Save Humanity Now
James Adrian
      It is not enough to have factories that produce valuable products with extraordinary efficiency. Even if you also have extreme automation in the service industries, you could still have a population that is poor and nearly powerless to improve personal economic circumstances. How? All that is needed to produce widespread poverty is centralized economic control.

      Centralized control is an effective impediment to upward mobility. It is often motivated by a short-sighted fear of competition from newcomers. This fear on the part of those already established in business typically comes together with political corruption. When too few people own or regulate productivity, those people have too much power for the long-term stability and tranquility of their society - the society that they take for granted as permanent. Rich and poor alike eventually become victims of chaos if hard working people are unfairly prevented from earning access to markets.

      Upward mobility is essential to any society if that society is to be sustainable, let alone happy. In a society kept honest by corruption-free courts, the most successful companies would be the ones offering the highest quality work and the best ideas. A large company fearful of new competition would be wise to adapt to the new environment and innovate rather than bribe officials or create illegal arrangements. The detection of criminality is improving steadily, but criminality and corruption are still the biggest threats to free markets and personal prosperity.

      The history of invention paints a vivid picture of the growth of prosperity. If you have more or better automation, you have more prosperity. Time and again, and in every industry, we have increased the value produced by each worker through automation. Every time, this has lowered the cost of workers' creations; and every time, the economic circumstances experienced by even the poorest of us has improved. As a direct result, people considered poor today have conveniences and capabilities that would be the envy of the wealthiest people of times past.

      Now we come to the heart of the matter. Why would any society knowingly use less effective automation than it has? The disgusting answer is this: At least since 1970, politicians in the United States have solicited votes in part by promising to protect existing jobs. Going slow on robotics has been an official government policy. There is a lot of corruption implicit in this answer. How did politicians get any influence over such things in the first place? How many generations of laborers and assembly workers will be born and retire before elected representatives stop pandering to the fear of job loss? How much more debt will be incurred in pursuit of centralized control, government dependencies and misguided industrial policies? The private sector needs to automate more effectively (as it knows how to do) and without arguing for laws and regulations designed to protect them from new competition.

      Retraining and reeducation are no longer the quintessential goals. Stop training young workers to do jobs that need not exist!