Since the dawn of time, humans have made vast technological advancements with the seemingly same goal in mind for each: make life easier. The spear was invented to hunt, the wheel was invented to transport, clay was used to build, and as time progresses so do technological expanses. Why make life harder than it has to be?  It seems that once humans achieve a new innovation, the only way to go is forward, the simple raft becomes a large ship, the spear becomes a bow which becomes a gun, and wheels lead to a horse carriage which becomes an automobile. One innovation leads into another, and the process the technology performs becomes a lot easier. Even in the past there were technologies that performed their roles so well, they severely cut the need for human input, or removed humans from the task completely. These technologies automated tasks, performing human tasks at a faster and more efficient rate. No longer was there a need for scribes to manually write books when the printing press could make multiple copies.  Farmhands are no longer required when tractors and equipment can do the work faster and in larger loads. When equipment can automatically perform tasks with no input from humans, automation occurs.  There is no longer a need for a human when machines can perform tasks both faster and more efficiently. Life becomes simpler, but at what cost? What about those humans who are replaced by technology? Perhaps in the past it would be simpler just to retrain in a new field and grab a new job, but now with costs of education being so high and the increasing societal importance of having and maintaining a job, is that path possible? In this paper I will examine sources and articles that hold both positive and negative stances against automation, showing diverse reactions to a growing topic. I ultimately believe automation will be beneficial for society, but my goal is for you, the reader, to be aware and understand a process that is rapidly happening so that you might take your own side on the matter. 

Worried about technology taking over the workforce? Well if you are, you can take comfort in knowing you are not alone, in fact, being against automation has been a strong idea since the 19th century. Being against automatic machinery during the British industrial revolution would earn you the title label “Luddite”. Though the label is associated with both ideas, being a Luddite does not mean you are anti-technology, instead being a Luddite means that someone is against technology that threatens jobs performed by humans. And though the original Luddite skirmishes ended in 1816, the term Luddite and the Luddite philosophy has lived on to today. And though understandable in its beliefs, the Luddite philosophy is flawed. A crucial Luddite flaw is the “Lump of Labor” fallacy. The lump of labor fallacy basically claims that “there is a finite amount of work to go around,” and that, “the more work is accomplished by machines, the less work is to be done by humans” (Lehman, 267). This logic is flawed because often times advancements in technology leads to the creations of/increased demands of human jobs. IBM Watson, after creating a partnership with the Cleveland Clinic, increased a demand for Doctors who could work with the supercomputer as Watson increased accuracy and speeds of treatments (Jones). But even if the “Lump of Labor” fallacy were to come to fruition, there are other solutions. Subjectively, having machines performing human tasks could be an extremely valued luxury.  Tom Lehman notes that, “Individuals or households might employ their machines to produce for them, which would allow these individuals or households to experience much greater leisure time and enjoy pursuits beyond direct labor” (268). Employing machines? Wouldn’t that be too expensive? Well, Lehman correlates the buying of machines to the buying of smart phones, computers, GPS devices, and 3D printers, all of which have had prices fall to the point that they are increasing in accessibility of the middle class, in comparison to how much they cost in the 1990s and early 2000s. However nothing is assured, including the costs for automatic machinery.  With that counter in mind, automation opponents have other criticisms, the biggest of which being technological unemployment.

