The purpose of technological advancement is human advancement, enjoyment, and comfort. Humans create (cars, houses, elevators) and modify (air conditioning, weather manipulation) their environment so as to obtain the most comfort for the least amount of energy expended by the individual. Beyond that, we further design machines (assembly lines, robotics, lasers) and devices that make production and modification even more efficient, requiring further less energy.
Arguably, the purpose of these technological developments is to save humans from the toils and dangers of manual labor so that they have more time for leisure and self-fulfillment. More leisure time allows for more relating with one another and the discussing of solutions to the problems of this planet (disease, poverty, climate change) that we all face.
Though, currently, people are necessary for designing these technologies, fewer and fewer man-hours are required for producing, operating, and maintaining them. Designing can be done by a relatively small amount of people compared to the number of people it would take to produce goods without those technologies, even when technology leads to new industries. Since machines increase production and the sum of upfront construction and continuous maintenance costs of machines is less than the costs of paying employees, there becomes either a surplus of goods or the price of goods drops significantly, thus lowering the cost of living while everyone works less.
But capitalism provides another possibility: efficiency gains from technological improvements can be converted to increased profits by refusing to raise wages for production employees or lower the price of produced goods. Generally, modern multinational corporations employ both to various degrees. Despite the drop in their production costs, the cost of labor and the prices of goods remain relatively the same (or change for the better at a tiny fraction of the rate of increased production efficiency), causing their profit margins to grow at a disproportionate rate to the wages of production employees. Funneling the great majority of the benefits of technological advancement to the profits of corporations effectively removes those benefits from society and all people that don't own stock in such corporations.
In the United States of America, life is considered an unalienable right, but life requires food and shelter, which are not considered unalienable rights, evidenced by the number of homeless people being under 4 million while ~18 million homes sit vacant, with 75% of them owned by investors. As well, the USDA's latest data (2010) reports that available nutrition per capita is 4,000 calories and 120 grams of protein per day, both about twice the RDA of an individual, so we've more than enough for all US citizens.
Rights are not to be bought. If everyone is born with the right to life, then no one should be denied what is biologically necessary for them to live. Humans have created the means to shelter and feed the world, but a handful of CEOs, board members, and politicians prevent that from happening because they feel their luxuries are more important than the life of others.
If we're going to be a technological species, we must learn to better share the benefits of continually increasing efficiencies. Most developed countries provide various forms of socialized healthcare, housing, and nutrition. But will that be enough to combat ubiquitous automation? As corporations require fewer employees to produce the same amount of goods, unemployment and poverty will increase if we don't implement other solutions. Basic incomes appear to work on paper and are being tested in a few places, such as Finland, Barcelona, and Ontario.
Perhaps the blockchain can help with this problem. Any thoughts?
If this article made you think about the problems of human labor as capital, please upvote and follow.
