An economic factor not discussed enough these days is the issue of technological unemployment. Automation in the workforce eliminates jobs faster than it creates them. Advancements in travel and communications have led to outsourcing and importing many of our goods. In the next 15 years with the advent of nanotechnology, the manufacturing process will shift to the next level of efficiency, where labor for products will become unnecessary all together.
Expanding on the topic of cyclical consumption discussed in the waste article, it is important to note that the economy relies on a population of working consumers. An employer pays their employee a wage, where the employee and often the employer then become consumers. Consumers use their wages for goods and services and thus the cycle continues. We work for money to drive the consumption cycle. Though if automation causes downsizing, then fewer wages are earned, and fewer products are in turn consumed. The consumption cycle is reversed, as more consumers are laid off, spending less and less.
The service industry cannot support enough job creation or innovation to offset the job loss from the manufacturing and sales of goods. The patchwork attempted by economists, financial advisers, and the governments they advise will never be able to prevent the inherent boom and busts of the money supply and related job supply in a free market monetary system.
Less than 1% of the U.S.’s population are farmers. Never before in history have the masses been fed by so few. Less than 0.1% of the world’s population are scientists and engineers. This tiny slice of the pie has been responsible for virtually all of the world’s advancements and real growth. The rest of us depend on job creation based upon these few innovators. The trickle down effect is running dry, as automation and outsourcing continue to soak up the benefits.
What if we embraced technology for all it was intended, and approached a redesign of society using the scientific method? The ideals of this new society (The Venus Project) would include using technology to better our lives as humans, freeing us from pointless labor and associated services. Recognizing our connection with our environment and each other, we must design for the carrying capacity of our planet. Once we survey the planet for its resources, and build management systems with linked data of all human knowledge, we can start to implement automated machines to build and repair themselves into various systems.
With alternate growing techniques like hydroponics, communities could grow their entire food supply locally in greenhouses, skyscrapers etc., reducing transportation and distribution time and energy consumption. Such hydroponic farms could be automated and managed with computer systems so that the human involvement is virtually eliminated. Using these advanced farming techniques would guarantee an abundant, diverse food supply for the entire world, tapping down to the water table in areas with inadequate irrigation options. Any imports necessary would be limited, and the supply that is produced locally would be managed with the changing needs of the community/city, maintaining fresh product. This is how we could use technology in agriculture to free humans from labor, improve the quality of food we eat, and give nourishment to those starving all over the world. With the science of nanotechnology, we will one day be able to molecularly create our food, including protein, meat, fish etc.
The arguments made against technological unemployment are outdated. Such arguments imply that labor displaced by a machine, would be offset by job creation in making the machines and servicing them. This argument assumes that machines themselves aren’t producing the job eliminating machines. The amount of service technicians required to support the new techology, would not offset the amount of labor accomplished by the new technology, and would continue to diminish as machines become further integrated with computers to repair themselves.
We cannot ignore this stress on our old socio/economic framework.
No comments:
Post a Comment