Oh no! Robots stealing American jobs? Cry me a river.

I am utterly stunned by the number of blithering idiots who come up to me and tell me I am hurting people by taking their jobs by working on robots.

Lets be perfectly clear here: the purpose of technology is to make human life easier. Normally that is a celebrated thing: either we have to do less labor, or we will undo some mess we made, or we will simply have the same amount of labor but it won't be as tiring. All throughout history this has been true: the wheel, the plow...all of these things changed the way humanity lived in a tremendous and drastic scale. All these things are celebrated cornerstones without which our society would never have become what it is.

Think back. At the time, what did people do before the automatic printing press? They copied books by hand. Monks in monasteries carefully painstakingly copied books word for word. When the printing press arrived, what happened to them? They were all replaced by the printing press and found other tasks to do. This was not considered some great tragedy, this was considered one of the greatest societal changes in human history: now material to read was accessible to people who were not the richest of the rich.

Lets try again: the cotton gin. You remember that right? It was on a page with the name "Eli Whitney" in your middle school US History textbook. This machine separated usable cotton from the junk it grew in, a process that was previously done by hand. This was considered a tremendous improvement as one person could now do the work of many with this machine. Uh-oh, doesn't that mean you are "destroying jobs?" Sure does, but people adapted! The Cotton Gin has gone down in history as an important contributor to the American Industrial Revolution and a major shaping factor on the Southern economy at that time.

Lets try again: how about the automatic weaving machines that revolutionized the textile industry? How about the dynamite and the (even more) backbreaking work involved in mining prior to its introduction? The plow? The wheel? All of these things decreased the need for simple manual labor and meant that one person could do more in a given span of time. The completely natural effect of one person being able to do the work of many is for the one person to continue doing that job and for the many to go find new jobs. What the hell would have happened if we had tried to restrict the development of the plow to preserve the jobs of the people who dug the holes for the crops by hand? No, that concept is laughable. It is normal for technology to replace our nastiest jobs: that is what it is there for. The only question is, how do we manage to adapt?

Historically, as the complication of the technology around us increases the length of time we spend in the education system increases. In the late 1800's graduating highschool was a rare feat. By the late 1900's it was a bare minimum. This is because the modern world requires a higher level of literacy and more math skills than simply counting cattle.

So here is my big question: what about this multi-thousand year trend changes just because you start calling your machines robots? What changes when its a "dark factory" instead of an automated threshing machine, or an automated welder, or any other of a million other devices which have reduced labor by the same scale as any of those devices would?

The answer is that nothing has changed. Last turn of the century it was the industrial revolution and, with any luck it will be the robotic revolution this time around. Last time around nobody screamed "but what will all the town blacksmiths do?" and tried to stop things, and it is only a sign of how completely spoiled our generation is that we even consider doing such a thing today. Lets face it: even if I am wrong and it isn't moral, the development of technology is going to happen either way because its flatly profitable.

If you work in a factory (or any number of other places), your job has a very good chance of being replaced in the next 100 years. This is a natural and positive thing because, if history serves as any example, if your children study hard in school they will probably have far easier jobs than yours when they grow up. The question we ought to be asking is not "how can we stop or weather this revolution" but "what is wrong with our education system that we may not be able to keep up with our own inventions."

The fear and anger people feel is misdirected. The "robots" that are coming to take the jobs you use to do are merely messengers of the fact that technology is continuing to develop and that, in fact, nothing has changed at all.