The degree to which automation is impacting employment is staggering. From social to political to economic implications, technology replacing human labor is affecting the way society functions on a massive scale.
The Luddites, a group of 19th century English textile workers who fought against the development of labour-economizing technologies, were revolutionary in that they instigating a movement that was reacting to a very new issue that was a direct result of the Industrial Revolution. Modern times have downplayed the significance and relevance of the Luddite concern, however. “The end-of-work argument has often been dismissed as the ‘Luddite fallacy,'”(A World without Work). After all, even after the Industrial Revolution, agricultural expansion, and globalization, the number of jobs available in America has still increased. Despite these facts, some individuals today express their worry that the Luddites were not wrong but just premature. Will technological innovation make human labor obsolete? Trends as of late have indicated so.
The social implications of automation can be understood by looking at previous examples throughout history. One such example is Youngstown, Ohio. “’Youngstown’s story is America’s story, because it shows that when jobs go away, the cultural cohesion of a place is destroyed,’ says John Russo, a professor of labor studies at Youngstown State University. ‘The cultural breakdown matters even more than the economic breakdown’” (A World without Work). According to Russo, Youngstown’s cultural breakdown was embodied by psychological factors manifested in depression, spousal abuse, and suicide. “The caseload of the area’s mental-health center tripled within a decade” (A World without Work).
Economically and politically speaking, automation would have a TREMENDOUS impact on life in America. “Industriousness has served as America’s unofficial religion since its founding. The sanctity and preeminence of work lie at the heart of the country’s politics, economics, and social interactions” (A World without Work). The looming shift of gradual automation may usher in an era of technological unemployment in which innovations cause the number of jobs to decline steadily and permanently. While this can cause negative social effects, “make no mistake: if the capabilities of computers continue to multiply while the price of computing continues to decline, that will mean a great many of life’s necessities and luxuries will become ever cheaper, and it will mean great wealth—at least when aggregated up to the level of the national economy” (A World without Work). Whether a detriment or a benefit, this undeniably shifts where power truly lies in society and put into question whether any job is truly safe.
One potential solution to this looming massive economic shift is the notion of Universal Basic income. “The premise of it is very simple: every adult in the United States would receive a monthly stipend from the government, which would be enough for them to live on.” (It’s time to start talking seriously about Basic Income). “The people without jobs will be an “idle class” — and the obvious conclusion, to Altman, “is that the government will just have to give these people money.” (Silicon Valley’s Unchecked Arrogance). I do not believe this is a viable means of addressing the concerns over loss of employment. Much more is lost in this issue than money.
It is completely and totally naive to think that a universal basic income will ensure happiness. Although machines and automation have made our lives easier in many ways, I believe it to be a bad thing for humanity because it robs us of our own agency, our motivation, our curiosity, and the potential to be HUMAN with one another. To be human is to be vulnerable; along with this come the values of compassion, understanding, and solidarity that machines can never provide.
Ethics & Professional Issues 