FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

It’s the Robots, Stupid: the Fundamental Issue None of the Candidates Want to Talk About

It’s the robots, stupid.

The rabid anti-immigrant campaign of Donald Trump mirrors the racist vitriol of right-wing politicians across much of the developed world. But totally absent from what passes for political debate in the U.S. and abroad is what’s really driving those ever more incendiary movements.

They are fueled by fear. There’s the dread of terrorist attacks, to be sure. But much more pervasive is the unremitting, anxiety of hundreds of millions in the developed world that they are threatened by change, by dark forces they neither understand nor control—by rampant unemployment, a diminished standard of living. They have been brought up to believe that hard work and sacrifice would bring a better life. No longer.

Donald Trump tells them hordes of immigrants, illegal aliens and disastrous trade pacts are to blame. But Trump—as well as those excoriating him–are totally missing the point.

The major force impacting our society is the spectacular advance of technologies —robotics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. The dizzying pace of change is only going to accelerate: a chain reaction as we hurtle to warp speed.   (See my previous blog)

Why is this phenomenon not the urgent focus of our political debates? Why are we instead obsessed with illegal aliens and Hillary’s emails?

It used to be that we welcomed advances in technology. We were assured they ultimately create more jobs than they destroy. No longer.

Estimates are that close to half the jobs in the United States are likely to be wiped out or seriously diminished by technological change within the near future. These are not just factory workers, receptionists, secretaries, telephone operators and bank tellers. Sophisticated algorithms will soon replace some 140 million full-time “knowledge workers” worldwide. Those threatened range from computer programmers, to graphic artists to lawyers, to financial analysts and journalists.

Meanwhile robots are being programmed to care for the bourgeoning ranks of the elderly. In Thailand, a solicitous robot, known as Dinsow helps old folks exercise, keep track of their medication, entertain them with its karaoke skills, or help them to videophone their relatives. They also cheerfully answer the same questions ad infinitum from patients suffering from memory loss.

Other companies are manufacturing, soft, pliant life-size robots increasingly proficient at everything from sex to Sumo wrestling.

Indeed, there are serious people who believe that such phenomenal change will not only ravish our workplaces but ultimately challenge the future existence of our species.

So, how to explain why this is not the major issue of the day?

Because, I would argue, the technological revolution is progressing faster than our specie’s ability to deal with it. Which might be a good indication that we’re already on the way to extinction. The questions this revolution highlights are just too complex for us to handle; the answers too mind-bending.

It’s like acknowledging the menace of climate change: recognizing the extraordinary impact of the technological revolution raises too many issues we’d rather not confront.

It’s the fear of peoples who sense that new forces are abroad, shattering our way of life. It’s as if we refused to acknowledge that a comet was hurtling towards us. The difference is that the onrushing threat is now here.

But we seem caught in the glare, paralyzed, unable to act. Trump gives the easy solution: Expel the aliens! Built a wall!

Psychologists would label our refusal to deal with the real menace as cognitive dissonance—attempting to deny or ignore a situation that conflicts with our basic beliefs.

We’ve been taught that technological progress is good. That any destructive impact can be countered by teaching the unemployed new skills; helping them  relocate, improving education nationwide.

But, with the rampaging pace of technological change, what if providing graduate degrees to every American still means that tens of millions will be out of work. If you’re not at serious risk, certainly your kids will be.

How do you cope with the fact that what is largely responsible for the loss of millions of jobs, the relative decline in salaries, the hollowing out of the middle class, and the increasing gap between a tiny percentage of super rich and the growing army of the poor are not just craven politicians and grasping Wall Street bankers, but the inexorable process by which “capital” (i.e. machinery and robots and computers, memory banks and the like) are taking more and more of what used to be “labor’s” share in producing new goods and services.

As human labor is being replaced at a vertiginous rate by non-salaried robots so is human labor’s claim to its rightful share of the national product.  Meanwhile the people owning the “capital” are making enormous fortunes.

But where do you see that process being seriously discussed? Certainly not by the politicians nor the army of journalists covering the campaign. Such facts would only clutter the cozy simplistic world that Donald Trump and demagogues around the world thrive in.

The need to tackle the real issue is urgent. But our predicament is monumental.

For, when you think about it, what is there to do? Ban technological research?  Limit the advance of Artificial Intelligence?

Attempt at least to control the rate of change? Tax companies for each robot they add? Put tariffs on imported goods made by robots?  Require products to be labeled with the percentage of content made by humans?

Protect established professions? Limiting robots in hospitals, for example (where robots are already diagnosing and operating. ). Shield millions of other workers by outlawing self-driving cars? (Tens of thousands such cars will be on the roads in the next five years).

What if we are streaking towards a society where the great majority of people—even if they are extraordinarily educated —will not find a job.  We’re talking about a society where almost everything we need will be produced by robots; perhaps with the input of a tiny fraction of the human population.

In one respect, that could be the ultimate utopia—every human able to do whatever he/she wants—except work. All the goods and services provided to them and their families by a government via some algorithm that does away with the need for people to have to pay for what they consume.

All this thanks to the marvelous ever more advanced generations of dedicated robots laboring 24/7 for our benefit.

That’s assuming the robots want to keep us around.

In fact, those robots would in effect be new species, as many futurists now predict, a species that would supersede us just as we supplanted the apes and chimpanzees.

How will this new super species choose to deal with us?  Of what use—other than as an interesting biological curiosity unable to cope or survive in a furiously changing world–would we be to them?

More articles by:

BARRY LANDO is a former producer for 60 Minutes. He is the author of  “Deep Strike” a novel about Russian hacking, rogue CIA agents, and a new American president. He can be reached at: barrylando@gmail.com or through his website.

Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador   Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail