But if the bulk of unpleasant, boring, unhealthy and dangerous work can be done by machines, most people will only work if they want to. In the past, that kind of leisurely life was confined largely to those born into wealth, such as aristocrats. Not all of them lived boring and vapid lives. Some of them wrote novels and music; many others read the novels and listened to the music. Some even were engaged in scientific research
I predict that within two decades, the big issue in this country will not be the distribution of income but the distribution of leisure. The Vickies will resent the Thetes for their leisure.
Anyone with aging parents has probably noticed how much time they and their friends spend in hospitals and nursing homes and assisted living facilities. If that person is perceptive, she has also noticed how many unpleasant and/or boring jobs are required to keep those places running. I don’t think it will be easy to automate those jobs, and as the population ages, there will be more and more of them.
There are lots of jobs that require little higher-level skill and will be hard to automate, like stocking store shelves or making fries. Visions of a largely work-free future are probably mirages.
You are dead wrong, those can already probably be done by robots, as ColoComment points out. They just haven’t been deployed yet. As for nursing homes, you might see something like these handling most mundane tasks, only calling in a handful of humans for the few jobs it can’t handle.
That is if we don’t have replacement body parts by then- they’ve already grown bladders and knee ligaments in the lab, more are coming- and nobody is convalescent anymore, ie you might only die if you have a stroke or something else sudden before you can get to medicine.
When will all this get here? Who knows, about all of it that is, but much of this mundane physical work is on the verge of being automated away.
Oh, yes. That monitor on a stick is going to take a patient’s temperature, give her her pill, and help her to take it. Not.
I don’t deny that it may be possible to one day create a device that will do all those things, that will be accepted by patients, and that will cost less to buy and maintain than a person. But we sure aren’t there today.
Maybe not today, but with the increasing rate of speed of technological advance, we may be there tomorrow:
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rock-center/50582822#50582822
Roger, obviously that particular one won’t, which is why I said something like it. I just wanted to give you a wheeled example that is actually being sold today, you’d have to add robotic arms to do the stuff you want. We’ll be able to do it within a decade or so.
The “accepted by patients” bit is the only iffy part, as many likely don’t want machines handling them. But I’m sure plenty of people want hand-assembled Bentleys too, they’re just not willing to put in the work to afford it. The same will be true here: you’ll pay extra for more service from humans, as the robots will be a lot cheaper, even though they aren’t even capable enough yet.
ColoComment, great link, I forwarded it to some friends. 🙂 I’ve had his EconTalk podcast downloaded for some time now, will listen to it soon, looking forward to it.
Wasn’t there a great deal of deep-think social commentary in the 1950s and 1960s agonizing over the imminent (if not already present) problem of excess leisure? How are these predictions different?
” stocking store shelves or making fries”
Have you not seen the videos of robots that pick and pack items from warehouse shelves? It wouldn’t take much to reverse that into stocking shelves.
Two of the most underrated and not discussed inventions that have changed the world are UPC barcoding and SKUs. I see each as somewhat analogous to the invention of GUI for computers: one itty bitty icon (or barcode or SKU) holds all the information one needs to identify a particular item or to accomplish some movement or project. With that information, any robot can be instructed to pick a pallet of product and take it to a destination where another robot will pick items and place them on shelves. Or it could simply be containerized for the shelf.
French fries? Mickey D’s is almost there: dump the fries into the hot oil & the buzzer sounds when they’re cooked — all they need are robotic arms to salt them, shake them, and dispense them into holders. If robots can build a car, they can salt a fry.
No need to stock shelves really. Not like you are thinking, anyway. Once things are automated, everything would be purchased online and delivered to homes by automated delivery trucks. So, manipulating warehouse inventory, maybe. Stocking shelves, not so much.
In the meantime, until those auto-deliveries get going, Amazon’s busy building warehouses and hiring staff.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-29/amazon-hiring-5-000-in-warehouses-to-meet-customer-demand.html
Isn’t one of the core distinctions between Vickies and Thetes that they’re self-selected based on their demand curves for leisure? Looked at in that light, Vickies resenting Thetes over distribution of leisure would be like vegans resenting meat-eaters over distribution of beef.
If tension between Vickies and Thetes arises over distribution of leisure, I’d expect it to be either moral disapproval by the Vickies of the Thetes’ lifestyle or resentment over a perception (justified or otherwise) that government policy is forcing the Vickies the subsidize the Thetes’ leisure.
Eric,
Almost certainly, the Thetes leisure will come at the cost of the Vickies doing the work (or at least thinking they are) to produce a functioning society that permits said leisure. Think welfare moms dispute on steroids.
With all the talk about robots replacing low-skilled workers, I just had to share this when I stumbled over it at Instapundit just now.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/improvement/lawn-garden/the-robots-are-coming-to-mow-your-lawn-15746274
My suspicion is the Thetes’ “leisure” is going to look like and feel like and be financed like joblessness in the contemporary world. And the Vickies are going to be just about as tolerant and gracious about funding it as they are today.
By mid century, conservatives will be insisting on mandatory contraception for unemployed mothers; liberals will be pushing gay sex in the public schools; government will be building the Matrix. All three groups will insist they are defending traditional liberties.
