21st Century Technological Change

[Furrowed Brow]

We stand at the cusp of a new era of technology with robots and AI. Planes can already fly and land themselves quite safely. Trains and trams can be easily automated. Driverless trucks, busses and cars are now being tested. Whilst not quite there yet it it obvious robots will soon be ready to take over nearly every job that could be done by a human. Here are a couple of videos that give a taste of things to come. 1.Robot arms prepare meal, 2.Backflipping robot, 3.Robot surgery

The luddites feared industrialisation would destroy jobs. However the Luddites were proved wrong whilst the number of jobs lost to new machines was surpassed by new jobs created. But some commentators are warning that technology is advancing at such a rapid rate we are reaching a tipping point where jobs created will not keep up with jobs lost. Whilst technology may be the driver of change it is economics that mediates how that change is realised. And whilst things can go many ways it is the economics tempered by political backlash that will eventually decide how this period of history unfolds. Maybe we will end up with a Star Trek future but I fear we will see The Hunger Games first.

The question comes in two parts. The first is to ask how good or bad are things going to get. So are we heading towards a dystopia or utopia or somewhere in between? The second part is to ask what role does religion have to play in the kinds of social change we will likely see over the next 50 years. So what role will religion play in helping or hindering people to negotiate technological change, job loss, the redefining of our roles in the work place, and the new kinds of societies that emerge? What answers does religion offer in the face of profound economic and social change?

[Divine Insight]

The question comes in two parts. The first is to ask how good or bad are things going to get. So are we heading towards a dystopia or utopia or somewhere in between?

For me the solution is obvious and simple. However, it's highly unlikely to be implemented.

The simple solution is to have the people own the automated robotic factories. And then the money made by the robots gets paid to the people. These automated factories then become the source of "welfare" checks.

However, that's not likely to happen. Instead the filthy rich people will greedily maintain ownership of the factories and wallow in outrageous profits whilst the masses suffer in poverty.

So unless we move from a mindset of capitalism to mindset of socialism we're doomed.

The second part is to ask what role does religion have to play in the kinds of social change we will likely see over the next 50 years. So what role will religion play in helping or hindering people to negotiate technological change, job loss, the redefining of our roles in the work place, and the new kinds of societies that emerge? What answers does religion offer in the face of profound economic and social change?

I don't see how religion can help with this problem unless the religious leaders also recognize that we need to move from capitalism to socialism and start preaching this to their congregations.

However, that's not likely to happen either.

So our economy will most likely fall to the greed of capitalism. And we will see an economic collapse where the system will simply fail to work at all as an economic system.

[Furrowed Brow]

The simple solution is to have the people own the automated robotic factories. And then the money made by the robots gets paid to the people. These automated factories then become the source of "welfare" checks.

However, that's not likely to happen. Instead the filthy rich people will greedily maintain ownership of the factories and wallow in outrageous profits whilst the masses suffer in poverty.

To begin with I think your cynicism will be shown to be right. There will be little inclination for fundamental structural change. There will be experiments that attempt to militate against the trend but nothing done will be make a fundamental difference to how wealth is distributed. And where new ideas are tried there will be a propaganda backlash from those quarters of wealth and power too heavily invested in the old status quo. Expect a fierce reaction.

As technology makes human labour increasingly obsolete and wages head towards zero the system is more likely to burn up than good sense winning out. However declining standard of living of the many is an economic stress that will eventually force political change - for the better or worse.

So I don't buy the idea that innovation will save the capitalist model. It has had a good run and to this point capitalism has proved tenacious and adaptable, but everything has a sell by date. Whilst it is true the decline could take decades or longer and it will be patchy and uneven, the drive to reduce the cost of labour to zero will win out over the capacity to innovate new markets (at least that is my sense of it).

I also think we can expect more and ongoing wars as the power-that-be deflect from the fundamental structural problems whilst also stealing resources.

So unless we move from a mindset of capitalism to mindset of socialism we're doomed.

Sadly I suspect the unemployed and underemployed will be in for a hard time and it is more likely they (we) will be demonised and the political atmosphere will become increasingly authoritarian and fractious. I guess a dystopian future looks more likely to me.

