Social implications of robotics

Social implications of robotics

While many applications for artificially intelligent robotswill actively reduce
risk to a human life, many applications appear to compete with a human’s
livelihood. Don’t robots put people out of work? One of the pervasive
themes in society has been the impact of science and technology on the dignity
of people. Charlie Chaplin’s silent movie, Modern Times, presented the
world with visual images of how manufacturing-oriented styles of management
reduces humans to machines, just “cogs in the wheel.”
Robots appear to amplify the tension between productivity and the role of
the individual. Indeed, the scientist in Metropolis points out to the corporate
ruler of the city that now that they have robots, they don’t need workers
anymore. People who object to robots, or technology in general, are often
called Luddites, LUDDITES after Ned Ludd, who is often credited with leading a
short-lived revolution of workers against mills in Britain. Prior to the industrial
revolution in Britain, wool was woven by individuals in their homes
or collectives as a cottage industry. Mechanization of the weaving process
changed the jobs associated with weaving, the status of being a weaver (it
was a skill), and required people to work in a centralized location (like having
your telecommuting job terminated). Weavers attempted to organize and
destroyed looms and mill owners’ properties in reaction. After escalating vi-

olence in 1812, legislation was passed to end worker violence and protect the
mills. The rebelling workers were persecuted. While the Luddite movement
may have been motivated by a quality-of-life debate, the term is often applied
to anyone who objects to technology, or “progress,” for any reason. The
connotation is that Luddites have an irrational fear of technological progress.
The impact of robots is unclear, both what is the real story and how people
interact with robots. The HelpMate Robotics, Inc. robots and janitorial robots
appear to be competing with humans, but are filling a niche where it is hard
to get human workers at any price. Cleaning office buildings is menial and
boring, plus the hours are bad. One janitorial company has now invested in
mobile robots through a Denver-based company, Continental Divide Robotics,
citing a 90% yearly turnover in staff, even with profit sharing after two
years. The Robotics Industries Association, a trade group, produces annual
reports outlining the need for robotics, yet possibly the biggest robot money
makers are in the entertainment and toy industries.
The cultural implications of robotics cannot be ignored. While the sheep
shearing robots in Australia were successful and were ready to be commercialized
for significant economic gains, the sheep industry reportedly rejected
the robots. One story goes that the sheep ranchers would not accept
a robot shearer unless it had a 0% fatality rate (it’s apparently fairly easy to
nick an artery on a squirming sheep). But human shearers accidently kill
several sheep, while the robots had a demonstrably better rate. The use of
machines raises an ethical question: is it acceptable for an animal to die at the
hands of a machine rather than a person? What if a robot was performing a
piece of intricate surgery on a human?