What Work Will We Do After Mass-Automation is Realised?

What Work Will We Do After Mass-Automation is Realised?

Over the past few years in both Future Studies and Labour Studies circles, there has been much rhetoric going around about digitisation or technological automation causing unemployment and rendering human workers redundant. It is neither a secret nor a cause for surprise, that as we increase our technological knowledge and prowess, we will collectively as a human society automate processes rendering obsolete the need for human labour.

In fact, this is not the first time that I am visiting this subject. For an idea of discussions on the subject of human labour in the future on the horizon, you perhaps may wish to visit the following articles I have written over the past two years:

The Advent of Automated Commerce: Real Implications on the Horizon

Work Spaces of the Future

2050: The decline of the blue collar worker

The likely educational demography of the world in 2050

As far as job requirements or situations changing across sectors due to digitisation is concerned, changes have always occurred in work processes or in relevance of products throughout human history, wherein humanity has continued on through adaptation, by switching roles as, when and where necessary.

Digitisation, automation or robotics, while automating human job functions out of existence, also lower the bar to creativity, innovation and new enterprise by granting access in forms such as reducing cost of entry. What digitisation also does, is creates new needs and therefore new opportunities to create revenue streams by serving those needs. It is a circular process.

It is also impractical to believe that all jobs performed by humans will be taken over. I will have very serious concerns about the job of a lawyer being completely automated. I do not believe we can have machines do what Stephen Hawking does. I do not believe the jobs of Politicians should be automated. Try replacing a Marine Biologist with a robot for example. Even if you do, what purpose would one expect to see remain in the role, if we absolve ourselves of needing to learn, explore and understand whatever it is that is entailed in the work of a Marine Biologist?

What we can definitely be certain about, is that if not all, at least almost all Blue Collar jobs, meaning those that are non-intellectual, which I have mentioned in my past articles, will be automated out of existence, with a fair number of White Collar jobs automated away as well, with the help of SMART and efficient software or programming on top of the progress in the hardware spectrum. Even as jobs people work in today are automated out of existence, through evolution or emergence of new technologies, products, concepts or services, we collectively will create new types of jobs, roles and functions, but predominantly those that are increasingly intellectual in nature rather than laborious.

The solution is not to resist technological revolution to automate present tasks. The solution is, to prepare for humanity's next tasks. There will be work to do and we'll all collectively need to do that work. And for that, collectively, we will have to be competent. To be precise, we will have to be intellectually competent collectively. In short, work for us will not disappear. It will simply change and this is something I have discussed previously in the following articles:

The likely key industries in the year 2050

The Top 10 Occupations in 2050

The problem faced today however, when we look at the impending unprecedented level of transformation on the horizon, is the lack of social and economic mobility due to faults in our collective mindset towards the system of education, the role of education and the use of education.

What needs to be done, to see humanity or society through this stage or phase of change or rather, evolution in the human story, is to supplant entirely what our view of education is, how it is governed, how it is regulated, how it is managed and how it is delivered. What needs to be done to ensure social mobility, justice and equality, through this phase of change and onwards is as follows:

1. Education should be guaranteed as free for all persons, at every level from kindergarten to Doctorate level, at any and every university, to ensure no human being is disadvantaged in any way by social or economic circumstance. Education should be free, with regards not just to fees, but also any and all material costs. The fact that education is treated like a revenue generating business in much of the present day world, posses major problems for the future, including the threat of destructive social divides.

2. Education should be borderless, where any individual from anywhere in the world may study anywhere, freely, at free cost, to ensure he or she gets the education he or she needs or best suits his or her learning needs, so that the individual may be empowered to the optimum potential. With advancement in technologies enabling as well as enhancing telepresence, learning across borders would be more practical, without need for relocation or visa processes.

3. Education should not be standard but rather, needs based, customised for individuals, to cater to the needs and interests of each student through the various stages of life from the earliest stage. Progressively, the strengths of each student should be identified, allowing opportunities to the student to develop on those strengths. This on the principle that no one is incompetent, nor is anyone less competent than another, but all of us have different traits, aptitudes, paces of learning, strengths, intelligences, needs and competencies. In other words, every child born, save for mental incapacity, should have the opportunity guaranteed at birth, to earn a PhD, contingent on independent choice alone.

A level playing field provided through education as such, guarantees the disappearance of all social divides, eventually. It also readies humanity for its universally impending labour and economic needs. I first aired this proposition through the following article on the India Future Society's website; The Future as a Case for Global Transformation of Education

And yes, I do mean, that anyone born with a working, functioning mind, should be guaranteed an opportunity at birth to earn a PhD as we know it, should he or she wish to persist in the formal education cycle to that extent, without a concern for cost or economic expense, vested societal interests or measure of competency against set standards that fragment or filter without consideration at present, recognising that all persons differ in competency.

For example, a student who is very good at language but poor in mathematics may never make it past secondary education in many countries, whereas if measured differently, and given the opportunity fitting his or her learning needs and strengths, that student could go on to be a great linguist or a language Professor.
Therefore in a conclusion that cannot be short, what is the answer to the question, what work will we do after mass-automation & advance robotics reach realisation? The answer is elaborate but simple.

With the current state of technology known to humanity, we work within or as parts of systems predominantly. Human society itself is a huge pyramid, where most sit at the bottom, while very few sit at the top. The further down one is in the levels of the pyramid, the greater is his or her likeness to a cogwheel inside a complex machine, with lesser independent control.

