Post 6: Job Automation and Self Driving Cars

Job Automation Summary of Stakeholders

Job automation has long been thought of as a problem; however, it is not known to what extent, and many believe the full effects will not be felt until after the next recession based on past history. Three stakeholders in this issue are the tech companies, the workers, and the government/economy. As more jobs are taken away by machines, tech companies occupy a larger percentage of the economy while the number in the workforce is whittled down. This means more and more people are without jobs while those who do have jobs are generally getting more wealthy, and it is only a select few. The workers now can face a loss of purpose, identity, and sense of community as seen in Youngstown. However, as we saw with the Foxconn article, purportedly it is also an opportunity to train workers to do more high-level tasks as the more automated tasks can be taken over by machines. Theoretically, more time would equal more time to explore interests and creativity, but statistically most time is spent in the living room watching the TV or surfing the internet. One positive is that there is supposedly more time to spend on child care and family bonding. Another idea is that with the loss of the more drudgery type of jobs, more people can follow their job calling, as with the example of 60 year-old Howard Jesko going back to school to teach. With the government or economy, there is the issue with how to deal with taxes and whether there should be a system similar to FDR’s New Deal put into place to deal with the fallout or implement a universal basic income. There is also the issue with how to deal with new urban planning and the fall of the city work offices. Should the government open up small communal community spaces for people to engage in creative work and socializing? Or should the government pay people to attend college, training programs, etc.? The Epicurean ethical framework would probably hold the engineers designing a job automation system where people would lose jobs culpable because it seeks to have people experience more pleasure than pain, but not at the expense of others’ pleasure. In this case, where people are losing their jobs, they are experiencing a profound loss in pleasures that can be seen as natural and good: a loss of identity, community, and pride especially in the U.S. which was built on the idea of work. The engineers designing the system will experience more pleasure but it will be at the cost of thousands more as the gap between the two widens and causes more anxiety for the majority of people. It’s not at the base of it about the salary or wage gap but the loss of basic pleasures that people get from having a job and working which is a sense of purpose and community from working with other peers, which is much more difficult to find when unemployed. This is evidenced by statistics in the the Atlantic article. However, perhaps the engineers see it as their duty and calling to design a job automation system because they feel that both parties are benefiting because more people will have time to spend with family and child rearing or maybe have more time to pursue other interests (which equals pleasure) while they continue to do their jobs and gain pleasure from that. In this case, the culpability of the engineers would be determined by the actual case whether both are actually increasing pleasure and are not at the expensive of the other. However, this line is difficult to differentiate or demarcate.

Pros/Cons of Job Automation with Final Analysis

Pros/Cons of Job Automation

Opposition to job automation is generally centered around the concern that it will cause millions of jobs to vanish, leading to much higher unemployment. To start, many of the United States’ most common jobs are likely targets for job automation. For example, according to “A World Without Work” in The Atlantic, 15.4 million Americans are either retail salespeople, cashiers, food and beverage servers, or office clerks, all jobs that will very likely be impacted by automation in the future. If many of these jobs are cut, there will be a significant increase in unemployment in the short term, at the very least. In addition, there’s the concern that this increased reliance on advanced technology will not even create enough new jobs to replace the jobs that automation has taken. For example, The Atlantic article notes that in 1964, the most valuable company (AT&T) had 758,611 employees and was worth $267 billion (adjusted for inflation) while today’s most valuable company (or at least the most valuable company when this article was written) (Google) is worth $370 billion with only 55,000 employees. This means that with advancements in technology, companies will need significantly less employees to generate similar amounts of revenue, generating concern that with an increased reliance on automation, fewer people will have work. Being unemployed comes with substantial mental baggage, including increased risks of depression and loneliness. Those without work often feel as if they have no purpose, and withdraw from society. Cities where mass unemployment became a reality, such as Youngstown, Ohio, show increases in spousal abuse and suicide. Further, for those who still have a job, if that job could possibly be automated, wages will be kept low, since if they were higher, a company would likely just invest in the automation option instead. Proponents of job automation champion several positives they believe would result from more automation. For one, they believe that, to some extent, the lump-of-labour fallacy is at play, meaning that just because jobs are being automated doesn’t mean that new jobs won’t be created. If the automation is lucrative, some people will be enriched, and those people will spend money in such a way that creates new jobs for those displaced. Further, these new jobs are likely to be less unskilled, and more meaningful, than the jobs being replaced. For example, The Atlantic article notes that about 70 percent of Americans don’t feel fulfilled by their work. That’s often because this work is boring, doesn’t require a lot of skill, or is very repetitive. However, with new jobs being created, or even just more free time, Americans will have more time to chase more creative, stimulating pursuits. Additionally, if automation can shorten the work week or at least decrease the number of hours people work, they will have more time to focus on relationships and hobbies. Finally, automation in certain areas will make many processes cheaper, easier, and more effective. For example, many previously expensive and time-consuming processes in healthcare, such as diagnosing a disease, could be much simpler and much more affordable for the average American with job automation.

