{"id":6776,"date":"2016-12-12T14:54:22","date_gmt":"2016-12-12T14:54:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/?p=6776"},"modified":"2016-12-12T14:55:04","modified_gmt":"2016-12-12T14:55:04","slug":"good-news-not-telling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/blog\/2016\/12\/good-news-not-telling\/","title":{"rendered":"The Good News They’re Not Telling You – Article by Thomas E. Woods, Jr."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"The<\/a>Thomas E. Woods, Jr.<\/span>
\n<\/big><\/big><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
******************************<\/div>\n
\n
\n

As we look at things that impress us technologically we also have a certain trepidation, because we\u2019re told that robots are going to take our jobs. \u201cYes, the internet is wonderful,\u201d we may say, \u201cbut robots, I don\u2019t want those.\u201d<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t mean to make light of this because robots are going to take a lot of jobs. They\u2019re going to take a lot of blue collar jobs, and they\u2019re going to take a lot of white collar jobs you don\u2019t think they can take. Already there are robots that can dispense pills at pharmacies. That\u2019s being done in California. They have not made one mistake. You can\u2019t say that about human pharmacists, who are now free to be up front talking to you while the robot fills the prescription.<\/p>\n

Much of this is discussed by author Kevin Kelly in his new book The Inevitable<\/em>, with the subtitle Understanding the 12 Technological Forces that Will Shape Our Future<\/em>. It\u2019s incredible what robots can do and what they will be able to do.<\/p>\n

Automation Really Is Taking Our Jobs<\/strong><\/p>\n

To me, just the fact that one of Google\u2019s newest computers can caption a photo perfectly \u2014 it can figure out what\u2019s happening in the photo and give a perfect caption \u2014 is amazing. Just when you think \u201ca machine can\u2019t do my<\/em> job,\u201d maybe it can.<\/p>\n

What kind of world is this we\u2019re moving into? I understand the fear about that. But, at the same time, let\u2019s think, first of all, about what happened in the past.<\/p>\n

In the past, most people worked on farms, and automation took away 99 percent of those jobs. Literally 99 percent. They\u2019re gone. People wound up with brand new jobs they could never have anticipated. And in pursuing those jobs we might even argue that we became more human. Because we diversified. Because we found a niche for ourselves that was unique to us. Automation is going to make it possible for human beings to do work that is more fulfilling.<\/p>\n

How is that? Well, first let\u2019s think about the kinds of jobs that automation and robots do that we couldn\u2019t do even if we tried. Making computer chips, there\u2019s no one in this room who could do that. We don\u2019t have the precision and the control to do that. We can\u2019t inspect every square millimeter of a CAT scan to look for cancer cells. These are all points Kevin Kelly is trying to make to us. We can\u2019t inflate molten glass into the shape of a bottle.<\/p>\n

So, there are many tasks that are done by robots, through automation that are tasks we physically could not do at all, and would not get done otherwise.<\/p>\n

Automation Creates Luxuries We Didn\u2019t Know Were Possible<\/strong><\/p>\n

But also automation creates jobs we didn\u2019t even know we wanted done. Kelly gives this example:<\/p>\n

\n

Before we invented automobiles, air-conditioning, flat-screen video displays, and animated cartoons, no one living in ancient Rome wished they could watch pictures move while riding to Athens in climate-controlled comfort. … When robots and automation do our most basic work, making it relatively easy for us to be fed, clothed, and sheltered, then we are free to ask, \u201cWhat are humans for?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Kelly continues:<\/p>\n

\n

Industrialization did more than just extend the average human lifespan. It led a greater percentage of the population to decide that humans were meant to be ballerinas, full-time musicians, mathematicians, athletes, fashion designers, yoga masters, fan-fiction authors, and folks with one-of-a kind titles on their business cards.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The same is true of automation today. We will look back and be ashamed that human beings ever had to do some of the jobs they do today.<\/p>\n

Turning Instead to Art, Science, and More<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now here\u2019s something controversial. Kelly observes that there\u2019s a sense in which we want jobs in which productivity is not the most important thing. When we think about productivity and efficiency, robots have that all over us. When it comes to \u201cwho can do this thing faster,\u201d they can do it faster. So let them do jobs like that. It\u2019s just a matter of \u2014 so to speak \u2014 robotically doing the same thing over and over again as fast as possible. We can\u2019t compete there. Why bother?<\/p>\n

Where can we compete? Well, we can compete in all the areas that are gloriously inefficient. Science is gloriously inefficient because of all the failures that are involved along the way. The same is true with innovation. The same is true of any kind of art. It is grotesquely inefficient from the point of view of the running of a pin factory. Being creative is inefficient because you go down a lot of dead ends. Healthcare and nursing: these things revolve around relationships and human experiences. They are not about efficiency.<\/p>\n