The tricky point when it comes to automation is what the future holds. A lot of claims and ideas revolving around automation bank on an extreme belief that at some point in the future machines will take over every job in the world. There are those like economics professor Tom Lehman, whose key point is to subjectively view technological unemployment as a great process for humanity, as then we could no longer worry about working tedious jobs for long hours and a wage perhaps not worth it. And then there are those like Gary Merchant, Yvonne Sands, and James Hennessy, who believe that unemployment due to automation will bring forth a wave of unemployment and economic catastrophes. The key fear is, “If a significant (and growing) proportion of the working class population is unable to find adequate work to sustain themselves with a reasonable lifestyle… the unemployed cannot actively participate as consumers of products” (29).  Interestingly another subjective view is presented which in contrast to being happy about machinery performing jobs, is that being unemployed, even if financially compensated, would bring forth many psychological ailments to those without jobs. The negative effects, which include “depression, anxiety, poor self-esteem, divorce, substance abuse… suicide and mortality,” (29) are believed to have a heightened chance of happening due to being unemployed. A quote from famous writer Dorothy Sayers is brought up that, “Unemployment, even if compensated is demoralizing, degrading and dehumanizing… we need to consider work… ‘Not, primarily, a thing one does to live, but the thing one lives to do’” (29). It’s a clash of stances that vary on what an afflicted person might feel. Would being unemployed by technology while still being compensated please those affected or hurt them? Lehman would like to believe that those unemployed would be happy, while Merchant, Sands, and Hennessy would like to believe the notion that people unemployed would face mental and physical trauma over it. There is no saying exactly how society would feel in the predicament, perhaps both beliefs would occur among members. It could be a case where older working class adults would have a hard time getting over being unemployed versus the younger teenagers, but ultimately there is no guaranteed reaction to being technologically unemployed. But put emotions aside, how can one protect themselves from being unemployed?

Automation opponents, obviously, do not want their jobs to be taken by machines. What can be done to prevent being replaced by machines? The same article by Merchant, Sands, and Hennessy examine possible solutions, some being more plausible than others. The first way to combat automation would be, “Limits on Technological Development” (31). I would consider this as the weakest counter to automation to be made, and to be fair, so do the authors. Enacting laws that limit the advancement of technology in turn hinder the advancement of the human species, while also frustrating innovators and the public as such technological innovations could not be achieved or utilized. “Mandating Human Workers” (31) is another possible solution to technological unemployment. The problem with mandating humans is that again innovation is stalled, and certain jobs that could be performed much more efficiently and quickly with technology would be stalled by human workers. Maybe the key lies in preventative strategies, striking at automation before it can affect the masses. Business CEO Tyger Tyagarajan believes that certain preventative measures could be taken to hinder automation before it reaches a global scale. The first action to consider is to, “Stop neglecting math and science,” as, “… we’ll need to make STEM fun for students by investing in hands-on, creative educational initiatives that will instill a lifelong interest in these fields” (Tyagarajan). The point being that a refocus on science, technology, engineering and math fields will provide students the skills needed to acquire jobs that work along machines, like programming and mechanical engineering. Another point Tyagarajan believes needs an increased focus is the retraining of those displaced by machines. The creation of programs that drive the teaching of new skills could make the difference for those who find themselves discouraged against technology. The pro-automation view is less about how to combat automation, and more about what can be done living within a society ran by machines.

When it comes to life with machines, automation proponents and opponents share a lot of beliefs, just in different contexts. A key belief found both in Michael Jones pro-automation article and Tyagarajans automation combating article both state the importance of reforming the education system to help get those skills to get a job. One proponent for automation, Ireland University Professor John Danaher, believes basic universal income could rest a lot of fears that comes with technological unemployment (6). Universal income would be a source of money provided by the government to every citizen in the country. When everyone has the opportunity to receive enough to survive, there’s an elimination of the core anti-automation fear that is the lack of income from not having a job. Once that fear is conquered then will it be a lot easier for those who are unemployed to seek out educational/retooling programs in an attempt to reintegrate into the workforces that are available. The biggest obstacle that the universal income concept faces is the possible reluctance to partake in such an undertaking. Especially in the United States, the idea could be negatively labeled as socialistic/communistic and because of that label might not ever come to fruition. And with no compensation available, mass automation will face a much larger opposition force. Before heading into my beliefs, looking at an automation movements in the past could alert us to how to handle this automation in the current times.

