Full Automation?

http://www.kitchensoap.com/2012/09/21/a-mature-role-for-automation-part-i/

Technology and Society.  The robots are after us and human life as we know it is going to end.  That’s true.  Our understanding of humanity and existence is going to end, but we’re not going to be exterminated from this planet.  Our conceptualisation and the applied meaning of the human relationship is evolving, and with technology we can reach a higher state of meaning.  Autonomous machines offer new ways of defining humanity, and the changing relationship between humans and machines.  

In 1948, Norbert Wiener, an American mathematician, philosopher, and scientist, wrote that “Those of us who have contributed to the new science of cybernetics thus stand in a moral position which is not very comfortable”, because we were faced with a radical change in how work is defined and performed.  Robotic machines bring freedom for humans, but it is necessary, Wiener argued, to consider the potential impact of this for fundamental human values. 

The burst of knowledge around intelligent technologies brought the world many of the benefits Wiener and his contemporaries hoped their efforts would bring: an abundance of affordable, mass-produced goods, increased convenience, and unrestricted access to information.  The revolution created new jobs, new industries, and trade routes between nations, propelling the persistent nature of neoliberalism.

Yet, Wiener was aware that technical developments outweighed the human factors in the formulation of machine technologies.  He realised the metaphorical dominance of machines offered an immediate and non-metaphorical problem: humans are provided with an “effective collection of mechanical slaves”, capable of performing labour-force tasks.  The economic benefit of mechanical labour is that it does not involve the “direct demoralising effects of human cruelty”, removing human struggle and harm encountered in employment.  

But what does this all mean for humans?  How are we supposed to live?  What is our purpose?

In 1832, Babbage argued that machine-driven means of automating labour was the logical extension of the new industrialist desire to eliminate a human whose presence was a source of indiscipline, error, and risk.  Wiener criticised this thought, and noted that “the modern revolution is bound to devalue the human brain […] as the average human being of mediocre attainments has nothing to sell that is worth anyone’s money”.  Thus technological progress replaces workers, increasing the experienced marginalisation in a population.  For Wiener, this was a major concern for it reflected changes in the definition of work, and how technology affects the classist nature of capitalism.  The ultimate folly of the project of capitalism is that it can never be effectively corralled for the good of global society.  Which is why humanity needs a long term project *cough cough fully automated luxury communism* with the foregrounding of human qualities that help us grow, all carefully managed to work in harmony with the constraints that our environment and available resources allow. 

Ideally, technology is neither inherently good nor bad.  Whether it helps or hurts humanity is dependent on how the tool is used.  However, this idealised argument runs the risk of becoming utopic.  Yet this also symbolises how the hierarchical knowledge of scientists and engineers has become exceedingly dogmatic, due to its lack of collaboration between diverse fields of knowledge.

Thus, there is a dichotomy between humans and machines, whose order is not just a construction, but a physical relationship, subject to the cycles of struggle and progress in capitalist societies.  This reflects de Certeau’s argument that the fixation on the phases of this relationship is dogmatic.  According to Wiener, the only way to address these concerns is to create a society based on values beyond buying and selling, necessary for future labour conditions.

Today the norm is to think about employment and unemployment as a black-and-white binary, rather than two points at opposite ends of a wide spectrum of working arrangements.  And so, humans versus machines is not a binary relationship.  It is necessary to consider that the design of technology is determined not merely by technical considerations, but by political intentions.  Under capitalism, technology in the labour-market is a vehicle for generating greater profits and controlling workers.  Marx argued that the abolition of work hours was central to his postcapitalist vision, as a ‘basic prerequisite’ to attaining ‘the realm of freedom’.  Yet most importantly, to demand full unemployment is a demand which consolidates and generates class power.  This is a political struggle because removing labour time exerts pressure on capitalists, and, in turn, the supply of labour reduces as worker power increases.

The paradox of work is that many people hate their jobs but they are considerably more miserable doing nothing.  Why?  Because under capitalism, we valorise work and view ourselves as competitive labour subjects, actualised through our working lives, devaluing individuals outside paid employment.  It’s an irrational belief in work for work’s sake.  "Guilty couch potato" is the current label applied to this situation.  Our culture has conditioned us to feel guilty when we are not working / not being productive, but this guilt will fade away as work ceases to be the norm.  But for now, work is a means to an end.  Such valorisation is neither feasible nor desirable in an age of increasing automation and workplace precarity.  In modern society, technological progress and labour productivity is expanding, whilst wages stagnate.  This reflects Wiener’s concerns that humans would be displaced through workplace robotics, which explains his call for “a good deal of struggle” to challenge and dismantle the capitalist system as it is currently understood. 

However, this changing relationship challenges our perception of humanness: what is our purpose without labour?  The purpose of work is one imposed via capitalist hegemony.  Without capitalism, this purpose is obsolete.  Thus, machines and technology can assist us in a new humanness, moving from hierarchical structures to power-sharing networks.  If you have better batteries, better robotics, more dexterous manipulation, then it’s not a far stretch to say robots do most of the work.  So what do we do?  Play?  Draw?  Actually talk to each other again?  In other words, it would be a future not of consumption but of creativity, as technology returns the tools of the assembly line to individuals, democratising the means of mass production.  The demise of the formal economy could free many would-be artists, writers, and craftspeople to dedicate their time to creative interests—to live as cultural producers.  Such activities offer virtues that many organisational psychologists consider central to satisfaction at work: independence, the chance to develop mastery, and a sense of purpose.

A world of increasing abundance, even luxury is not only possible, but highly likely.  Many of the things we consider necessities today – phone service, automobiles, weekends off – were luxuries in the past.  Technology can create enormous bounty, but the road to such abundance will likely be rocky as existing business models and ways of creating value are disrupted.  

Whilst the idea of full automation and unemployment combined with state basic income appears utopian, using machines instead of humans allows for flexibility in both production and distribution, allowing the economy to become responsive to changes in consumption, unlike the inflexible planning efforts of the Soviet era, so often used to resist such propositions.  Unless we change the system and our understanding of work, “the future will be a demanding struggle against the limitations of our intelligence”.  A society with collective control over its own high-tech word-reducing gadgets is possible, and the little work necessary in the future, such as optimising 3D-printers and agricultural robots, will be organised in a decentralised, non-hierarchical fashion.  This presents a transition between capitalism and postcapitalism, with technology used as the basis for a postcapitalist order.  Perhaps, in time to come, the 20^th Century will strike future historians and philosophers as an aberration, with its religious devotion to overwork in a time of prosperity.