So, let efficiency go to the robots. We\u2019ll take the things that aren\u2019t so focused on efficiency and productivity, where we excel, and we\u2019ll focus on relationships, creativity, human contact, things that make us human. We focus on those things.<\/p>\n

Automation Really Does Make Us Richer<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, with extraordinary efficiency comes fantastic abundance. And with fantastic abundance comes greater purchasing power, because of the pushing down of prices through competition. So even if we earn less in nominal terms, our paychecks will stretch much further. That\u2019s how people became wealthy during and after the Industrial Revolution. It was that we could suddenly produce so many more goods that competitive pressures put downward pressure on prices. That will continue to be the case. So, even if I have a job that pays me relatively little \u2014 in terms of how many of the incredibly abundant goods I\u2019ll be able to acquire \u2014 it will be a salary the likes of which I can hardly imagine.<\/p>\n

Now, I can anticipate an objection. This is an objection I\u2019ll hear from leftists and also from some traditionalist conservatives. They\u2019ll sniff that consumption and greater material abundance don\u2019t improve us spiritually<\/em>; they are actually impoverishing for us.<\/p>\n

Well, for one thing, there\u2019s actually much more materialism under socialism<\/em>. When you\u2019re barely scraping enough together to survive, you are obsessed with material things. But, second, let\u2019s consider what we have been allowed to do by these forces. First, by industrialization alone. I\u2019ve shared this before, but on my show I had Deirdre McCloskey once and she pointed out that in Burgundy, as recently as the 1840s, the men who worked the vineyards \u2014 after the crop was in, in the fall \u2014 they would go to bed and they would sleep huddled together, and they basically hibernated like that for months because they couldn\u2019t afford the heat otherwise, or the food they would need to eat if they were expending energy by walking around. Now that is unhuman. And they don\u2019t have to live that way anymore because they have these \u201cterrible material things that are impoverishing them spiritually.\u201d<\/p>\n

The world average in terms of daily income has gone from $3 a day a couple hundred years ago to $33 a day. And, in the advanced countries, to $100 a day.
\nYes, true, people can fritter that away on frivolous things, but there will always be frivolous people.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, we have the leisure to do things like participate in an American Kennel Club show, or go to an antiques show, or a square-dancing convention, or be a bird watcher, or host a book club in your home. These are things that would have been unthinkable to anyone just a few hundred years ago.<\/p>\n

The material liberation has liberated our spirits and has allowed us to live more fulfilling lives than before. So, I don\u2019t want to hear the \u201cmoney can\u2019t give you happiness\u201d thing. If this<\/em> doesn\u2019t make you happy \u2014 that people are free to do these things and pursue things they love \u2014 then there ain\u2019t no satisfying you.<\/p>\n

Tom Woods, a senior fellow of the Mises Institute, is the author of a dozen books, most recently <\/em>Real Dissent: A Libertarian Sets Fire to the Index Card of Allowable Opinion<\/a>. Tom’s articles have appeared in dozens of popular and scholarly periodicals, and his books have been translated into a dozen languages. Tom hosts the Tom Woods Show<\/a>, a libertarian podcast that releases a new episode every weekday. With Bob Murphy, he co-hosts Contra Krugman<\/a>, a weekly podcast that refutes Paul Krugman’s <\/em>New York Times column.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

This article was published on Mises.org<\/a> and may be freely distributed, subject to a Creative Commons Attribution United States License<\/a>, which requires that credit be given to the author.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. ****************************** As we look at things that impress us technologically we also have a certain trepidation, because we\u2019re told that robots are going to take our jobs. \u201cYes, the internet is wonderful,\u201d we may say, \u201cbut robots, I don\u2019t want those.\u201d I don\u2019t mean to make light of this because robots are going to take a lot of jobs. They\u2019re going to take a lot of blue collar jobs, and they\u2019re going to take a lot…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,356,104],"tags":[530,1314,815,4492,314,836,5023,5025,1316,810,95,2812,5022,5024,384],"class_list":["post-6776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","category-technology-2","category-transhumanism","tag-abundance","tag-automation","tag-employment","tag-free-time","tag-future","tag-jobs","tag-jr","tag-kevin-kelly","tag-leisure","tag-production","tag-progress","tag-robots","tag-thomas-e-woods","tag-tom-woods","tag-wealth"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6776","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6776"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6776\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6780,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6776\/revisions\/6780"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}