Will humans be useless after robots take over future jobs?

Updated on : December 3, 2021 by Matteo Monroe



Will humans be useless after robots take over future jobs?

That really depends on how useful you already are.
There are some careers that are already outdated, and some are quickly being phased out by phone marketer AI, for example. Pffft. There will be more in the future.
But, on the other hand, I like to think that the utility goes beyond the race, and we can all fulfill some function.
The problem is, that feature could be a warning to others.
When you think about it, we have this idea that we can all be whatever we want to be, do whatever we want to do ... that's just a moment in history, created by technology. When our ancestors carried spe

Keep reading

That really depends on how useful you already are.
There are some careers that are already outdated, and some are quickly being phased out by phone marketer AI, for example. Pffft. There will be more in the future.
But, on the other hand, I like to think that the utility goes beyond the race, and we can all fulfill some function.
The problem is, that function could be a warning to others.
When you think about it, we have this idea that we can all be whatever we want to be, do whatever we want to do ... that's just a moment in history, created by technology. When our ancestors carried spears in the Pleistocene, 90% of our history, more or less, the career options were very limited and you did what you had to do. This is a special moment. Try to find things that computers cannot do. Work fast, because that is getting more and more difficult.
Plumber. It is going to be very difficult to get computers to replace plumbers.
Undertaker.
Inspector of security.
Zookeeper.
Glass blower.
Horticulturist.

You will notice that all of these jobs have a mental side and a physical side, and they take place in a highly variable environment.

On the other hand, stay away from things that are only mental work and not physical work. Here's why: Computers have a proven track record of solving mental tasks that we think they can't. A few years ago, no one thought that a computer would beat the world champion of Go. And the way computers develop, they move rapidly from "I can do it, but not as well as a Human", to "I can do as well as the best Human" to "I can do better than any Human."

One day, we'll say, "A computer can't be a novelist, it doesn't have that creativity," and a few years later, four out of five books on the shelf will be computer-generated, and most people will agree that they tend to be far superior.

The key is useless for whom?

People obviously believe that they personally don't have to have a purpose to be valuable. They feel they have a right to life and to pursue happiness simply because they have it. These are rights granted by God.

But the rest of life on this planet does not have that right. They depend on our valuation of them, whether they live or die, even to become extinct. The best arguments from environmentalists to the public are that human beings depend on other forms of life for our existence. Saving the planet means preserving it for future human generations. Rarely do humans accept that another life has

Keep reading

The key is useless for whom?

People obviously believe that they personally don't have to have a purpose to be valuable. They feel they have a right to life and to pursue happiness simply because they have it. These are rights granted by God.

But the rest of life on this planet does not have that right. They depend on our valuation of them, whether they live or die, even to become extinct. The best arguments from environmentalists to the public are that human beings depend on other forms of life for our existence. Saving the planet means preserving it for future human generations. Rarely do humans accept that another life has value, given by God, to exist even if they compete with humans or harm them in some way. Those are the people of Earth First, and most consider them extreme eco-terrorists.

So it depends on who is in charge of the world when it comes to deciding whether production and profits are more important than people. If the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit, robots will eventually replace humans as workers. If the purpose of a corporation is to provide work for humans, then they will choose humans over robots.

Now the famous argument is that humans need jobs to make money and buy the products that corporations produce. Factory robots will not buy the cars that the factory produces. In recent decades, the purchasing power of Americans has declined as outsourcing and automation have cut jobs, but this has been somewhat offset by cheaper cost products that Americans consume. World trade means an equalization of the value of workers in all nations. American workers will increasingly compete directly with workers abroad, raising wages for their own and lowering wages for Americans.

But eventually, automation will be cheaper and more productive than human labor entirely, no matter where or how cheap. Yes, the US manufacturing was shipped to China because Chinese labor was cheaper, but in reality, Chinese factories are now more automated than in the US The Chinese are working harder to automate the manufacturing than anywhere else in the world. Its goal is to be the best and cheapest manufacturer in the world, not to employ its people. People are the resource that a country uses to get richer and more powerful, not necessarily that the country exists to serve the people. The Chinese government has openly declared that it is the necessary sacrifice of the current generation of its people to suffer disease and death from pollution so that future generations can enjoy the benefits of living in the world's greatest superpower. The same government implemented population control measures to keep the human population low and to remove organs from executed political prisoners. The Chinese government operates much like an American corporation.

The fact is, it is possible to have a fully robot-based economy, where robots build and maintain robots, and produce the resources to do so. The surplus production of that economy can be used to meet the basic needs of many people, or extreme wealth and power for very few people.

Who will own the robots? Will individuals own their own personal robots (like us, the owners of cars, houses, washing machines, and computers) and, therefore, be directly supported by their benefits? Or will some megacorporations own and control all the robots (like Microsoft owns and controls Windows)? A democratic government is supposed to represent the people. Its leaders are supposed to serve the people, make decisions that put the people and their prosperity and happiness first, yet in times of war, it will send thousands of people to die abroad. You will allow the use of lead in gasoline for decades even though you know how toxic it is. He will do this and worse to protect his wealth and power in the world.

If the corporations have effective control over the government, if the government thinks and acts like a company, the people will have no jobs, no resources, and no power. They will become a useless burden that consumes resources. The hungry and disenchanted masses will riot in the streets, with no other purpose in life. The robotic police will protect corporate and government infrastructure. The time will come for the definitive solution to the population problem.

Hopefully, the People First revolution will save the masses; otherwise, Earth will turn into a garden paradise where some extremely rich and powerful humans will live as gods, served by their robot slaves. They will write the history books that describe how the great plague (sent by God) saved the human race.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.