But I also see the elite classes increasingly in turmoil as wealth based on the consumer society erodes. Those with land and control of resources and security will remain protected. The billionaire who can buy their own islands will be best insulated. But we will see fortunes lost. Especially fortunes maintained from mass markets that increasingly no longer exist. At some point the penny may drop or there is a revolution and some form of communal society emerges but suspect blood will be spilt before we reach that point (if we reach that point).

I think those able to form smaller local self supporting communities sharing skills and knowledge and maybe taking advantage of common land, local markets, co-operatives, 3D printing technologies and able to generate local economies based on favours and obligations will do better. (This might looks something like the economy of a medieval village with a modern technological twist - you service my car I'll 3D print you a new pair of shoes). So maybe look out for smaller cities and towns that ban or limit Wal-mart, Amazon deliveries and other corporate brands - or regions where the mega brands begin to fail and pull out. So the places that do better will be those where you can obtain a pair of shoes and shirt made locally and eat food grown a few mile away.

Also the largest part of the planet that has remained agriculture and that lives a peasant lifestyle may see little difference to their lives.

I don't see how religion can help with this problem unless the religious leaders also recognize that we need to move from capitalism to socialism and start preaching this to their congregations.

I suspect those religions that particularly emphasis community will do better than most. An economic collapse due to the take over of technology will likely be felt less by the Amish community for example. The Mormons and similar groups will also likely be better placed. The present Pope also seems to be something of a Marxist and we may be surprised by the response of some religious institutions. On the bright side if the consumer society is swept away by the trend to zero wages and old style capitalistic economic activity is replaced by the return of an even older one based on favour and obligation we will likely see the demise of prosperity theology.

[Furrowed Brow]

I found this video of a debate which I think is helpful.
[youtube][/youtube]I still tend towards the negative assessment. Whilst there will be innovation and new kinds of jobs these will be overwhelmed by the "machine learning revolution" described by the first speaker @4:40. The second speaker talks about Apple iPhone apps creating six hundred thousand jobs - a new market for jobs that did not use to exist. This is true and there will be niche markets and pockets of innovation - but not enough to absorb the large populations not equipped to code or sufficiently imaginative or adept to take advantage of new niche areas. It is likely those with talent and imagination will do well - but not everyone can be that talented - and AI will soon adapt to and learn the new innovations leaving ever smaller windows of opportunity. For instance - I'm expecting those jobs so far created developing iPhone apps to soon dwindle as their role is replaced by AI. I think the arrival of AI will inevitably mean the pace of job obsoletion speeds up. Imagine a bunch of talented young people able to piggy back on the opportunities afforded by new technology. They use their talent to create a new market that has not previously existed. This market developed through application of skill and imagination. Let's say they invent new apps to run on housemaid robots or they develop [just fill in the gap with..........]. To keep their jobs these developers have to stay one step ahead of AI replacing them. They have to recognise problems that need a solution before AI can see the problem. They have to make leaps pf the imagination before AI can make those same kinds of leaps. The point is that the talented will probably be able to stay in front of AI for many years to come but the gap between AI and the talented will reduce leaving less room for talented humans to exploit. And as that race hots up the vast number of the populace will not be able to outpace AI.

Here's another thought experiment - imagine a robot able to play the violin so well an audience could not tell the difference between the robot and a highly talented concert violinist. What would be the impact on professional violinists? To continue having a job as a concert violinist would mean maintaining incredible levels of stress by trying to outpace a robot that will not stop improving. It would mean keeping your job because some people like to listen to humans for ideological reasons or out of snobbery. But when robots can play music that well - high quality live music would become available everywhere - so a good thing - but the number of humans needed to provide that live music would be zero.

I think the arguments against a robot takeover are practical arguments. That the threat is over hyped. But I no longer take those kinds of doubts seriously. The robots really are coming. As the first speaker in the video from silicon valley warns the audience ...the days of an affluent middle class paid for their expertise are numbered.

The machine learning revolution is going to ask question of people and society we have not met before which brings be back to think about the role of religion. As I think the next fifty years are going to be economically bruising for several reason of which AI is just one. But the machine learning revolution is going to redefine the economic role of people. As a result increasing numbers of people will suffer all sorts of anxieties. And here is a role for humans. Be they counsellors or pastors people are going to need people as listening posts and for guidance to cope with the machines. Unless of course AI becomes more skilled at understanding human psychological needs better.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by Furrowed Brow]

Part 1) For the masses, lots of mass produced tat to keep them happy. For the wealthy elite, artisan quality, hand-crafted goods to keep them happy.

