Our new methods of doing industrious things are unarguably “better” than they were historically. We are more productive, more efficient, and more capable than ever. And yet, the work we do seems to do less and less for us individually despite us working harder and harder. How can this be?

A common response to the suggestion that robots will take jobs is that new jobs will come about. Dozens of times I have heard “labor saving innovations free people up to work on new things”. I have never been able to understand this argument; I just don’t get it. Choosing to work towards pioneering new types of work is totally separate from working a job. A job is a prerequisite to eat. Pioneering a new field is a product of passion and genuine interest. But it requires resources and time. If you want to see people coming up with new things to work on, you must provide them time, resources, and challenges to overcome. Jobs provide resources while consuming time. Most jobs provide barely enough resource access to satisfy basic necessities, forget having excess to use in the potentially wasteful pursuit of new types of work. For the lions share of people, being displaced by a machine means a frantic scramble to find new employment and failing that, a slow decline into poverty and despair. Certainly not an opportunity to create and innovate.

Food production used to be everyone’s ‘job’ in that if you failed to feed yourself, you didn’t last particularly long. We used to forage and hunt for 100% of what we ate. Sounds time consuming, especially if you have a big apatite. But then… Primitive automation!! Well, not really, but… The shift from foraging to farming could be seen as a labor saving innovation. So that meant more available time, which meant people could to do things other than attain food. Early farming would still have been a lot of work, but at the very least it was closer to home. With this new found time one of the first ‘new things’ that people decided to work on was undoubtedly better farming techniques as that would directly translate into more food and thus more time.

Okay so that sounds pretty supportive of the argument that automation creates new work. Labor saving innovation = more time = more work as a result of having time to do it. But let’s be clear here… That ‘more work’ came about specifically in the pursuit of more time. The reason one would decide to use one’s new found free time to improve the process that brought about that free time in the first place would be: More free time. Free time would seem to have been the goal. If so, we have most certainly lost sight of it.

So it’s true. In the budding days of agriculture, the labor saving innovation that was ‘collect seeds and plant them closer to home’ did indeed ‘free people up’ to work on other things. First, to improve what had brought about the free time, and then other things like smithing, tanning, weaving, sciences, etc. Each of these instances would have followed a similar trajectory. At first, the going was tough, and the fruits of the labor were scarce. Early smiths had to pioneer the techniques used to create and work decent metal. The first tanners had to figure out the best way to prepare hide for further work. Prior to the scientific method, experimentation would have been haphazard at best. But through innovation and refinement these processes were improved, not unlike the aforementioned methods of food production. Before long skills were developed, techniques established and refined, and the focus shifted from just simply being able to do it to instead being able to do it efficiently. In other words, once we got the basics down pat, we began seeking ways to reduce the required input… or create more free time for ourselves.

And we did…

Now labor saving innovations have ‘freed’ those craftspeople (or, rather, their descendants) to… wait for it… flip burgers, stock shelves, and man cash registers! These jobs, when compared to the previous occupations, seem like a bit of a step down. Further, there is plainly less involvement on the part of the worker. Where a smith would apprentice with a mentor to learn and master a skill, a cashier simply gets a quick overview and is left to figure it out. Comparing the substance of the jobs reveals that one is a meaningful effort; work which requires the attention and skill of a human being, and the other is nothing more than hollow, no-skill busywork. Is this what we have to look forward to?

A smith might work to improve his/her process so that they could access more of their time. What they choose to do with this time is irrelevant, be it further innovation, more work,  or personal enjoyment. The point is that it was an option. It is not an option for someone who works in retail. In their case, the work of improving the process falls to another person, and should that person be successful in lessening the workload it results in less work (thus income) for the retail worker. The retail worker is in a position where it’s a bad idea for them to innovate, as it will directly translate into less need for them. As such, it’s no surprise to see the attitude towards work changing in the way that it is. Gone are the days of being true to one’s employer, of feeling like one is truly a vital part of something bigger. These days, one is expected to feel this way as a prerequisite to employment. One is expected to be a team player; to act like you are onboard with their goals, prior to even being hired. Instead of a company demonstrating it’s commitment to it’s employees and being rewarded with their loyalty, loyalty (or at least the illusion of it) is now just another prerequisite.

This next ‘phase’ of ‘workers being freed up’ by automation will have them go where exactly? Should we expect another step down for the millions and millions of people who find themselves already in these menial jobs? Don’t get me wrong. I absolutely recognize the immense benefits that come along with the displacement of the earlier craftspeople… Machines are able to do their work better and quicker, resulting in better and cheaper goods for more and more people. But that step down from dignified and fulfilling work into positions that have little substance and garner little respect has had an immense impact on the mental well-being of the millions of young people who find themselves there. Their work is near pointless, they receive no real respect from those who they serve because what they do is so hollow; only still done by a human because of the ROI of the automated solution, so many of them feel discarded and unwanted by society. And so they treat society in kind.

Where once we had people passionate about their skills; their jobs, we now have apathetic drones who are numb to the world and so mindlessly consume and conform. Work which aught be done by machines is delegated to our youth because it’s cheaper that way. This worked fine when said work was plentiful enough to provide the ability to choose one’s specialty; when it was meaningful enough to provide a sense of achievement and worth. But now, that work is hollow and unfulfilling. Not to mention unappreciated.

We’ve lost sight of our goal. If it is indeed ‘more free time’, then we have and continue to trade it for more stuff. The notion that human desires are infinite is, in my opinion, misguided. It may be true, but it is vitally important to remember that we live (at least for now) in a very much limited environment. Some amount of moderation is required if we are to continue to progress. It’s high time we took a look at our achievements and made an effort to utilize them to clean up our workspace. We have immense potential: Millions of capable and eager human beings, copious resources, the ability to provide for them time, space, materials, knowledge, and challenges. We still have much to accomplish, but it’s important that we occasionally take stock of our resources, organize our tools, and of course have a coffee break now and again.

So automation really does ‘free people up’. It can even be said that people freed up by automation go on to work on other things. But is that really optimal? Is this really a “solution” to the idea of technological unemployment? People ‘freed up’ do not seek out further employment because they feel like they have time to spare; that they can finally get to doing whatever it was they wanted to do before realizing that eating and sleeping indoors required at least a 40 hour a week commitment… they seek another job because without it, they’re out. Out of their homes, out of society, cut off from the space, time, and resources needed to do meaningful work, just plain out.

If we are to be freed by our innovations, then we must recognize just having time to kill doesn’t make us free. We must be free to pursue our own passions, and that means readily having access to the necessities of life and the tools of innovation. We can make these things available in abundance by leveraging the very same technologies that brought us to this point. Or perhaps there is another way we can organize the meaningful application of the free time that we work so hard for and are so terrified to make use of.

We need to react while we still can. The poor and downtrodden, who’s numbers swell daily, will only take so much injustice. Our increasing ability to light up the dark corners of the Earth and see first hand how and why things operate the way they do will continue to stoke the fires in the hearts of those who desire real change. Unless we bring change about using the societal and economic tools at our disposal, it will be brought about using firearms and sacrifice.

You the people have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness! You the people have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure!

One way or another.