The Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future
Not sci fi as such, or a critique of a Stranglers tune, but a studied analysis of how robots will be taking over all jobs in the not too distant future and indeed may take over completely if artificial intelligence and / or nanotech goes out of control. Robots aren't just your Woody Allen Sleeper types but include advances in the computer brains running a lot of our world such as air flights, stock markets and winning chess games and Jeopardy. Whilst a very readable book it did go into more detail than strictly necessary to put over the point for my liking. There again the amount of detail tells a compelling story for sceptics. The examples are very US and UK biased but I think it was originally written with US examples and then added many from the UK. The bottom line is that technology is advancing and unless we (i.e. everyone globally) does something to slow it down it will replace nearly all jobs. And the human race won't "do something" globally. After all the Luddites and Levellers are ridiculed rather than applauded. I'm not sure I agree with all his statements. Saying that no one can say there's anything wrong with electricity is ignoring the production and how it's affected those near nuclear plants that have leaked and coal fired plants that have brought massive pollution often thousands of miles from where they are sited (do we ever hear of acid rain these days?) Ford dips in and out of economics and politics in his analysis. As robots take over then those who own and run them (i.e. corporates) will reap the rewards and most of us will find ourselves without work. Ford implies that there should be ways to redistribute income and / or wealth as this occurs. He talks a lot of off shoring as a sign of things to come (off shore, then automate) and although this is a topic all of itself this is about wealth redistribution, or at least job and income redistribution even if absolute income is less, and whilst his point that if a job can be off shored the next step is likely to be automation the economic and political analysis is very different between the two.
Having given many examples of where capital wealth is making the rich richer and the rest of society poorer, and many examples of why robots will take over more and more jobs with the rewards going to the owners of them (i.e. the owners of capital), Ford paints a fairly depressing picture for the future. And that's ignoring the possibility that robots will take over everything themselves in a sci fi scenario. The book ends with an analysis of the economics of the future. His remedy is to have some sort of minimum income for everyone that the wealthy will presumably be happy to fund as they can only spend so much on consumer goods (how many smart phones can one person have). This ignores the reality that as society gets more wealthy and produces more (for the time let's ignore whether that has been a slippery slope into the environmental problems we are facing) the equality within society has decreased and is doing so ever faster. We have more wealth and consumption now than ever yet across the globe the mantra is the free market and for those who own capital to keep everything they earn (again, let's ignore whether they "earn" it - they end up getting it) and there is little indication that they are prepared to close the inequality gap. Indeed there is more and more pressure to increase this. Following the financial crisis in 2008 governments have poured billions into propping up the financial sector (taxpayers money) whilst at the same time slashing benefits and government spending which invariable assists those less well off. Bankers get even more money now than they did whilst those at the lower end of the wealth pyramid are pushed further into the mire. Taxpayers have to subsidise businesses more and more so that they can give us zero hour contract jobs. Not much sign of those in power wanting to close the inequality gap Ford. The economic arguments are all within the context of liberal free market capitalism with a certain amount of state aid. Whilst this would help alleviate poverty in the short term (a big "if" as to whether this would even happen) it's not going to address the problem. There is also an assumption that we have to have economic growth. There is no analysis of other economic systems. Let's say, moving the means of production out of the hands of a few (indeed fewer and fewer) corporates and into the hands of the proletariat. I guess that sounds too radical if it's put in terms of those who own capital (capitalists) and those who own their labour (workers)? And that's one of the conclusions of the book. That those who are currently thought of as middle class professionals (not currently thought of as "workers" as they earn a lot of money, but in fact don't own working capital and make their income through selling their labour) will be hit hard by automation and their wages will fall rapidly if they are lucky to be working. Maybe a dip into Marxist theory will tell us the likely outcome of capital vs labour. And the societal outcome once crisis point is reached. There is also no analysis of alternatives to growth. Let's say, growing what we need to eat sustainably and restricting consumption to what we really need rather than being lured into over consumption to feed the greed of capital(ists). To be honest Ford is tracking the inevitable conclusion of free market capitalism regardless of whether robots are taking over or not. They may well accelerate us to a crisis point which a lot of economic political theory suggests we'd get to eventually even without technology advances. An unsatisfactory conclusion and feels rushed especially given the detail and varied analysis of the rest of the book.
All this assumes that one scenario doesn't occur. This is that nano robots don't deconstruct everything into it's component molecules and atoms and reduce the whole world to a "grey goo". I guess that would bring some sort of equality although in that case we may feel that relative inequality is better than absolute equality.
No comments:
Post a Comment