Karl Marx made his observation about religion in 1843, but had he lived a century later he'd have found a candidate for something even more addictive: automation. We humans have been hooked on its apparent magic since the days when the pack horse gave way to the steam engine and railways; since the evolution of handmade coaches to production lines and mass produced cars and trucks; from the spinning wheel to the looms of the 'dark satanic mills' to the sewing machine; from the mix master to food processors to air fryers; from the dust pan and broom to the vacuum cleaner; washboard to the washing machine; wood fires to air conditioning; handwritten ledgers to spreadsheets; letters to email, social media, robots, generative AI and (allegedly) 'self-driving' vehicles... Yet, despite our addiction to it, is all automation 'good'? And, if not, do we have the collective wit to avoid an overdose?
Some automating technology has been genuinely liberating. The wheel enabled land transportation of loads that humans struggled to lift. Railways, trucks and local delivery vans avoid the need to harness the vast numbers of horses, donkeys, camels, elephants and cattle that have lived and died in harness to haul our cargo. Roman under-floor heating required endless cartloads of wood to be chopped, hauled and fed into the furnaces by human slaves. The Victorians only gradually outlawed the practice of children ('climbing boys') being lowered into chimneys to clean them, now thankfully performed by professionals with an array of tools. The washing machine we take for granted spares us a back-breaking day of hauling water, making a fire to boil it, then washing and wringing clothes by hand.
Perhaps there were some who mourned the day when gadgets arrived and alternative jobs had to be found - in the same way that coal miners proudly defend their 'right' to descend into the pits, though perhaps not as originally ill-equipped. This tells us that we're generally happier to see our activities made easier by new or better tools, rather than replaced altogether. Tape recorders and their digital descendants removed the need for journalists to take shorthand before typing up their stories, but there was Hell to pay when modern computer facilities allowed journalists to input copy directly into printing systems, removing the need for the "hot-metal" Linotype method of printing newspapers. Now 'mainstream' journalism itself seems to have largely evolved into 'topping-and-tailing' press releases.
There's a distinction to be made between gadgets that enhance our performance and those that seek to replace what it is to be human. The fact that we still have some journalists means we do value their human insight, suspicion, scepticism and appreciation of nuance. That we still have 'live' theatre suggests it contains something inherently human and worthwhile despite the evolution of film and television that enables the same dramatic work to be performed in every town and living room without the need for local actors and directors (let alone stage hands, set designers, builders, costume/prop makers, ticket sellers and food vendors). Most drivers would have appreciated the arrival of the intermittent wiper system, power-steering and ABS but might have never activated 'cruise control'.
The writers' strikes and copyright lawsuits against the generative AI platforms illustrate the same concerns about the automation of the creative process (not to mention the justified outrage at functionality that merely fuels demand for age limited access). Yet perhaps this represents another dichotomy or at least a question of perspective: scribe or novelist? Labourer or artisan? Sherpa or mountain climber? Chauffeur or motoring enthusiast? Grave digger or archaeologist (using only a toothbrush and trowel!).
Manual work has never been a mindless activity and some prefer it - just as people continue to play sports at amateur level for which professionals are played many millions.
Finally, of course, we must recognise that the invention, development and deployment of all new gadgets that remove a task or activity still involve unseen humans performing some new task or activity (or indeed something laborious and mundane, such as feeding the worlds books into a scanner).
Even what we passengers experience as a 'driverless' or 'autonomous' vehicle, train or drone in fact relies on the (remote) presence of a human operator whom we don't see or hear, or consider their identity, where they live, what their working conditions might be, whether they have much driving experience - let alone in our city - or whether they've had enough caffeine to stay awake for the journey. You might not vandalise the 'driverless' car because of all the cameras and microphones, but exactly what else is being recorded, where are they storing the data and how is it being exploited?
In what seems like another lifetime, I speculated that the 'Web 2.0' technology platform operators, like Facebook and Google, whom we regarded as 'facilitators' that helped us solve our day-to-day problems with genuinely useful technology would some day evolve into 'institutions' that merely solve their own problems of growth and profitability at our expense. And, hey presto, they release half-tested slop generators in a race for 'engagement' and ad revenue while hyping the dire consequences as proof that the technology is simply too powerful to resist.
Yet little did I realise there would be a third transition, from 'institution' to a 'platform for authoritarian control'... Google began de-emphasising its original "Don’t be evil" motto in 2018 (about 4 years after it declared war on the human race). Now SillyCon Valley is hooked on delusions of artificial general intelligence and The Singularity, even redefining AGI to pretend that it's already been achieved.
Surely what we learn is that not all technology is inherently 'good', no matter what the techno-optimists say, but the fact that we are so easily hooked on its apparent 'magic' makes it very tough to defend any abusive effects - and ultimately an overdose.
The law and other forms of protection have always lagged technological developments but tended to catch up - until about 2001. Since then, as the pace of technological change has quickened, we are increasingly reliant on our democratic institutions to provide more dynamic forums in which we can identify and deal with automation-abuse at precisely the time when those democratic institutions are themselves under threat from those who would automate humans out of existence... I reckon they'll fail, but not before an overdose and some nasty withdrawal symptoms.
