Man Vs. Robot Nation By Robert Bain
Man vs. Machine
What if you were to go to work one day and find out that your boss had fired EVERYONE? Better yet, what if you then went home that same day and found everyone sitting in the living room with the same news of being let go? As technology expands more into our work place, it may have a great effect as to whether we have a job or employment in the future. Robot nation, by Robert Bain states that, "people are generally said to be lazy and always looking for the easy way to do things". Technology has answered this aforementioned quest by making machines that are able to do our work for us. Examples of this are automatic mail sorters, McDonald's hamburger patty flippers, self service line at grocery stores and even web sites …show more content…
I believe we need to limit the technology that we allow into our working and private lives as it will at some point go from a positive to a negative for us as a whole. I will give you a few examples of why we need to limit the technology we allow into our workforce. These examples include future effects on our economics, the negative aspects of a full robotic workforce also known as "human replacements", the ethical/morality of the issue and a few thoughts from the people who defend and are for the replacement of humans for machines in our work …show more content…
Robert Bain from the web blog robotic nation says defenders use a common logical fallacies of begging the question, believe that as technology increases, it will create new jobs. This may be true in the fact that we will need more POLICE! Some defenders use the hypostatization common logical fallacies by saying that robots will replace mostly replace mostly repetitive, dangerous and time consuming jobs that we as lazy people don't want to do anyways. My response to this is that it is absolutely false because as our jobless rate indicates that there are many poor people that would give anything for the chance to do these remedial, boring and dangerous jobs. If the difference between life and death was to work a boring and repetitive job, we would gladly take the job over starvation. Defenders for over technologifying our work force say it would give us more time to spend with family, studies and relaxation time. This point seems invalid to me since it would be extremely hard to relax when you're sitting on the curb while you're hungry family keeps asking you to buy them some food because they have an empty
What if you were to go to work one day and find out that your boss had fired EVERYONE? Better yet, what if you then went home that same day and found everyone sitting in the living room with the same news of being let go? As technology expands more into our work place, it may have a great effect as to whether we have a job or employment in the future. Robot nation, by Robert Bain states that, "people are generally said to be lazy and always looking for the easy way to do things". Technology has answered this aforementioned quest by making machines that are able to do our work for us. Examples of this are automatic mail sorters, McDonald's hamburger patty flippers, self service line at grocery stores and even web sites …show more content…
I believe we need to limit the technology that we allow into our working and private lives as it will at some point go from a positive to a negative for us as a whole. I will give you a few examples of why we need to limit the technology we allow into our workforce. These examples include future effects on our economics, the negative aspects of a full robotic workforce also known as "human replacements", the ethical/morality of the issue and a few thoughts from the people who defend and are for the replacement of humans for machines in our work …show more content…
Robert Bain from the web blog robotic nation says defenders use a common logical fallacies of begging the question, believe that as technology increases, it will create new jobs. This may be true in the fact that we will need more POLICE! Some defenders use the hypostatization common logical fallacies by saying that robots will replace mostly replace mostly repetitive, dangerous and time consuming jobs that we as lazy people don't want to do anyways. My response to this is that it is absolutely false because as our jobless rate indicates that there are many poor people that would give anything for the chance to do these remedial, boring and dangerous jobs. If the difference between life and death was to work a boring and repetitive job, we would gladly take the job over starvation. Defenders for over technologifying our work force say it would give us more time to spend with family, studies and relaxation time. This point seems invalid to me since it would be extremely hard to relax when you're sitting on the curb while you're hungry family keeps asking you to buy them some food because they have an empty