 |
| "Philosopher in Meditation (1632) by Rembrandt |
Is intellectual and creative work a higher endeavor? Does relegating monotonous, physically demanding labor to machines free us to pursue more important, more sophisticated, more fulfilling goals? Does it bring humans closer to our highest potential?
In my eyes, this is an incorrect assumption. I do not believe that machines should take over all physically laborious jobs, because for some, physical labor is what they enjoy, what they are the best at. There are many things machines are useful for, and I do agree with Wilde when he states that “all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery.” (25) We should not allow machines to take over our jobs completely, as machines also need to be controlled. As Carr says on page 11, “Artificial intelligence is not human intelligence. People are mindful, computers are mindless.” Therefore, as long as there are jobs being done by machines, there will also need to be people running those machines. Each person has different goals, and a different potential, so to ask if it brings us as humans closer to OUR highest potential, does not make sense to me. I believe that if people want to do something, they should be left to do it, whether it be a job based on physical labor, intellectuality, or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with Hannah. While personally I would prefer not to have a physically demanding job, I do enjoy some types of physical labor. I really like her last point. In general people should be left to do what makes them happy, as long as they don’t hurt others.
DeleteMade apparent by our recent lack of available jobs, there is no person too good to perform a job. These jobs, no matter how physically demanding or unglamorous, are required for our society to function smoothly. An individual's highest potentional is personal and unique to them. We follow different paths to reach our potentional. By automizing jobs, we may be blocking the path someone must follow. We should allow people to choose the jobs they wish to perform.
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with this, but I touched on this subject in another post. Sometimes in this context we end up discussing jobs lost vs. jobs gained. And when technology advances and begins to take over certain jobs, new jobs are created via fixing, maintaining, and developing the machines or computers. We may also be blocking the path someone must follow by NOT utilizing technology.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIntellectual and creative work might not be a “higher” endeavor, but just like any skill or talent, they are very important to society. What sets them apart from physical labor is that they may not be able to be done by machines. I do believe that machines free us to do more things and reach higher goals. Technology allows us to do things much faster and allows us to do things that we never could before. I think technology has helped humans become more advanced, but I don’t think that we necessarily have a “highest potential”, because we will keep coming up with new things and reaching higher heights.
ReplyDeleteWhile nearly anyone can swing an ax or pick fruit, a far less amount of people can create Mona Lisa equivalent paintings or create software for self driving cars, making me believe that, yes, intellectual and creative work are higher endeavors. However, ridding ourselves of labor demanding jobs is not bringing humans closer to our highest potential. Whenever machines take over our monotonous, physically demanding jobs we are free to pursue more important, sophisticated, and fulfilling jobs only in theory. Instead of chopping up firewood to keep warm in winter we depend on our electric heaters. In the time we would have been chopping firewood, we are now watching Netflix. Instead of gaining knowledge on what wood burns best, we are gaining knowledge on fictional characters. The skill of knowing which firewood burns best brings us to a closer understanding with nature, and the greater our understanding the greater our potential.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of a “higher endeavor” has a different definition to each and every human being. Some people are made to do manual labor, and some people are made to sit in an office space. It is completely subjective to that person’s desires. For this reason, I believe machinery taking over every single physical aspect is ridiculous. A person’s highest potential is completely and solely up to themselves. Therefore, I do not agree with the thought that a machine can lead us to our highest potential.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is possible to leave every physical aspect to machines and still have humanity reach its full potential. While it is true that some people hold intellectual and creative work in a higher regard than physical, this cannot be said for everyone. There are many people in society that do not have the drive to discover cures or feel the need to understand the complexity of the human mind. Instead they have the desire to plant crops or to work on a pipeline. There are people that feel more useful and successful when completing physical labor. If we were to give all of the physical tasks to machines, not only would there be less work available for the average person, but we would leave them without a sense of accomplishment. These people who prefer the physical side of life would not be reaching their highest potential.
ReplyDeleteThis is incredibly accurate. Fulfillment, or self-actualization, whichever you prefer, is equally as noble as pursuing a "higher endeavor." Plato believed that there were three kinds of men: the workers, the warriors, and the philosophers. All three were equally integral to society. All three found fulfillment in different roles in society. All three would be equally miserable if they tried to deny their true nature and fill roles other than their native one.
DeleteThe idea that machines could take over more laborious tasks is very enticing, but one has to consider the consequences. While the take over of machines frees some people up to pursue higher level jobs, some people whose jobs are taken over by machines may not have the luxury to find another job. They end up unemployed in a phenomenon called “technological unemployment.” Therefore, before we charge ahead with even more technological advances, we should first come up with jobs to replace the ones that will be lost.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the idea that intellectual and creative work is a higher endeavor than physically demanding labor, I do no not have an absolute answer for that. It is a matter of an opinion. If a person is more intellectually inclined, they will claim that the intellectual endeavors are more important. If a person is more physically gifted, they will claim actually sweating for your money is what matters. The answer will depend on the perspective and background of the person the question is being posed to.
People working at what brings them joy is what will bring humans closer to their highest potential.
I completely agree with you Rachel. Some task could be greatly improved by technology, but if we jump straight into technology without finding jobs for those we are replacing than we will see an even higher unemployment rate. Also, people should be able to do that which makes them happy. Everyone's "highest potential" is solely based upon who they are as a person and what gifts they have.
DeleteThere is a major difference between the work that a machine or robot can do and what very talented people can do. Some people don't have access to the skill or knowledge to work in higher complexity jobs, and those are the people that automation affect the most. Even Secretaries and Managers are going to always be needed because of the sheer amount of priority management that is needed in their work. Manual labor, especially production and factory work, is at the highest risk of being replaced by an automated system. The often simple orders of putting together a large amount of product and boxing it automatically is much more easily done by a system that you never have to pay and very rarely have to manage or supervise.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that intellectual work is more important and sophisticated than manual work is entirely a matter of perspective and bias. People often take pride in their jobs, and when they do they want others to be in the same line of work as them because they view it as honest or prideful. I think what is most interesting about that dynamic is that it is often a one way system for families. A miner might be proud if his son goes to work as a manager for a factory, but a famous actor might be horrified of the thought that their child went lower.
There is a major difference between the work that a machine or robot can do and what very talented people can do. Some people don't have access to the skill or knowledge to work in higher complexity jobs, and those are the people that automation affect the most. Even Secretaries and Managers are going to always be needed because of the sheer amount of priority management that is needed in their work. Manual labor, especially production and factory work, is at the highest risk of being replaced by an automated system. The often simple orders of putting together a large amount of product and boxing it automatically is much more easily done by a system that you never have to pay and very rarely have to manage or supervise.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that intellectual work is more important and sophisticated than manual work is entirely a matter of perspective and bias. People often take pride in their jobs, and when they do they want others to be in the same line of work as them because they view it as honest or prideful. I think what is most interesting about that dynamic is that it is often a one way system for families. A miner might be proud if his son goes to work as a manager for a factory, but a famous actor might be horrified of the thought that their child went lower.
While it may be a nice to think about a world with no sweat or dirt under one’s fingernails, deleting strenuous labor from our work force by the use of machines would prove to be an ignorant decision. In theory, if one had no physical labor to worry about, it would leave one more time to further intellectual ideas and sophisticated pursuits. Unfortunately, theories are dreadfully wrong sometimes. Many laborious jobs have already been replaced by technology. Instead of creating books as influential as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense or discovering number patterns as prominent as the Fibonacci sequence, we would rather play on our IPhones and Instagram our food. Automation has not only made our bodies weaker by doing many physical jobs for us, but also has made our motivation to be productive as a society slip away slowly.
ReplyDeleteIn theory, allowing computers to do our easy work could potentially free us up to do more intellectual work. However, it makes us less sophisticated with our skills. Meaning, it creates a block between our minds and the easy stuff. Though it makes our lives easier, it may make us lazy. We then become reliant upon the ease we are given. For example, I could no longer tell you how to add fractions or percentages, because I have used a calculator for so long. Also, humans will no longer have the satisfaction of completing a task on their own. Humans need to feel the emotion a satisfaction when they finish a task. This summer I worked in a machine shop. There are computerized machines everywhere, whereas 20 years ago there would have been more workers around to complete a task instead of one worker working a computer. Computers have taken over the work force by doing the heavy lifting and "easy" jobs. In contrast, yes it is safer for the workers now that computerized lifts can lift heavy objects for them. This also gives the workers a safer environment. It puts them out of harms way of being injured by a heavy object. Computers in the work force do most definitely create a lazier worker. They no longer have to get down and dirty with the machines, they just press buttons to complete the task. This can create a less satisfactory feeling about your work. Which will create boredom. Which will give the worker a reason to quit the job since they are now bored with it.