Dealing with an automation problem is nothing America isn’t used to. The Great Depression was a time period that saw an advancement in machines that could not have happened at a worse time. Unemployment rates grew rapidly, and as thousands were left without a job people soon took notice to these new machines which were seemingly taking over the small amount of available jobs. Similar to the idea in Merchants article, a “techno tax” was proposed that would tax businesses that used machines instead of workers (Amy Bix, 76). The fear over these technologies grew from 1929 to about 1940, when events took a different turn. World War II brought jobs back to citizens of the United States. Technological advancement grew rapidly during this time as new war time technologies were developed and manufactured (Amy Bix 236). An important take away from this period was that there was no total societal collapse. At the time when technological progress made its peak, jobs returned and a multitude of new occupations were created from these new technologies invented, followed by the cultural explosion of the 50s. If learning from history prepares us for the future, maybe the expansion of jobs from technology during that period will follow suit in today’s society. Historical context helps in understanding what can be done about the present, and after pro-automation and anti-automation points are presented, I will now present my own reasons for defending automation.

Let’s face it, humans are by no needs perfect. Everybody makes mistakes, as mistake making is a part of life. Issues arise however when mistakes start costing lives. And a strong reason for automation is the prevention of life loss. Look at doctors, people depend on doctors with their lives. While doctors try their best and do wonderful jobs, medical accidents might be the third highest cause of death in the United States, with a possible death count of 25,454 people a year (Christensen). Medical accidents can range from include accidental mortal wounds from surgery, to simple errors like sloppy handwriting on prescriptions which lead to people receiving the wrong medication. Doctors are also flawed from their own limited memory, not every doctor is going to know how to remedy every ailment as it is just a limit to the human mind. Super computers like Watson don’t have to worry about forgetting ailment treatments, as any piece of medical information can be drawn from the limitless database that is the internet. In fact, Watson was designed with medical assistance in mind (CGP Grey). There are surgery machines that can perform operations successfully, performing precise movements without other human faults like stress, anxiety, and accidental injuries (CGP Grey). And lastly, there is the argument for self-driving cars. Simply put, self-driving cars allow drivers to safely perform an action that has taken the lives of so many: operating a vehicle while being drunk. A car operating by itself eliminates the risk of running into another vehicle or person. Lastly, in another field, lawyers are turning to artificial intelligences do relay case reports that would manually take a human lawyer days to research and gather information, leading to more accurate and fair trial verdicts (Steve Lohr). And the kicker is, machines don’t have to be perfect, they just have to be better than how humans already are. Things don’t have to be hard in life, and automatic technology removes a lot of difficulties, if we fear the change and resist automation, we limit ourselves. 

I understand where the opposition comes from. Where society is now, unemployment is a scary thing. If the proper steps were taken to protect those replaced by technology, unemployment would not have the harsh stigma there is today. If things ever get to the point where a majority of Americans are replaced by machines, there WOULD be steps implemented to protect that majority of people, there’s just no telling what would be implemented because as it stands now it doesn’t appear to be a huge concern. Universal income would by far be the best step to ease feelings about being unemployed, but it also the most uncertain option, as there is just no guarantee such a controversial economic option would be implemented. Honestly if universal income was implemented I wouldn’t be upset if I were replaced in my field, I could use the funds to refocus on another field. The opposition argues that more jobs are going to be replaced by machines than those generated by those machines (Dan Shewan), I agree with this point, there are just too many trivial jobs that machines can do for free and around the clock. However the chances we can provide for those unemployed could have a workforce focused on science, engineering, or even possibly robot owners who can monetize off their products, completely disregarding the reason for being unemployed in the first place, while providing a way back in to the workforce.  And like the past has proven time and time again, a growth in technology has never ended up in complete and total unemployment for humans, leaving humans to enjoy having jobs while reaping the rewards of the new technology developed.

So here we are, a society that is slowly growing more aware to the automation process. In many cases it’s embraced, just look at a smartphone which automates hundreds of tasks, and in the cases of machines taking jobs, its feared. Regardless automation is not yet at a point where there is a level of mass concern, and hopefully like in the past, it’ll never reach those levels. Automation hopefully will remain at the level it is at now, providing luxuries for humans while knocking out the trivial stuff. But regardless of where you stand, it’s happening, and seeing that the increases are inevitable, why not enjoy the ride and where it takes us as a species?
