The dour feminist in me would like to point out that women are still struggling toward full autonomy in society after some 2000 years of ‘civilization’ ( :/ ), but the hot topic of self driving vehicles has crossed my desk and merits a comment or two with regards to society.
A healthy dose of skepticism is always in order when it comes to vaunted new technology promoted by the tech industry. Because they, like other features of capitalist society, value profit over anything else, the tech industry will often jazz up, embellish, and often outright fabricate their claims to make their product seem like the next “must have” consumer item in society (consider the recent crapple failphone X – now with *twice* the screens to break).
Skepticism in place, we do need to realize that sometimes the technological advance is real and will have serious effects in society. Consider the case of the elevator operators in the 1940’s. It was a flourishing job opportunity, and even wielded social power as a 1945 elevator-operator strike in Manhattan severely clogged the engines of business industry. Within a generation this profession was gone; automatic elevators had all but replaced human elevator operators and ran elevators more efficiently and cheaply ever since.
A shit deal if you happened to train for and be a Elevator Operator – with the phrase “this is progress looks like burning in your ears” you had to go out a get a different job, and most likely one that did not pay as well as being an Elevator Operator.
Fast forward to the present day – Truckers are now facing this very same conundrum as automated vehicles are entering their field of work. Operating truck driving software and actually driving a truck are two very distinct categories; thus yet another blue collar job opportunity might very well be shut off to the people. I’m not a Luddite when it comes to new technology in society, but the motivation behind the vehicles (and most of capitalism to be honest) has me worried. “In Canada 1 in every 100 workers is a truck driver, some 300,000 people – it’s the second most common occupation reported by men.” (The Walrus – Overhauled by Sharon J. Riley).
Are we going to spend the money to retrain these people if the technology for self-driving vehicles actually becomes a standard? Or do we just turn these people to the wind, like the Elevator Operators of the 40’s, “here’s your last paycheck, sorry about your luck , bu-bye now.”? I highly doubt that the trucking industry – the prime mover in its quest for ‘automated-efficiency’- is going to step up to the plate and sponsor job retraining for all the employees that have become redundant. The responsibility for integrating these now jobless people back into the economic workforce will most likely fall to the government and as valiant as Canadian social services are, a three hundred thousand plus hit on our limited social resources just won’t end well.
So, the case looks like this – Business moves ‘forward’ creating more efficiency and profitability, while the social and economic damage caused by said advances is left to the government to haphazardly repair with the limited resources available to it. This smells like a looming case of what in corporate culture is known as “externalities” or items that have a tangible economic or social cost but importantly not directly to the company itself (Pollution is a prime example of an ‘externality’). So really, it will be the common citizen, who will be responsible for keeping society going while business plunges ahead willy-nilly chasing the most effective and profitable supply chain.
I have a problem with these technology driven calamitous ‘externalities’ that we will be facing, not just in the transportation sector but in other sectors as well. This process is driven by greed, and greed gives no fucks for those who must perish in the process of efficiency maximization. The argument against me would be such – but with greater efficiency and optimization more people will be better served by the industry at hand, thus society will be better and everyone wins.
It’s just that everyone doesn’t win. The people put out of work by technological advances and their families are going to lose and lose big because they will have no income to afford the goods being delivered so efficiently and profitably to the stores. Our profit driven corporate/business sectors almost always seems to ignore that fact that their profitability hinges on condition that people exist in the market that have the capacity to buy their widgets. You may have the best widgets out there, but with no demand, nothing happens. Of course you can keep profits going up through dubious accounting methods and the churn and burn of the stockmarket magic – but that is an illusion as you are just moving money around an not creating actual value in society; plus that financial shell game periodically crashes hurting everyone in society (see 1929, 2008 et cetra).
The way forward is clear, at least to me. Technological advancement needs to examined and fined tuned through the lens of what society as a whole needs, and not just the business sector because the business sector is necessary too short sighted to see beyond the bottom line and what is good for them at the time.
Related reading and some of my paraphrase fodder – Overhauled – By Sharon J. Riley found in the Walrus Magazine December 2017.
5 comments
December 6, 2017 at 7:31 am
bob
It is correct that societies’ needs will best be met by long term planning and investment towards the benefit of the many rather than the profit or interests of corporations or interest groups. The capitalists literally have a choke hold at the moment so it will take a while to change.
Changes to trucking won’t have nearly the impact that manufacturing job loss has had. Long haul driving, over the road, is nearly 100% turnover annually. “Peddlers”, local delivery, are home every night and is the aspiration of many long haulers. Drivers are: machine operators; cargo handlers / supervisors and secretaries that trace the movement and transfer of the goods. All these functions of the job won’t likely change overnight. Also, a study by a school in Virginia showed we could reduce fuel consumption by a large percent by building some parallel rail lines to reduce long haul trucking. Probably lots of changes/ improvements in our future.
Sorry to be so full of it here but I’d once considered the over the road driver/ modern cowboy lifestyle as a career possibility until I did the math and realized that I “had a favorite chair”, as the lady comedian said.
LikeLike
December 6, 2017 at 9:08 am
raunchel
Self-driving cars are a very interesting case to look at for things like this. Transportation probably is the first area where it will get a serious market share (although it remains to be seen how things will develop legally) because the drivers are one of the main costs. In a way, good self-driving vehicles will also have advantages in terms of safety (a machine doesn’t get tired or bored) but this really depends on the quality of the technology.
Trying to stop its introduction is very difficult, even in a noncapitalist system. At least, if you want to avoid things like masses of people not really doing anything like you had in the GDR. So, drivers (and those who have other jobs that fade in relative importance) should be retrained somehow and there should be a transition period of some kind. For driverless cars safety reasons can be a reason to have a transition period where it’s obligatory to have a driver. At the same time, this could be combined with an obligation to school them for another job. This would be strongly resisted, but I think that it can be done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 6, 2017 at 11:12 am
Steve Ruis
“Civilization” is at least 5000 years old and it is patriarchs “all the way down.”
LikeLike
December 7, 2017 at 8:14 am
The Arbourist
@ raunchel
This will be the litmus test, as introduction of new technology in the past have been quite destructive toward the working class.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 7, 2017 at 11:32 am
raunchel
Yes, and I fear that it will be so again. As a society, we don’t have any good ways to deal with that kind of economic change. And of course, it doesn’t help that policy makers generally don’t even know anyone who works in such a job. I have to confess that most people I know also aren’t exactly working class.
LikeLike