover the artificially induced inefficiency. ) I’m sure most people have seen similiar things. Why should people have to work if their basic survival could be guaranteed by a select few who do work?

I often joke about it, but I’m also half-serious when I say that we should deploy a new world economy where only those who want to work toward our day-to-day survival or the advancement of humanity should work. Everyone else can stay home and watch TV. I’ll even volunteer to be one of the industrious ones! For my working, some number of people can avoid labor and live their lives however they want in lazy splendor. I’ll provide for their survival or the improvement of standard of living, and they can stay the hell out of my way while I’m trying to get work done. Even though I’m arguably on the short end of that deal, it’s still a deal I would accept.

Especially if it would get rid of telemarketers. :)

… they may quickly surpass us in intelligence. And then they will replace our scientists. We will enjoy the fruits of their discoveries, and perhaps it will even lead to ensuring the survival of our species (e.g. creating faster-than-light travel so that we can colonize other planets), but ultimately I think it will be quite sad for humanity because we will be left with nothing to aspire to. All of the great discoveries and advancements that we might have achieved, given time, will be stripped from us.

Please propose this to the world leaders, I will happily work for free for the rest of my life doing what I love to do.

It’s called communism :-)

we should deploy a new world economy where only those who want to work toward our day-to-day survival or the advancement of humanity should work. Everyone else can stay home and watch TV.

Compare to the communist formula: “from each according to their
abilities, to each according to their needs” (Wikipedia)

I recently volunteered at the YMCA to teach inner city kids robotics by introducing them to the Lego Mindstorm system. This will be done in conjunction with RoboCup Junior competition

Communism implies that everyone works.

The parent implies most people specifically _shouldn’t_.

Besides, a welfare state with 20% of the people able to find jobs and being taxed to death to support the other 80% sounds exactly like the parent poster. We’re probably well on our way right now.

Communism implies that everyone works.

Incorrect. You did not read the Wiki article, did you?

It will happen a lot sooner than 2050. More like 2010. Laser CPUs are going to change everything

From the wiki, since you seem convinced it is an authority:

<i>In each society, a minority of people owned or controlled the means of production, constituting the ruling class. The vast majority of people owned and controlled very little.</i>

The original post was talking specifically about a very few people working, essentially controlling production, not where everyone contributes.  It’s a VERY different thing.  Communism would never stand for an unemployed populace.  The Soviets would create work out of thin air just to keep everyone doing something.  The original post explicitly stated that vast unemployment was a key ingredient of the system.

"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" doesn’t describe it.  It would be: "from the few who bother caring, according to their abilities (and everyone else can rest), to each the equal rewards of greater efficiency" [except that I don't think the original post mentioned any kind of reward system at all, so the equal rewards thing is speculative]

We’re right now in a bad economy, yet there are still jobs opening up. Using people who are out of work in a field that, at the moment, has slow growth are a bad example. There’s still tons of places with the very low-end jobs this is talking about at gas stations, restaurants, retail stores, etc.

What the article forgets is that all machines need repairs, and a form of supervision. People always have found ways to cheat machines, and on a retail level even with RFID’s it would still be easy enough to get away from a computer. And a computer is unlikely to gain the cognative skills to properly assist a customer at the level even a stupid human can, so at the very least most businesses will probably leave some people around to deal with the people who come in.

There will also be people building, designing, shipping, etc these robots.

Who knows, maybe Americans won’t need to work as much, as it is we work more than any other industrialized nation. Maybe we can get a few days off by having some robotic co-workers.

Dave

A bit belated, but I think I found a use for all these robots…in an growth industry that really no one wants to hold a job in…the health care industry…in particular, taking care of us old farts that get genetically enhanced to live longer (see next major artical about longevity genes).

I haven’t read all the comments yet, but I wanted to say that I really enjoyed Marshall’s “Robotic Nation”. I write sci-fi/futuristic novels, and this kind of material is deeply interesting to me. There are, however, a few points that I want to add.

First, computers and airplanes became a revolutionary concept because people wanted them to be. I can’t count all the “life-changing” inventions that never made it off the drawing board, much less the ones that failed to arouse the public’s interest. “Segway”, anyone??? At present the public opinion on robots seems to be no opinion at all, not even a shade of interest. So if you want robots to take over the world, you’re gonna have to advertise them :D.

Secondly, for all the genius intellect that robots have; “A Machine Cannot Think Creatively”. That means that inventions, innovation, and even government, law, and leadership will always be done by humans. Also medicine, to a point. But the one thing I’m most excited about is Art. Art, Literature, Philosophy, all these things should greatly increase when people have more time to devote to them. And if that is possible, then there’s no telling what we can do; enlightenment, more enriching literature and cinema, and even a greater understanding of ourselves as a global culture.

It is true that most jobs will be done by robots if/when robots are advanced enough. But what about outer space? What would be the point of space travel if one could not do it themselves? I feel that the drive for space travel will push millions into the cosmos, and “out there” it won’t be robots that make new discoveries, it will be people. Space is, after all, “the Final Frontier”.

I feel that “Robotic Nation” is kind of biased against robots, so I offer these comments as someone who is biased “for” robots, because when we can put aside the petty things that must be done on a daily basis, we create time to think, and in so doing offer ourselves a chance to learn more about ourselves, the world, and the invincible spirit that drives us.

“But jobs that depend on the uniqueness of the individual – athletes, scientists, artists, entrepreneurs, politicians, etc. will, I believe, never become replaceable by machines; at least not until the machines truly are our equals.”

That’s fine for people who happen to have special talents, but what about the bulk of society? What is everyone else supposed to do in order to buy food, shelter, medical care, etc.?

“A Machine Cannot Think Creatively”

What is it about mans brain that allows him to be creative? My guess is that once creativity is properly understood, it will be possible to reproduce it in a machine.