Job Automation Analysis

Picking a side for or against job automation is somewhat difficult given the Epicurean framework. This is due to the fact that we would almost need to know the consequences of the action in order to make a determination. If job automation led to more pleasure for the engineers bringing it about and for those whose jobs were taken away, an Epicurean ethicist could be in favor of it. However, with the consequences ranging from millions of people losing their jobs and mass depression like in Youngstown to having the time to find more fulfilling paths and lives, it is hard to say definitively one way or another which side is best. For the engineer, job automation would definitively maximize pleasure as more opportunities in the field would be created. For someone who lost their job to automation, the immediate effects would most likely be negative, but there is a chance it leads to greater pleasure in the future. We care about those who would lose their jobs due to the Epicurean framework’s high value placed on friendships and community, and if automation would jeopardize this and not provide greater future pleasure, and Epicurean ethicist would have to be against automation. One other aspect in this issue could be whether or not job automation would alleviate future anxiety for the worker and community. Knowing that products produced by automation will be virtually free from error can lessen the stress placed on the consumer. Additionally, automation has the potential to lower the price of many products and services which would also benefit the consumer. Additionally, many in jobs that would be eliminated express dissatisfaction with their job and the repetitive nature of it, so freeing those people up to pursue their necessary and natural desires could improve their future lives. However, as mentioned before, this could also have the opposite effect of increasing their future anxieties as they do not have a way to support themselves or their dependents. This could be alleviated with government support, but there is no guarantee that this will occur. In summary, an Epicurean ethicist’s position on job automation greatly depends on the actual consequences of automation and the level of government support offered to those losing jobs. It will definitely improve the pleasure of the engineer, but the ethical determination is mainly based on what happens to the workers losing their jobs. This is due to the Epicurean emphasis on friendship and maximizing pleasure for others as well as yourself.

Self-driving Cars Summary of Arguments for & Against with Final Analysis

Pros/Cons of Self-Driving Cars

In general, the opposition towards self-driving cars is primarily due to the lack of a fully responsible, moral agent in the event of a crash or loss of human life. When an autonomous vehicle is involved in an accident or death, it seems that there is too much ambiguity as to who is at fault and should be held accountable. Should the programmers or the makers be held accountable for the vehicle’s failure? Should the owner who purchased the car be held accountable for the vehicle? Should the vehicle itself be considered a moral agent and in turn be held accountable? There could actually be a fourth option in placing some accountability on the government which allowed these autonomous vehicles in the first place or failed to apply the proper regulations needed. In any of these cases, it is not fair or just to attribute any one entity as accountable unless there is sufficient evidence of negligence or malicious intent. The overwhelming ambiguity in this scenario may lead one to argue that the use of autonomous vehicles is strictly unethical because someone (for instance, the driver) must be able to be held fully accountable for the accident or death. Additional concerns such as safety and security are important for those who oppose self-driving cars. The safety of self-driving cars is still to be proven; there is not enough testing and evidence yet to show that self-driving cars are far better than the average human driver. Also, as with any autonomous system, security is an important concern because if the system is compromised, then many individuals could be involved in car accidents. One could envision an apocalyptic, mass self-destruction of self-driving vehicles in the event of a widespread virus or cyber attack.

