If robots are not the problem, then what is?

On the one hand, I could not agree more with Para Mullan. I agree that artificial intelligence (which may or may not mean "robots" in the conventionally-understood fashion) is an inevitability that we should embrace.

On the other, though, I could not agree less.

"Productivity, what we can produce over a given time, is the best indicator of how much an economy is able to deliver for its people."

Really?

Does productivity really deliver positive relationships, good health, a sense of well-being, engagement with one's community, empathy, education, a connection with the spiritual and the opportunity to invest in oneself?

I think an economy is able to deliver a great deal for its people (its participants) without needing to endorse unlimited growth. Otherwise, we sound like the anecdotal billionaire who, when asked how much it would take to make him happy, replied "just a little bit more".

I'm excited by a future of artificial intelligence and robot assistance not because it will make us more productive, but because it will help us to be more constructive.

For further reading, check out Kate Raworth's "Doughnut Economics" as an accessible first step into the idea that growth and conventional productivity are the problem - and one that AI and robotics should be able to help us solve for the long term.

Long ago people predicted that automation would mean the we would be working very short hours for pay. The machines would produce what we need. The rest of the time we would enjoy our leisure, spend time learning for fun and look after each other and our environmment. There are "Primitive" societies that do just this. People "work" for an hour or two each day meeting their basic needs and have fun the rest of the time. This seems rather sensible to me!

We are a long way from this world still. In the rich countries there has been an explosion of consumption driven by marketing creating wants. Gross inequality has funnelled most of the gains from increased productivity to the already rich. This is unsustainable.

"Anyone who thinks unlimited growth in a finite planet is indefinitely sustainable is either mad or an economist!"

Do we need some deep dialogue across society and organisations about WHY? What are we trying to achieve? What sort of world do we want our great-great-grandchildren to inherit? What do we need to do now, and stop doing to bring this about?

Long ago people predicted that automation would mean the we would be working very short hours for pay. The machines would produce what we need. The rest of the time we would enjoy our leisure, spend time learning for fun and look after each other and our environmment. There are "Primitive" societies that do just this. People "work" for an hour or two each day meeting their basic needs and have fun the rest of the time. This seems rather sensible to me!

We are a long way from this world still. In the rich countries there has been an explosion of consumption driven by marketing creating wants. Gross inequality has funnelled most of the gains from increased productivity to the already rich. This is unsustainable.

"Anyone who thinks unlimited growth in a finite planet is indefinitely sustainable is either mad or an economist!"

Do we need some deep dialogue across society and organisations about WHY? What are we trying to achieve? What sort of world do we want our great-great-grandchildren to inherit? What do we need to do now, and stop doing to bring this about?