Being gainfully employed is about more than money. We need to consider what will give our lives purpose and connections in the age of auto information.
When Aristotle described “the complete happiness of man”, he thought it would include, among other things, “self-sufficiency, leisureliness and unweariedness”. Unfortunately the philosopher concluded that “such a life would be too high for man” – it was suitable only for the gods. All the same, he encouraged humanity to keep striving to get as close to “complete happiness” as possible.
I reckon he’d be proud of where we’ve got. Today, the fourth industrial revolution– which ranges from artificial intelligence to genetic engineering and automation – promises almost total freedom from weariness and uninterrupted leisure time as demands of work are taken away from us by better, cheaper and more efficient artificial technology.
The robots are coming and apparently they’re here to work.
But will all the free time we’re being promised actually make our lives any better? Is a life without work one we’d actually want to live?
I’ve often debated the merits of continuing to work after winning the lotto with friends and family – I maintain that I wouldn’t but I always find myself in the minority. Apparently this isn’t unique to my social circle – a 2013 Gallup poll found 68% of people would keep working after winning lotto. I’m assuming they’re not thinking they’ll still need the money, so what is it about the daily grind that’s more appealing than putting your feet up on a beach?
People view a robot during the Taiwan Automation Intelligence and Robot Show in Taipei, Taiwan, in August.
The obvious answer is that we don’t only work for income we do it because it adds meaning to our lives and gives a sense of purpose. Even though I insist I wouldn’t work if I struck it rich, what I mean is that I’d choose the type of work I would do and how often I’d do it. For instance, I would still write and give talks on subjects I’m passionate about.
It’s not necessarily because “if you do what you love, you’ll never work a day in your life”. Writing, preparing talks and doing research are all work but it’s work I think is worth doing and the financial wealth would mean I could balance it with everything else I value in life. To put it simply, I’d do it because it would bring me closer to Aristotle’s “complete happiness”.
There’s new research to back up this popular mode of thinking. The economist Paul Dolan’s recent book Happiness by Design shows the happiest people are those who experience feelings of both purpose and pleasure over time. All the work and no play might make Jack a dull boy but all play and no work, isn’t going to make him happy either.
Of course not all work is going to provide us with a profound sense of purpose. Some of it is both pointless and unpleasant – a total happiness suck. Someone in a role they hate, working for a company whose values don’t match their own or not earning enough money to live off isn’t going to be nourished by their work. Assuming their financial needs could be met, they’d seem to be much better off quitting and leaving the work to a robot.
Here’s where the challenges for automation start to arise. It’s easy to say there are certain individuals who would be happier if they left their jobs to a robot but automation isn’t going to replace individual roles – it’s going to replace entire industries. Experts say 47% of jobs in America are likely to be robots and other automated processes and researchers reckon the situation is likely to be similar in Australia.
There are almost undoubtedly people who find purpose or pleasure in the work they do and will not be happier having their jobs replaced. But automation looks likely to capture the satisfied and dissatisfied alike across a range of industries – cabbies, surgeons, accountants, artists, – the list goes on.
Đăng nhận xét