Letters to LIFE
reprinted with permission

Technology, Jobs and GLI dialogue:
Rebuttle from "The Anti-Confabulator"
March 2006

Preamble: A LIFE member (C. L'Hirondelle) had an in person discussion with a professional technology person in the fall of 2005 which continued by email. The point was to find out what affects new RFID (Radio Frequency ID) technology would have on jobs in the service sector. Permission was granted by the tech professional to post the email discussion to the LIFE website but he wished to remain anonymous and is referred to as "Tech Pro": See theses letters here. LIFE invited others to join the discussion

Here is a rebuttle from a GLI supporter who calls himself
"Anti-Confabulator":

Quoting Tech Pro: "Robots in today's modern car factories do the dull repetitive jobs and free humans to do what we do best - think, share ideas, and be creative. We enjoy work that is much more rewarding than it was in the past because we have machines that do much of the hard labour for us that used to take up much of our day."

I absolutely agree. I also think that it would potentially allow even more labour saving devices due to the more people having free time to explore creative outlets and not waste the beautiful human mind on something a machine can do. As someone in the engineering field I can appreciate this. Now the reason I said potentially is because the REALITY of the situation is that whenever a machine is invented it is not used to produce more for less work (which is the purpose of technology) but produce way more without a reduction in the work load. That is how things like over production happens (e.g.. "3.5 million unsold vehicles: Automakers have a big glut" Source: Detroit Free Press, July 14, 2004,).

Quoting Tech Pro: "I don't see automation as a threat to jobs. Automation increases productivity and temporarily displaces workers who are doing mindless drudgery. Those workers are free to find more rewarding jobs in a society that is incrementally more advanced."

You have no argument. From a design stand point it is not good enough to just think that something will work. When I was going through school we all learned very quickly that if we handed in a design without support calculations it wouldn't even be considered. That is your argument, I have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever so I have no choice but to assume that it is false. This statement seems to be backed up only by the wishful thinking of someone who is fragmented from reality and argues from a perspective of the things could and should be not the way things are. Until you support your arguments with facts I am forced to completely ignore anything you say as you have demonstrated to have no understanding of the scientific method. There is extensive evidence on the LIFE website in many categories.

Quoting Tech Pro: " Workers are expected to bring a return on their employer's investment. If they don't, either they'll be fired, or the company will eventually be bankrupt."

It is not employees that will bankrupt the business it is the consumer. You can have the most diligent employees in the world but:  

* Without consumers business will fail!

* Consumers need money to buy things!

* Money comes from jobs!

* The ultimate goal of all business is to replace all humans with machines!

"THE ECONOMIC GOAL of any nation, as of any individual, is to get the greatest results with the least effort. The whole economic progress of mankind has consisted in getting more production with the same labor. It is for this reason that men began putting burdens on the backs of mules instead of on their own; that they went on to invent the wheel and the wagon, the railroad and the motor truck. It is for this reason that men used their ingenuity to develop a hundred thousand labor-saving inventions. The progress of civilization has meant the reduction of employment, not its increase." Henry Hazlitt, Economicis in One Lesson

A very interesting observation that I have made is that after reading the letters back and forth I realized that the GLI representative is trying to get where you think we already are. You to are on the same side whether you like it or not, the only difference is that she changes things with action and you are refusing to try and change anything because you think we are there already. You make it seem as if we have made it so far and yet you can't even practice a method of observational analysis pioneered by Greek philosophers over two thousand years ago. I personally would like to think we have become " incrementally more advanced" since then, but evidence is pointing to the contrary. For my own peace of mind please prove me wrong on that last point.

Sincerely,
The Anti-Confabulator

Email LIFE if you want to join the dialogue.