It's made outa PEOPLE...arrgghhhh...

November 17, 2003 9:28 AM

The Soylent Green Biscuit FactoryAre automation, robots, and computers taking human jobs and producing a new class of permanently superfluous ex-workers? (see Robot Nation thanks spazzm) Maybe the Soylent Green Biscuit Factory can help! Robert Wenzlaff says - "I'm not just the president. I'm also a raw material."
posted by troutfishing (11 comments total)

An ancient meme with a good domain name...

Brings new meaning to the phrase: "You're toast."
posted by wendell at 10:40 AM on November 17, 2003

There aren't vast hordes of pin-makers stalking the hills of Scotland as cannibals since their jobs were largely eliminated in the 1700's. There aren't vast hordes of unemployed weavers roaming continental Europe and living under bridges since their jobs were eliminated by Jacquard looms in the early nineteenth century. There aren't vast hordes of unemployed farmhands scouring the Great Plains as brigands and highwaymen since their jobs were eliminated by powered machinery. Humans, being clever critters, stopped doing those things and went and did something else.

(and the world described in the robot nation link is just a few steps away from the Culture, so sign me up. If the "something else" I'm going to be doing is nothing but sitting back and using stuff robots make and letting them do things for me, what's not to like?)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:44 AM on November 17, 2003

ROU_Xenophobe - I hope you're right. This is an old issue, really. People might have argued, at the time it was happening, that the domestication of horses or draft animals in general would put humans -who pushed plows and supplied raw muscle power in general- out of work. But nothing of the sort actually happened and the argument now seems - in retrospect - to be absurd.

By the same token, I think some of the impact of automation relates to income distribution profiles. Sure, some consumer products may become cheaper and so people may need less money (maybe) but I don't see any great emerging demand for low skill labor.......the 3 million or so Americans who lost jobs during the last three years of the Bush presidency may eventually find new jobs (some of them anyway) but I doubt they'll earn wages as high as at their old jobs. And U.S, society at large is not currently very committed to helping to blunt the impact of such trends - by providing assistance for job retraining, say. The idea of investing in American human capital has mostly vanished from the American mind.

Don't forget - the social disruptions which accompanied industrialization in England and Great Britain were considerable. My guess is that - sure - many of those put out of work temporarily by automation will eventually find new jobs. Humans are very creative and so some of the unemployed will push-market new, cheap services: landscaping, domestic services and so on. I'd bet on the expansion in the emerging class of de-facto domestic serfs who service the U.S. upper middle class (in much the same way as some of those previously unemployed pin makers and weavers became servants of the English nobility). In the process, I'm guessing that we'll see an increase in income inequality and class stratification.
posted by troutfishing at 12:47 PM on November 17, 2003

So : Make 'em into biscuits, I say
posted by troutfishing at 12:48 PM on November 17, 2003

I'd bet on the expansion in the emerging class of de-facto domestic serfs who service the U.S. upper middle class (in much the same way as some of those previously unemployed pin makers and weavers became servants of the English nobility). In the process, I'm guessing that we'll see an increase in income inequality and class stratification.

Probably, at least up to the point when machine intelligence really takes off and hit a singularity. At which point, we're all just pets of weakly godlike machines, just like in the Culture. Or raw materials for them, if it goes off badly.

To me, whether the medium-term is good or bad doesn't depend on income inequality per se but on the absolute income levels of the worse-off. If income inequality becomes really amazingly horrible because 99% of people make only about $100,000 in real 2000 dollars and the 1% makes jillions, that's a world I'd move to in a heartbeat.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:08 PM on November 17, 2003

ROU_Xenophobe - Yeah, you're right on that. We'll see.

Bwahaha ha! Bwahahahahaha! Bwahaha!..........heh
posted by troutfishing at 1:12 PM on November 17, 2003

Although the bottom quintile of American wage earners (if not the next quintile - maybe) has experienced an income decline, in adjusted US dollars, since the 70's. But STUFF sure is cheaper, so - less health care, more consumer goods. As the commercial went, "Weigh it for yourself, honey........"

Or from another perspective....*cues Andrew LLoyd Webber sountrack from "Jesus Christ Superstar"* - "There will be poor always, pathetically struggling, look at the good things you've got!"

Last month, I got a really nice old-style chrome gooseneck repro bath/shower fixture for my clawfoot bathtub. At this rate, I'll be voting for George W's Republican successor in 2008 - I'll want that big new Republican "domestic servant employment act" tax break for my crew of 5$ an hour pseudoslaves who'll live in my basement and cater to my every needs whilst I while away the hours blogging on MetafilterPro™
posted by troutfishing at 1:24 PM on November 17, 2003

This reminds me of something in RAW's novel, Shrodinger's Cat. He suggests that increasing automation will eventually putting us all out of work would be a good thing. As long as it applies to everyone, what's the problem? We'd be forced to come up with some other way to distribute the wealth.

Although the idea has been around a while and it hasn't happened yet, that doesn't mean that it won't some day in the future.

Meanwhile, society seems to be doing a fine job finding non-useful jobs to occupy all those workers who would otherwise be idle in our modern economy. Advertising, insurance, financial services, television production, website development, telephone sanitization, etc.
posted by sfenders at 3:25 PM on November 17, 2003

Another angle on this is the inevitable:
Since the resources available on Earth for humans is finite, but humans are hell-bent on infinitely increasing their numbers, that leaves us with four options:
1. Leaving earth in vast numbers.
2. Neverending and/or repeated war, famine or genocide.
3. Forced population control.
4. Cannibalism.

Voluntary population control will not be successful since those who practice it automatically breed themselves out of the genepool - unlike those who do not practice it.

See Malthus.
posted by spazzm at 7:27 AM on November 18, 2003

Oops. I just realized my previous link leads to a xtian fundie site. Please disregard.

This should hopefully provide more insight in Malthus' ideas.
posted by spazzm at 7:40 AM on November 18, 2003

spazzm - well what about the Rapture?..........that could work as long as we enact stronger federal and international laws protecting raptors - to keep their numbers up.
posted by troutfishing at 7:59 PM on November 18, 2003