Should we continue to advance technology?

In terms of job impact, it's difficult to make an exact argument for or against... consider:

In the 1950s, to do book keeping, a number of people were employed doing manual labor entering information on paper. This in turn created jobs at paper mills and along the paper supply chain. It additionally created jobs for means to store all this paper as well as secure it. Programmers were needed to write the code for the records being kept.

By the 1970s, while the above was still in place, main frame computer storage was a fact of life for most large financial companies. People that were previously employed to operate adding machines and manually record information on paper were gone. In turn there was a decreased demand for paper and for everything along that line. But now there were higher paying jobs for data entry. MIS departments came into being creating more higher paying jobs. Companies that produced the mainframes added more jobs as well that were again higher paying than those at the paper mills... in house programmers were gone but now large software companies provided software (and needed programmers and everything else that goes into a company from janitors to facilities services to HR...) and so on.

By the 1990s things were shifting again. Data entry was beginning to disappear and MIS departments were changing and becoming centralized. But this in turn meant more higher paying jobs for networking engineers. Data warehousing was now an industry requiring more work force. Data and networking security now required lots of highly paid professionals. Main frame manufacturers were gone and replaced by more companies providing work stations and networking switches... etc etc.

So if the future sees a transporter replacing pilots and car salesmen and travel agents... it will see the birth of transporter operators, transporter salesmen, cad engineers to design the systems, security experts to handle transporter transmissions, etc etc. If you look at job growth since technology has become a fact of life, and often feared as something that will replace people, you will also see a trend that there have been more jobs total. While there is a danger of an ever decreasing number of unskilled jobs, there is little danger of no jobs (and likely quite the opposite).

As another point - consider a company like eBay. Because of eBay, it would be a safe bet that a number of regular or semi regular flea markets have ceased opeations. The buyers and sellers here are largely unaffected as they are able to continue to do business on eBay, but various jobs connected to the management of the market sites are now gone.

Off setting those job losses are the thousands of jobs at eBay. And thousands more related to their hardware and software purchases. Jobs related to the construction of their facilities. Jobs related to operation of their colos... ect etc. For every few low paying jobs this change cost, 20 or 30 high paying jobs were created.

You can follow such a trail for most any technology.

You are making a premise in your question that I disagree with. You give the impression that an employee OWNS their job. This is simply not true. An employee agrees to perform specified task for an agreed amount of pay and benefits. This pay comes from the employer. If the business expenses exceed the income, expenses must be reduced and/or income must be increased. If the technology is out there that will perform specified tasks at a lower expense, it would be stupid to not seriously consider implementing it. Unlike the government, a business MUST have a profit with some consistency. It is all about the cash flow staying in the black. If this cannot be accomplished, then EVERYONE at that company will be looking for a job.

The philosophy that I apply to this situation is that people are the most valuable resource, and people are the most worthless resource. It is all about the attitude of the people and the culture promoted within the business. You always want to keep the good people, even if their task has been automated. Re-train them with another skill set. Make them better and more valuable.

So what about the people that are let go? What they need is to re-assess their skills and attitude. The theory of evolution is extremely true regarding how employable someone is. Those that sit and whine and collect unemployment checks for the full term are destined to fail. Those that adapt and improve their skill sets are employable and will find a job. (Or better yet, take the initiative to start their own company - success AND failure is guaranteed)

The simple fact is nobody owes me anything just because I am alive. I must work hard and meet(and occasionally exceed) my employer's expectations. After that, I must look out for me and my immediate family. I must figure out how to keep adapting.

So back to technology - on the personal level it is simply a tool. Are people learning how to use those tools for trivial personal entertainment, or a tool to make themselves a more valuable employees (business owners). Those who adapt will survive well. Those who refuse to adapt will be supported by government entitlement programs - aka those who adapt and survive until the survivors refuse.

I hope this challenges your thought process.

Shawn

Well actually, I think that we should use the technology that we have and the potential for new technology, to not only produce better things as a new iPhone, but also self-navigating systems for all sorts of things.

This way, we can create a society in which we do not have to depend on each other. Money could be destoryed and we could care for peoples needs, instead of their desires. We have the materials to create an amazing standard of living for everybody. All automated by technology.

This way we can focus on recreation and education, rather than manual labour.

I hope you get what I'm saying.