Automation, a curse or a blessing?

I once had a discussion with a union representative about what should and what shouldn’t be automated. We discussed the hypothetical case of an assembly line worker who performed a number of simple tasks that could easily be automated. At the time, the union representative took the position that if a person was happy with that kind of work, apart from various business economical considerations, you shouldn’t automate those tasks. My position at the time, and to this very day, is that a job that a machine can do is unworthy of Man, even though man may feel unpleasantly brought down to earth by the fact that what he considered to be so important, could be taken over by a simple piece of hardware. He should in fact be happy with the newly acquired space to develop as a Human Being.

It is a mistake to think that job satisfaction gives pleasure. The truth is that job satisfaction gives extra energy, through which we can live in harmony with our environment. That is what gives a sense of pleasure.

Unions have irrefutably done very useful work at the beginning of this century in connection with the abolition of child labour and the procurement of more humane working conditions in general. It would, however, be a good thing if unions were to change their course in this age of automation. In stead of striving for the maximisation of employment, one of the main goals should be an optimisation of human development. The development of human existence in an automated society, in stead of an ongoing entanglement in the ever more complex labour process. That should be the guard-dog function of the union. That can give true meaning to the slogan ‘well-being is more important than prosperity’.

A small short-term problem is of course, that only those who are actively involved in the labour process are inclined to join a union, and according to my information the membership files of unions do not as yet include any computers.