With the future state of technology that humanity is now anticipating, most of us will work increasing outside and on systems rather than inside them or as parts of them. Humans in general will have greater autonomy and control when it comes to "work". It will be less hands, legs, blood and sweat, but more intellectual prowess, that will be employed for contribution. The role difference in other words will be that predominantly, human workers will be managing systems rather than being managed within systems. Human society will be a rather short or flat looking pyramid and that too inverted, with the vast majority at the top and very few at the bottom. It will have to be that way.

This article was originally written by Harish Shah on 16 September 2014 and posted on Singapore Futurist under the original title "What Work Will We Do After Mass-Automation & Advance Robotics Reach Realisation". The title was shortened for reposting on LinkedIn to fit the maximum title characters allowed by LinkedIn Pulse. The content posted herein is unedited however, with no alterations. It took Singapore's main newspaper, The Straits Times exactly 9 months to come up with an article on this subject, replicating the exact fundamental message herein, which may be found at the following link:

I, not Robot; I am smarter

About the Writer: Harish Shah is Singapore's first local born Professional Futurist serving clients commercially. He is widely referred to as "The Singapore Futurist" by Futurists and Strategic Foresight Professionals around the world. He may be contacted at harish_shah@stratservconsultancy.com or at +65 94510637.

Daniel Stanislaus Martel, PhD

Directeur de la publication, Point de mire - Administrateur, Ninety-Six Partners

9y

Salaam Harish, Interesting article which opens many ways of thought. Carry on teaching us, Singapore Futurist!

Like
Reply
Vitor Ribeiro

Data Ops | Digital Products | Digital Business

9y

Hey Harish, Interesting article. This is something I've thought about a lot and love to discuss when the opportunity presents itself. I think that you are proposing the "problem" at clashing periods of time in which machines have substituted the labor force in every step of the production line, globally, while at the same time proposing that humanity has not dedicated any free time to designate purpose to this reality. The assumptions behind it are that we will maintain the focus in a mass production based model and that most of the things necessary to us will be material, needing a factory and several machines to produce it. There will be a business model and there will be a profit to finance operations and grow into a large PRODUCER. I find this extremely hard to swallow.Also, in a more sci-fi note, there will be no attempts at transhumanism with the impending and ominous cloud of obsolescence looming over our heads? I will take the points raised by Fred and David to make the case for purpose driven development. Our production methods today are inefficient, however; our definition of efficiency is equally wrong. To say that there is a machine out there that can build furniture better than a human is, quite frankly, missing the point. What if instead of having 100 machines we could have only 1? What if we could produce everything in our houses instead of it happening a factory or agglomeration? What if our dependence on immaterial goods becomes more pressing than material ones? All of these scenarios lead to a breakdown of our current business models. As Jeremy Rifkin states the future of capitalism is producing at near zero marginal cost and if that becomes true than capitalism and the capitalist reality we know today will no longer be possible. Along with this we will have political, legal, and religious, yes religious, metamorphosis. Also, the argument for humans as systems managers falls flat given the increasing complexity of the systems we create. The stock exchange system is the perfect example of a system that has become unmanageable. In no other place has the role of being human become so diminished that we are only allowed to participate or raise flags. In other relevant "techie" positions the impending doom is also quite visible. A friend of mine working in business intelligence was telling me how IBM's Watson BI does almost everything that she does as a data scientist. She said that it would make her a data janitor with little improvement.

Like
Reply

Let us pose the problem in the starkest possible way: what will people do when machines can do everything -- literally everything -- better, faster, and cheaper? When they do better along every dimension of output that can be measured, and better for every species of output that cannot be measured, in the sense of beating humans at the relevant Turing Test. For an instance, when a panel of judges looking at astrological divinations, some made by human astrologers and some by robots, routinely finds the robot outputs more interesting. What will humans do then? I think we all will find jobs working as humans. That is a category of employment that will not be automated for a very long time. I am thinking of jobs where it is important that the service consumer feel that the provider has had the kinds of experiences that allow the consumer to feel understoody. Jobs where we want to talk to people who have been children, had relationships, struggled to make a living and balance budgets, been healthy and sick, had children, pets, friends, learned that things they thought were true were not, and vice versa. I know have posited a world in which that robots will do better than humans in those contexts, but I suspect that we will prefer to deal with humans anyway.

Like
Reply
David Holt

"Good writing is good thinking."

9y

Thoughtful post. Guaranteeing education brings me back to the education/power divide and Peter Drucker's comment in the 1960s that in the future there will be a large underclass of poorly paid service workers; therefore government should provide parks, sports, education etc to families so the children do not miss out. They are the future. Also, Buckminster Fuller's comment in the 1970s that for the first time in world history there is the capacity to feed the world relatively affordably. Odd how now we have a lot of processed junk foods and enormous food waste as well. Below these complex business and economic issues lie even deeper social and political ones. It is amazing how well the documents of the US Founding Fathers have held up, but with population growth, geographic mobility, the Net and digital and other technologies, our minds and bodies that evolved over eons are not adjusting as quickly. As both Deepak Chopra and Jeremy Rifkin have said, the biggest issue of our age is to suppress the fight or flight reflex that tends to see others as competitors; and, I would add, to see tricky issues as "problems" with narrowly defined "solutions," versus opportunities for new creative work driven by simple curiosity. This quirky mindset is what really changes the world. Re the information pill, search engines do that too. Re Vonnegut, his perspective was influenced by the firebombing of Dresden.

Like
Reply

As you said, this side of the conversation has been going on for some time. The other side - how humans and their governments will respond - needs further development. See: "Player Piano" - a dystopian scenario developed in 1952 by Kurt Vonnegut.

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics