Hello World

We talked a lot today about technology and how it could/would replace the need for people in many fields of work. There were many examples named, from having holograms of artists and singers to using robots to perform surgeries, and while the panic due to automation-induced unemployment is understandable, I don’t think that it is as bad as many people seem to believe; it will be a long time before robots will completely replace certain workforces, and new opportunities will be opened up by these technologies. The argument mentioned in the WIRED article speaks to this fact–in the grand scheme of things, technology will become more of an aid/assistant than a replacement for humans. The value of human interaction, craftsmanship, and creativity does not seem like it will be lost due to automation/technology. For example, synthetic diamonds can be created and sold for a fraction of the price of real diamonds, but the value of the real diamond is still appreciated and sought after. The less expensive, synthetic diamonds merely appeal to a different group of consumers who may not be able to afford the real diamonds, but this doesn’t take away from the value of the real diamond, especially as a “status symbol”. The same phenomenon can be observed in fashion; fast fashion offers a much cheaper way to purchase clothing that imitates “haute couture”, but it in no way replaces it.

In terms of technology taking over service/retail, like Amazon Go for example, I think that this might occur for certain things like groceries and video game rentals, but the value of human interaction will allow many stores to keep thriving. Many cosmetics stores like Lush or Sephora offer valuable human interaction in stores, where employees develop a relationship with the customer. This experience cannot be replaced by a robot and so the demand for these stores will still exist. Technology can just provide more options for consumers; if they need something quick and convenient, they can go to somewhere like Amazon Go where no human interaction is needed, but if they want the experience of human interaction, other places will still exist.

I do think that the implementation of technology can bring about more profit and efficiency for both consumers and companies, but I think it is important to realize that while there might be a net growth in GDP, the distribution of the riches may be extremely skewed. I think that the rise of technology in the workforce comes with the consequence of even greater inequality, as only those with access to resources and education will be able to take advantage of the opportunities opened up with technology. I would imagine that much of the push for increased technology refers to growth in GDP, but a rise in GDP is not a good indicator for quality of life, since it really fails to take into account the individual experience. Inequality is a very pressing issue in today’s society and I wonder if the implementation of technology into the workforce will exacerbate this problem.

Another important thing to think about is how social media platforms/media in general can facilitate conversation instead of fuelling echo chambers. It is hard because, as Jacob mentioned in class, there was a study that showed how exposure to another perspective during the political election actually polarized people even more. However, I feel like the reason for this is partly due to the content that was shared; for example, most videos by liberal platforms straight up insulted Trump and his supporters, and if you were a Trump supporter, you wouldn’t change your opinions after getting told how stupid and racist you were. The content that is randomly shared by platforms should definitely be more neutral, but ultimately it is the individual who has to be open to viewing these different opinions. The problem now is that even if individuals want exposure to different perspectives, the media makes it difficult to find that content.

I look forward to further discussion on technology and its relationship with societal issues.