by This is the second entry in a mini series (first “Earth was made for man”). Again, I’m using myth here in the sense foundational stories about “the way things are” (not mythical fairy tale).
| Myths Under Challenge | |||
| The Myth | The story | The challenge | Current state of challenge |
| Work is essential to human nature | Work is a fundamental component of who we are, that we express ourselves through our work, and make our contribution to society through our work; without it, we wouldn’t know what to do with ourselves. | The challenge is the growing evidence that people are increasingly less necessary for production. More and more work can be automated. | While there has been more talk about a future where we don’t need to work, little has been offered in the way of a compelling alternative story. |
| Source: Andy Hines |
The potential for much greater automation of work and the economy is being discussed, mostly with trepidation (how will we make a living?), but also some with a more optimistic sense (automation will create wealth). We won’t jump into the debate about which way it goes, but rather focus on a key component of the discussion –that the potential for working less is clearly a plausible future. This invokes the myth that work is an essential part of being human – that we need to work to be fulfilled as human beings. I think we’ll see a huge debate between
- those adhering to the “work is essential” myth fearing automation as a threat to people and leading toward a dystopic future
- those who challenge the “work is essential” myth embrace automation as a way to relieve people of lousy jobs and will focus on ways to distribute wealth without relying on jobs, thus moving toward a utopic future.
Or the “truth may lie in the middle.” Regardless of how it turns out, as futurists we must take notice when a core myth is challenged. Andy Hines
Andy, I approach the idea of automation putting us out of work with trepidation for several reasons. First, it hasn’t yet. We’ve been promised less work and more leisure time as a result of automation, but what’s actually happened is that people have taken on other work or been required to do more than they did previously. Secretaries, for example, have become administrative specialists and information managers, while other office workers have assumed responsibility for typing their own correspondence. Office workers have had to take on more work as a result.
The other thought that crosses my mind is that when automation takes over the routine (and/or dangerous) parts of the job, human beings are freed to do creative things. Maybe this is the cure to Marx’s problem of alienation: we let automation do those parts of the work that don’t require human creativity, and let people do those parts that do. I’d guess that there’s a wave of entrepreneurs starting businesses that they wouldn’t have otherwise because automation displaced them from jobs, leaving them to find — or invent — new work.
So in that regard, I suppose I’m more Durkheimian than Marxist: I expect the division of labor to continue, with automation increasingly allowing people to concentrate on creative work. I don’t expect work to disappear under the yoke of capitalists trying to replace workers with machines.