Two people are living in 1900. Jessie predicts that within the century, horseless carriages will be able to transport people from most anywhere in the country to any other place. The carriages will be able to cruise comfortably at 75 miles per hour and cost less than a year’s salary. On the other hand, railroads have just about reached their economic limit as a means of moving people.
James says that in 2000 rail passengers en masse will be boarding in New York at sunrise and arriving in Los Angeles before sunset. Cost will be less than a week’s wages. Horseless carriages will continue to be a toy of the rich, the thrill-seeking, and the mechanically inclined.
I’ll bet more people at the time would believe James than Jessie. Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.
Not sure what conclusion you’re trying to draw. Jessie’s prediction is more audacious and out there, yet it is the one that came true. Of course prediction is difficult, but if we consistently see such wild swings in technologies, such that mere extrapolation like James did is inevitably wrong, then it will assuredly be someone making a “wild” prediction like Jessie who will be proven right. We just don’t usually know which wild prediction will be it. 😉
I am suggesting that Ajay and ColoComment, who seem to be saying, “Pretty soon intelligent machines will be able to automate just about everything!” may be James (LA in 12 hours by rail!) rather than Jessie.
Ah, but I already foresaw that and gave my “Jessie” prediction above, that we might not have any convalescents soon because we’ll all just get replacement body parts swapped in and keep on motoring, 🙂 at least in the case of your preferred nursing home example. Another one I often like to point out is that it is far more efficient to use video conferencing and other internet software to work remotely than it is to use self-driving cars to commute to work, which is why I think video conferencing will be a much bigger deal. So yes, robots won’t take over everything but we’ll still probably be eating food, 😉 so the robots can certainly cook and clean for us.
No doubt part of me is reacting to having recently read, “The Emperor of All Maladies,” a history of human attempts to push back cancer. In 1969, the Citizens Committee for the Conquest of Cancer published an ad in the NY Times which began, in big bold letters, “Mr. Nixon: You can cure cancer.” It was part of a campaign that soon led to the establishment of the National Cancer Institute, a big boost in federal support for cancer research, and President Nixon’s declaration of a War on Cancer.
From the ad:
“… There is not a doubt in the minds of our top cancer researchers that the final answer to cancer can be found.
“Dr. Sidney Farber, past president of the American Cancer Society, believes: ‘We are so close to a cure for cancer. We lack only the will and the kind of money and comprehensive planning that went into putting a man on the moon.’
“Why don’t we try to conquer cancer by America’s 200th birthday?
“What a holiday that would be! Cancer would be then where smallpox, diptheria, and polio are today–almost nonexistent. …
“Our nation has the money on one hand and the skills on the other. We must, under your leadership, put our hands together and get this thing done. …”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/153947472/1970-Mr-Nixon-You-Can-Cure-Cancer
America’s 200th birthday was 1976, 37 years ago.
That’s a whole different issue though, obviously there will always be con men who make all kinds of grand predictions in order to gain funding. I don’t know under what theory dimbulbs like Farber would have claimed they’d be able to cure cancer so quickly. Anybody with a brain should have known that would be much more intractable.
But we can look at general tech trends and extrapolate them, particularly when we don’t have a vested interest in calling for govt funding to make it so. 😉 Robots will soon be doing a lot of physical labor that humans do today. They already build cars and mow lawns, there’s no reason they won’t flip burgers and stock shelves very soon.
But there’s the problem. Which trends can you extrapolate and which can’t you. Farber was reacting to the fact that several drugs had been developed which seemed to stop and clear out various cancers. He extrapolated this to drugs that would permanently clear out all cancer.
Part of his problem was that he, and most everyone else at the time, looked at “cancer” as one disease. We now know that there are thousands of different tumors, and that individual tumors are usually made up of cells that have different malignancies, and that cells may mutate in the course of the disease. So “conquering cancer” may never be possible. He wasn’t stupid, just over-optimistic, believing what he wanted to believe. Hmmm ….
But there’s the problem. Which trends can you extrapolate and which can’t you.
It’s a matter of knowledge and judgement. I’ll note that extremely complex fields like biology are much tougher to extrapolate than more mechanistic fields like computers or robotics. Simply pointing at the failure of some dumb cancer predictions isn’t necessarily illustrative for all tech predictions.
Part of his problem was that he, and most everyone else at the time, looked at “cancer” as one disease. We now know that there are thousands of different tumors, and that individual tumors are usually made up of cells that have different malignancies, and that cells may mutate in the course of the disease. So “conquering cancer” may never be possible.
Or we’ll soon develop nanobots to take them out, as Topol references in the video linked above. Of course, the entire human race could just die out if the nanobots go haywire, so there are risks involved. 😉
He wasn’t stupid, just over-optimistic, believing what he wanted to believe. Hmmm ….
It’s a big jump from his arrogance to the relatively safe predictions we’re making here about robotics, which is already integrated into the economy. We’re just saying that technologists are on the verge of automating a lot more work, which is a much safer and easier prediction to make, even if you don’t see it. 🙂
“The Vickies will resent the Thetes for their leisure”
We already do.
The process of de-linking wages from work is already well under way. The result is near-poverty for federal assistance recipients and massive federal deficits. How to get from here to the promised land in which labor is optional and everyone benefits from advanced technologies is the economic challenge.