| | | Everything I've read on this issue seems to overlook a key point. It's not about jobs. It's about responsibility. Robots can do jobs, but they can't take responsibility. No matter the number of years into the future, the evolutionary process of technological change will be mapped and guided by human choices, human planning and execution, and humans being responsible to humans for the outcome.
The disconnect with our perception of the role of humanity, which is and has been the bugaboo of civilization since the first carpenter invented a hammer, in this utopian or dystopian divination is that participation requires education, and those unwilling to be educated become disenfranchised. By extension, the higher the educational requirement, the greater the percentage of disenfranchised population. On top of that, just as not everyone can manage the responsibility of being a doctor, there will be many people for whom the responsibility of the human role in a robot economy will simply be too great.
But, as far as the effect of robot automation on the living standards of populations is concerned, standard principals of economics apply. If there are few incomes to spend, there will be no demand for the products of automation, and automation depends heavily on economies of scale. So, the model is only sustainable if the populations are either employed or are included in the flow of riches through income redistribution systems.
I'll leave the details of how that might be structured for someone else to ponder. |
|