Part 2) Neither of which have anything to do with the meaning of life.

It will be like the Edwardian era, but with more stuff, and without the theological, philosophical and social certainties.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Furrowed Brow]

[Replying to post 1 by Furrowed Brow]

Part 1) For the masses, lots of mass produced tat to keep them happy. For the wealthy elite, artisan quality, hand-crafted goods to keep them happy.

Part 2) Neither of which have anything to do with the meaning of life.

It will be like the Edwardian era, but with more stuff, and without the theological, philosophical and social certainties.

Best wishes, 2RM

It looks like we tend to agree I think. I suspect there will be room for theology and philosophy but it will be niche not dominant trends. These things will not define the age like say the enlightenment defined the 18th century. Maybe I am a bit more jaundiced about the future than you but maybe that is because I've seen too many dystopian movies - with Terminator at the top of the list.

[bluethread]

This tread appears to be leaning toward the Ludite trend. It is important to note that the Ludite opposed free markets and called for more regulation. I also submit that most technological oppression has been encouraged, if not created by increased regulation. I personally think that it is the loses of income that is to be feared, but the lose of human activity. Whether one believes in evolution or creation, life involves stress. When one form of stress is removed it is replaced by another, either by external stressors, or personal challenge. A free and open markets encourage natural stress and innovation, while controlled markets encourage leisure and stagnation. In short, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Those who take personal responsibility and develop an entrepreneurial spirit will thrive, while those who seek creature comforts and entertainment will fail.

[Furrowed Brow]

This tread appears to be leaning toward the Ludite trend. It is important to note that the Ludite opposed free markets and called for more regulation. I also submit that most technological oppression has been encouraged, if not created by increased regulation. I personally think that it is the loses of income that is to be feared, but the lose of human activity. Whether one believes in evolution or creation, life involves stress. When one form of stress is removed it is replaced by another, either by external stressors, or personal challenge. A free and open markets encourage natural stress and innovation, while controlled markets encourage leisure and stagnation. In short, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Those who take personal responsibility and develop an entrepreneurial spirit will thrive, while those who seek creature comforts and entertainment will fail.

So if AI heads towards a singularity in which every aspect of human labour is automated should we regulate against that? Seems that scenario leaves the need for human activity and the doctrine not to regulate a paradox i.e. if we don't regulate humans will be out competed, out thrived and left obsolete. For free markets to stand a chance of providing a long term solution surely the robot learning revolution needs to fall short of its promise of cancelling the need for human labour.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

I say keep the free market but nearly every single job is replaceable by AI. Economists, Chemists, Doctors, Farmers, Industry in general. There would be no incentive to keep human labor for at least 90% of labor. Only a small sector such as athletes, creatives, programmers, researchers would be insulated.

Who in their right mind would hire a person when an AI or Ml algorithm can do the job faster, cheaper, better, and more reliably than a human?

So we keep the free market for general economic practice the question then becomes what do we do with the displaced masses that can't get a job? Surely they will want to do something lest they go insane. Most people want to work they don't want to sit around taking handouts.

What do you envision as a solution to mass unemployment?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 9 by DanieltheDragon]

I've posted this list elsewhere, but I think it may be relevant here, also. I don't think the real danger is that people will go insane if they have no work. Rather, it is that their way of being could be impoverished, both financially (as wealth accumulates to the wealthy) and by a lack of purpose in their lives.

So, EF Schumacher lists the three purposes of work in his book 'Good Work', as follows:

1) To produce necessary and useful goods and services.
2) To use, and thereby perfect, our gifts like good stewards.
3) To do so in service to, and collaboration with, others, and so liberate ourselves from our inborn egocentricity.

Even if we presume that AI robots could produce all necessary and useful goods and services, realising Purpose 1), and they are distributed equitably, and humanity is destined for a life of (only) leisure, it remains to be discovered whether this will be a blessing or a curse. Purposes 2) and 3) would still go unfulfilled, and that might turn out to be a considerable disadvantage.

Best wishes, 2RM.