Prosthetics, technology, and ethics of labor.
Aasa Ibsen and Pedro H. Baez.
The collaboration between Aasa Ibsen and Pedro H.Baez is a product of a deep and long-lasting conversation. This reflection is part of a dialogue that more or less happened some years ago.
Pedro H. Baez: Here I am particularly interested in the concept of prosthetics and its relationship to the human body, as well as the various disciplines and topics that it has recently evaluated. The nature of prosthetic devices is a complex and complex question about the nature and meaning of man and his relationship to the human body. What is the nature of prosthetics? Is prejudice a kind of prosthetic device that helps us understand the world? To what extent are we invested in it? Would it be more appropriate to imagine a world without prosthetics? All of these questions seem to have been elevated to critical importance within the recent academic literature, but I wonder whether it might be possible to move beyond this static view and start from the other side by rethinking the ethics of prosthetics in light of our current understanding of the body, technology, and society as a whole. In particular, I wonder whether we could ask more about the degree to which robots are “mere” prosthetics, rather than fully inclusive devices that might invite emotional attachments and even mimics emotions.
And, further, I wonder whether the ethical questions surrounding robots and human-robot interaction can be viewed from a more critical, constitutive perspective. These are all important questions that I want to address in the next sections. But before we begin, I want to briefly speak about the potential implications of robotics for human society and ethics. When we turn to the ethics of robots, we often begin to perceive the implications of robot-assisted human labor and our decision to start doing more domestic labor such as picking fruits and vegetables. This framework presupposes that an artificial, or surrogate, would have essentially no emotional or sexual attachments. If robots are ethical, then, it is tempting to conclude that the other consequences of prosthetics and domestic labor are “moral.” It is easy to read such arguments as moral panics. But in a real-world context, we are unlikely to face these ethical questions in a certain manner.
A. Ibsen: To act ethically requires us to think about these questions from a perspective that is not seen as “natural.” To pursue this perspective, we must ask whether the impacts of robotics on human society and the ethics of human rights and ethical ethics is itself “natural” or is the product of human action. To use an analogy, it is highly unlikely that an individual we perceive as “natural” would construct a system to govern society in such a way that it ended up dividing society into groups for natural, innate purposes and rules. The second way in which robotic capabilities and autonomy are inimical to traditional ideas about the social unity of human beings is through the technological processes that are now producing robots that we cannot easily put in harm’s way. The technology must support its own culture or it cannot survive. The autonomy that robotics promotes must also uphold its own culture, and the diversity of culture it has to offer its users is complex. As Dale Thompson, professor of science, technology, and society and professor of applied ethics at the University of Edinburgh writes, “…if some autonomous robot knows in advance what needs to be done and when it is in the dominant culture. Only an autonomous robot in a dominant culture would want to set up its enforcement or defense mechanisms; and when that seems impractical, they would either be too lazy to carry out their own needs or too dangerous to go out and do them. These things happen to be exactly the social and cultural conditions in which extreme technologies of some kind would be called on to protect human welfare or to carry out work.”
According to Steven Pinker, the question we should ask when we consider whether new technology has eliminated a job in the labor market is: “Whether we’d still need that job if the robot were doing it?” Jonas Fukuyama has argued that, if we allow technological progress to determine future job prospects, people in the future will be trapped in a false economic survival-of-the-fittest ideology. There is already a lot of post-work social activity, but it is shallow and negative. For example, Bailiwick calls it “Sweatshop”, a flexible, temporary practice designed to keep workers busy but be at the same time not work. The pressure for the labor market to adapt to the new technologies is very high. Some of the driving forces are Competition from a vast labor pool in today’s labor markets The rapid pace of technological change Independence from other forms of social patronage. Changes in the rules of the job market are problematic. We saw recently that, while there was broad agreement in both sides of the Atlantic about the importance of minimum wages, the Conservative UK government took the position that that wages could not be so low. Competition between employers Differential bargaining power, as discussed in the economic history of unions End of common identity in the labor market Lack of incentives in favor of individual economic activity. What can we do about these problems? There are many ideas on the table. The most common one is a combination of redistributive measures and public policy: Wage subsidies, retraining, and accommodation at work for workers facing technological disruption. Redistribution of productivity gains. Such measures are very controversial as they are claimed to punish work and distort the economy. But given the multi-trillion dollar deficit the US and UK government is facing, this is not a surprising position to take. Public support for non-work activities — direct and indirect taxes on consumption and wealth. Increased competition. Given the competition from robots, robots are likely to drive productivity gains to a much greater extent. Competition regulation — to stop automation from going too far. We have reviewed the full range of plausible policies. We have explored the subject in detail through this site, but one thing is clear. If we want the labor market to function effectively in the long term, then the complexity of the labor market will have to be addressed.
Rise of technology Technological change will require a massive increase in investment in the US and UK. An investment of about $200 billion per year is required over the next few decades. The economics of such investments is not complex. High skilled jobs require higher incomes, the quality of education and skills needs to be improved. Higher standards of living mean higher taxes as the money will be spent on consumption. The transition costs will also be enormous. Each of us is going to have to invest in advanced skills and education at the current level of living. Low skilled jobs in other countries have to move abroad to be filled by the new talent. Mostly, then, we will be choosing to invest in those technologies that will employ those who require them, the future workforce. The problem of too few skilled workers was covered in another article. What follows is my guess at the source of the problem.
Pedro H. Baez: It is worth summarising: — The idea that we have ‘too many jobs’ is wrong-headed. The supply of labor is a function of the labor supply and labor demand, rather than a function of the number of jobs. Jobs are not being created or lost. — It is convenient to blame immigration for creating employment opportunities, but it is jobs that demand high levels of skills and education that employers are looking for. — The current role of robots in manufacturing is good news. We should encourage the best and brightest to work with these machines. Of course, there will be an impact on employment, but I would rather see unemployment than labor market difficulties due to diminishing demand for skills. — The supply of skilled workers will also shrink. Many of us will work in the service sector. This is a good thing. Service work and certain kinds of education will keep demand for skilled and otherwise educated labor in check. We will need to address the inequality in pay that comes from a very large pool of people earning too little to live on. The solution to this is not to move in a self-destructive political direction.
A. Ibsen: The solution is to raise the skills base and invest in the economy’s future. — What new skills need to be acquired? I agree with Andrew, the work of Ross Martin and Charles Goodhart is an important input into this debate. There is also important literature in the literature about skills costs. For instance, the Swedish government published a report recently that argued that skills costs were less than commonly assumed. Yet there is probably an even bigger topic in this debate — the change that will need to occur in the fabric of our lives so that the technical and cognitive aspects of human behavior can also be enhanced. This must come as no surprise to those who have been following the changes in the health care sector, where we are becoming increasingly reliant on computers and algorithms and offshoring our jobs as a result. We must ask whether our lives will also need to be transformed to support the sustainable quality of life for our future workforce. It will be an uphill struggle. But if we succeed, many new benefits will flow our way.
