Custom Search 1

How are we going to survive when robots take our jobs?

WITH THE rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and other smart technologies, it is inevitable that a number of jobs will be automated away.

Assuming technological unemployment impacts 80-90% of jobs—the most severe forecast—how would the majority of people survive without some form of income? And what would they do with their time (and the rest of their lives) if not employed?


One of the more humane solutions proposes aggressive public policy to underpin a post-job society with basic income programs, known as Universal Basic Income (UBI) or 'mincome' ('minimum income') and Universal Basic Services (transport, electricity, education, sanitation, healthcare).

If AI and other forms of smart technology do take over many work functions, the social safety net would need to expand beyond filling temporary gaps to actually forming the basis of the provision of essential needs for most people.

Establishing mincome for all could empower the majority and protect society from collapse due to economic imbalance. In fact, rather than provide bare subsistence, a mincome might offer the support needed to foster human creativity, problem solving and innovation. Making sure all the basic needs are met across society would be a necessity in the absence of paying jobs. This could also provide a huge benefit to society in terms of maximising human potential.


Mainstream analyses of work automation show that we are already seeing losses in routine white-collar office functions, but gains in computing, mathematical, architecture, and engineering related roles. Social skills — such as persuasion, caregiving, emotional intelligence and teaching — will be in higher demand than narrow technical skills.

Teachers will be in high demand. Recently UNESCO has announced that almost 70 million teachers must be recruited to achieve the goal of universal primary and secondary education by 2030. While AI might perform the logistical and technical aspects of teaching, there is no adequate concept yet for automating the one-on-one support in the classroom. Automation could make teaching a more attractive and lucrative profession, and drive innovation in schools by enhancing human skills in the classroom.


Without clear-cut jobs to prepare for, future generations, enabled with some form of mincome, would then be in a position where experiential and self-guided learning could be more embedded in everyday life and become the new definition of 'making a living'. Rather than spend eight hours a day in classrooms, in preparation for spending eight hours a day on a job, children could go outdoors, explore their communities, travel short and long distances and learn about things they enjoy. Future generations could experience education that preserves humanity, not eliminates it.

There is unlimited potential for humanity in a world where work is mostly performed by machines and algorithms. One of the most positive responses to automation would be to eliminate social and economic inequality. For example, redirecting resources to ensure all people have what they need to survive, and providing opportunities so that the majority, not the lucky few, get to seek personal fulfilment. We have a choice in front of us today; use the technology at hand to create massive unemployment and economic inequality or as an enabler of abundance and human potential.

Rohit Talwar and Alexandra Whittington are from Fast Future, which publishes books from future thinkers around the world exploring how developments such as AI, robotics and disruptive thinking, could impact individuals, society and business and create new trillion-dollar sectors.


The Voice is celebrating its 35th birthday this year. Share your Voice memories, comments and birthday wishes on social media, using the following hash tag: #Voice35Years

Read every story in our hardcopy newspaper for free by downloading the app.

Facebook Comments