Despite these ethical and safety concerns, many people believe that self-driving vehicles are the future of traveling. Proponents of self-driving vehicles believe that with time the algorithms and AI will far surpass human drivers. Not only would the AI be faster at calculating and analyzing the road but the self-driving vehicle would be virtually immune to drowsiness or distractions. Humans are notorious for being bad drivers who may be texting while driving or even be under the influence. An additional reason why one may support self-driving cars is the expected improvements to traffic. When all cars on the road are self-driving and communicating with one another, there would be no need for traffic lights. Traffic lights and roundabouts are simply necessary for humans to avoid crashing into one another. In turn, self-driving cars would never need to stop and would just need to alter their speed and acceleration. Another result would be that general movement would be more efficient. Human drivers cannot coordinate well to move at a constant velocity. What one sees happen is this “snake effect” in which cars continually accelerate and decelerate, causing inefficient and slower movement. Self-driving cars could communicate with one another to establish a set velocity to move efficiently. Furthermore, proponents of self-driving cars have already noted their economic benefits. For instance, instead of paying for parking in a big city, it has been calculated that it is far cheaper to let the self-driving car cruise around the city during the workday. Last, an important reason why individuals support self-driving cars is because they find driving stressful and want the responsibility of driving to be deferred. The worry and stress of driving in environments such as a big city or a busy freeway could be avoided entirely by using a self-driving car.

Epicurean Analysis of Autonomous Vehicles

The debate surrounding self-driving cars can be approached from two different perspectives when viewed by the Epicurean Framework. Mainly, these revolve around the the collision of the the necessity of the self driving car, and the newfound lack of anxiety the utopian autonomous future they might bring. Self-driving cars could, from one perspective, be considered to be an unnecessary desire, if we must have cars, why do would someone really need another reason to be lazy and have the technology take over? From an Epicurean Framework, as long as these cars are not explicitly necessary, and they are scarce in the world, it does not make sense to endorse the technology. However, as we begin to shift towards a world where the autonomous vehicle is the norm, having a car might be less of a necessity. From this point, the frame of reference begins to shift. A driverless world, as mentioned by the final article, might mean a future where people simply do not need vehicles themselves. In other words, having a car has suddenly become an unnecessary desire. By stripping away this possession, it is one less cause of anxiety. This future even endorses a sense of community, and sharing. No longer are people holding their vehicles to themselves because they are “theirs,” instead these vehicles offer the opportunity to be shared resources fostering general happiness between all those that are able to use the resources. Following on from a future that is completely devoid of the human driver, we come to a future where crashes are much less likely to happen due to human error. A huge cause of injury and death are automotive related accidents, a high cause of anxiety to anyone driving. There can be an immense decrease in risk of travelling by car if the entire society shifts to an autonomous infrastructure. Anything that decreases anxiety in this way for the individual, and for society, is a plus for the Epicurean Framework. This additional security would be a positive, provided that society as a whole is able to transition to this infrastructure smoothly. There is an argument to be made that self-driving cars would cause a great number of people to be displaced from their current jobs since the automation would disrupt the industry. In the case of Epicurean Ethics, this is certainly an issue, we do not want to cause unnecessary anxiety where it is not needed. There would have to be some infrastructure in place to deal with this problem, but assuming that there has been a peaceful transition into the self-driving society, this will hopefully not be an issue, allowing for the focus of the question to be on the technology itself. Ultimately, the Epicurean Framework would trend towards being in favor of Self-Driving and Autonomous technology. It provides a unique opportunity to increase the quality of life, while actually decreasing possessions and freeing anxiety. Additionally, the newfound lack of anxiety could provide a new gap-time for individuals to explore their mental necessary and natural desires since they do not have to be so focused on keeping themselves safe while one the road.