For one thing it is a tough, dirty, physically taxing job. If you can reduce the strain on humans and not wear them out as fast I’d call it a win…
Sure, but I’d imagine that Joe the Bricklayer may have a slightly different reaction when you tell him the exciting news that he doesn’t have to lay bricks anymore because a robot can do it.
But the thing is, we don’t have to replace Joe with a robot. The hard part about being a bricklayer is having to make cement, carry that cement in buckets, carry concrete blocks, amongst other things that I don’t even know (I watched my father in law working a few times). Why can’t we just replace the “heavy” part with robots?
Let’s use robots to our advantage, but keep people doing jobs they actually like.
That’s because something’s wrong with our system. Joe the bricklayer has others things HE wants to do, but reaping the rewards for the businesses he helped build is in the cards for most.
I don’t disagree, but that bigger picture sentiment isn’t keeping the lights on at Joe’s house.
For the record: I am completely against the notion that we should stifle technical progress to preserve jobs and the status quo, but I just also feel it’s something that we owe it to ourselves as a society to manage that issue alongside the progress so nobody gets left behind.
That’s how we ended up with the solidly blue rust belt turning very purple over the past 50 years, and a state of coal miners like West Virginia becoming blood red.