ReplyDeleteI have trouble with that statement because if imaginative work is inherently superior then why do I feel better after accomplishing a physical task. It also seems to me that when people get a mind block while doing homework or writing a paper they are encouraged to get up and take a break by doing a more physical task. I feel as if it isn’t up to us to decide if intellectual work is a higher endeavor everybody is different so what I might feel is the better course may be totally wrong for another person. However theoretically dictating physical tasks to machines would free us up to pursue all the intellectual goals we have ever had the only question is if we would use the spare time for that or would we instead choose a more mindless activity such as enjoying our favorite television show. Because we are always evolving and continuously getting better at what we do I do not believe there is a cap on our potential so we will always be getting closer to a higher potential but I don’t believe we have a highest potential.
ReplyDeleteAs animals, I think we’re designed to do laborious work. We have to gather food and build shelter and whatnot. I believe that is why most of us feel a sense of well-being after doing hard work. However, if you do believe that intellectual endeavor and creativity are our real purpose, then doing away with monotonous labor might actually help us “evolve” in a sense. Because those of us that can’t keep up would not be able to thrive in that type of society. We would all begin to revolve around knowledge, creativity, and proper social skills. So perhaps it would force humanity to fit the intellectual role. However, I can’t imagine there being enough jobs to sustain us if we’re all artists and engineers and whatnot. I think it has to be a happy blend of monotonous tasks and some intellectual tasks.
ReplyDeleteI think that tasks that are monotonous by nature such as factory jobs should be regulated be machinery. I think it is a waste of the mind to subject oneself to these activities such as these. On the contrary some monotonous jobs can be just as intellectually fulfilling as engaging in a rigorous debate or reading a good book. I also believe that the amount of intellectual fulfillment you obtain from most tasks is subject to change between personal interests and preferences. Most activities are subject to personal scrutiny but some activities are seen as universally boring. In conclusion I believe the mind should be constantly challenged to perform more intellectually involved tasks instead of mind numbingly boring ones. In an effort to strengthen your own intellectuality.
ReplyDeleteI think that intellectual jobs are higher than more physical jobs. But that does not mean to completely get rid of physical jobs. There is somethings special the simplicity of those jobs. Those jobs invigorates something that I don't think that more "sophisticated" goals give us. But also a lot of time we don't use the extra time that the machines give us to pursue those higher endeavors, instead we would want to use that time to entertain ourselves or to take a "break" from work or life. So to mean we use these "higher goals" just as an excuse so that we can continue to be depend on the machines.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, I believe that intellectual and creative work is a higher endeavor, which "only" humans are capable of. The word "only" means that even the artificial intelligence of the machines are inculcated into them by humans through software. Machines cannot think or work without us enabling them, then, we need more time to generate and utilize ideas that will put the machines to work. This makes the opinion that relegating monotonous, physically demanding labor to machines, so we could free ourselves the more for more sophisticated and fulfilling goal valid. When machines do what they can and we do what we can, the division of labor draws us closer to achieving our highest potential. Yet, we should be careful that machines, which are meant to be our slaves do not end up being our masters, as is shown by the capabilities of some automated gadgets we invented (calculators, personal computers, etc.)compared to our so-called superior intellect.
ReplyDeleteWith automation taking over more mundane labor jobs, this gives us, humanity, more time to focus on bigger, more complex issues. In the book, Carr uses a quote from Alexander Whitehead, a mathematician in the early 1800s who stated that "humanity advances when we are able to accomplish more tasks at once." With machines taking over easier, more skill-less jobs, leaving humanity to focus on more complex issues, and by Whitehead's statement, further advance humanity.
ReplyDelete