Minimizing the role of man in production reinforces the need to increase his educational level and increases the time for creative activity.

It will minimize human role in labour.

Minimizing the role of man in production reinforces the need to increase his educational level and increases the time for creative activity.

Automation can be liberation from dehumanizing work. Automating work is itself a creative challenge.

Dear Abbas J. Andrey Skorobogatov Karl Pfeifer thank you on your contribution. I agree that the advantages of automation and minimizing the role of humans are vast, but what happens when people get laid off due to automatization. Its a fact as Andrey Skorobogatov says they can work on their creativity and education,but we should have in mind that not everyone aspires to pursue academic career and not everyone opts for education. Instead they can be good craftsmen. I also agree with Karl Pfeifer on the automatisation as a creative challenge, but i cant stop to think about perspectives of workers and their families if they are financialy deprived due to work cut backs.

Hi,

Complete "De-humanization" is a myth. WHen pushcarts became extinct, fuel powered vehicles came into existence, but, it was human controlled. So, I strongly believe in humans being the pivot for any action.

In fact, in many countries, machines have replaced humans, and I fear this will increase, especially in densely populated countries, because this will inevitably affect high unemployment and related problems.

Dear Navnit Kumar Ramamoorthy, Amany Moussa Abdelgalel thank you for your comments.

Lazar Vukadinovic RE: " i cant stop to think about perspectives of workers and their families if they are financialy deprived due to work cut backs."

Yes, being deprived of work that provides necessary income can be a dehumanizing experience. However, such work is often dehumanizing to begin with, one form of dehumanization being accepted for the sake of avoiding another.

I once worked as a construction laborer on a large project where there were intermittent periods of inactivity, e.g. waiting for a load of cement or lumber to arrive or waiting for the steelworkers to finish laying and tying the rods so that cement pouring could begin. For me the dehumanizing part of the job (which otherwise I did on the whole find fulfilling) was the fact that during such periods we were expected to remain on our feet and look busy doing stupid stuff that had no point. One of the older construction workers embraced this form of dehumanization and refined it to an art: he did almost nothing but useless stuff all day, keeping a low profile and always managing to look busy while doing very little real work; he was happy just to trade hours of his life for good pay.

My optimism about automatization is very moderate. The label "Hand-made" means the highest quality. On the other hand (!!!!), manual skills disappear everywere. Everything is clear about theoreticians, they are not able to hammer a nail into the wall, but the experimenter must have smart, and therefore skilled hands. Who will teach? Mastery is not transmitted thru the Internet, but from hand to hand.

Humans will never become obsolete. As technology advances humans are still needed to innovate. The wok roles will change to accommodate changes in technology. It means that humans have to undergo training on a regular basis so that they do not obsolete themselves in terms of their skills.

In the first place, I agree that automatization releases people from (physical) labor giving them more time to spend on things they like better. If we look at agriculture: only 200 years ago, a vast amount of working power and hard physical work was needed to provide the sufficient food supply. Considerable parts of the labor force were consumed by food production. Today, we easily produce more food than we need with much fewer workers. That did work out, as education enabled many people, previously working on the fields, to be employed in the much more productive industrial sector.

I have no doubt that there will still be many jobs for creative and highly skilled people in the future. But I am not sure that all can keep up with the increase in education that is required by those jobs. Where are the employments for those people?

Here, I see a serious problem. The most elementary economic capital that everybody has access to is - apart from some exceptions - the ability to work, in particular those who are otherwise without resources. But for those who reach adulthood without a profound education, it becomes increasingly difficult to live of their hand's work.

In an automatised society where physical labor is worth very little, how to secure economic participation of the low educated part of society?

Dear Karl Pfeifer Vadim G. Gorshkov Srini Vasan thank your contribution to the topic.

@ Karl Pfeifer You have given as an outstanding overview as to dehumanization being accepted just for the sake of gaining an income, excellent example. @ Vadim G. Gorskov thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we live in time where craftsmen are looked at as lower class in a society. Children opt for general schooling without looking at their capabilities in order to satisfy wishes of their parents. Only a few go to specialised schools and be trained for concrete handy work.@ Srini Vasan Thank you for placing an emphasis on the permanent need for training in order to keep pace with developments in the field of technology.

Dear Thomas Neusius thank you on an indepth analysis. Firstly, i agree with the statement you made on automatization releasing people from (physical) labor by giving them more leisure time.  You had an outstanding remark as to the capability of individuals to keep pace with rapid changes and requirements of education. Not everyone learns in the same manner, some acquire knowledge faster some slower. In fact this will differentiate them on the market and will be of crucial importance as to their working future. You have also raised another important question on how to secure economic participation of the low educated part of the population. It is an excellent question and can be a very good starting point for further discussion.