Theodore Webb
  • Blog
  • S.T.A.R.L.I.N.G. Connection
  • Stories
  • Videos
  • Bio-Contact
  • Reviews+

Is tech wiping out the middle class?

1/28/2013

0 Comments

 
I've been reading with keen interest a new in-depth Associated Press report about the role of technology in relation to jobs. It's a three-part AP series about the millions of middle class jobs wiped out after the "Great Recession." Here's the first part of the report published Jan. 25 in The San Francisco Chronicle, titled "AP Impact: Recession, tech kill middle class jobs."

I like how this report focuses more on the role of technology than the recession itself. I've been thinking about this issue for several years now. It's apparent to me, "Great Recession" or not, these jobs would have been wiped out by technology. The recession may be more of a symptom of a far greater problem on the immediate horizon for humanity than a cause.

I'm writing about this issue in my negative utopia fiction, "The STARLING Series." The 15-year-old narrator, Simon Laramie, realizes that opportunities for him in the near-future are virtually gone, a phenomena that is largely the result of exponentially increased technologies within a system of unquestioning faith in technology that has escaped the parameters of humanity itself. In this excerpt, Simon talks about how supercomputers have replaced most jobs that people used to do. (Note: I've written much more within the series about this issue.)
"There just aren’t very many jobs left for real people. We don’t need real human pilots or even human operators on the ground now because The Drones can fly themselves everywhere. The Drones’ supercomputers never need sleep like a human operator. They can fly themselves faster and higher and stronger than any human pilot, even a genetically modified human, could ever fly any machine."
This disturbing future is coming to pass before our eyes for anyone whose eyes are open to see it. Where exactly is the ever-growing technological system we have built leading us to? A careful reading of the AP report, along with other books and reports on this issue, indicate we should be skeptical of the widespread belief that "greater technologies will bring us more jobs and opportunities." The opposite may in fact be true.

Although the writing of more and more jobs being eliminated (replaced by far fewer jobs) has been on the wall at least since the 1990s, some folks, particularly some in the upper middle class, have comforted themselves with a belief that their "high end" jobs could never be outsourced or replaced by technology.

"That won't happen to me!" is a common mantra, until yet another job disappears. More and more this is becoming a job that no one would have thought could have possibly been replaced only a few years ago. And far more often than not there is no new job to replace it and fewer and fewer human beings are able to relearn everything fast enough.

As the level of technology continues its exponential increase (doubling far faster than ever before in human history), as technology changes the planet far faster than most individual human beings can keep up, it's becoming apparent that far from any career "being immune," we may indeed reach a point much sooner than we think in which nearly every human job is replaceable by supercomputers. When exactly something like this will happen, no one knows, but we must realize it may be just around the corner.

Here's an interesting quote from the AP report:
"The jobs that are going away aren't coming back," says Andrew McAfee, principal research scientist at the Center for Digital Business at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-author of "Race Against the Machine." ''I have never seen a period where computers demonstrated as many skills and abilities as they have over the past seven years."
Some may ask me why I'd write "The STARLING Series" to describe a negative utopia rather than a positive utopia? Mainstream education, after all, seems mostly concerned with projecting the "positive utopia" belief, but is this projection for the benefit of those being "educated" or for the benefit of someone or something else?

There are many reasons I see a negative utopia, but my simple answer is this:

It's obvious that the whole point of increased technology is to increase profits for those who are currently capable of owning the machines. Therefore, contrary to what any educational institution projects or claims according to the current "national storyline," jobs will not increase because of technology, but will continue to decrease.

The whole point of building a machine is to replace a human being, because the machine can do it faster, cheaper and perhaps "more efficiently," depending on the job.

So human beings continue to build these machines with this purpose, not for the purpose of increasing jobs.

Technologically, I believe we are going into a different point in history than inventions of the past in which a limited number of jobs were replaced by the steam engine for example. When the steam engine was built, there were no computers. But today we have computers that are growing more powerful more quickly, and perhaps we will soon see an era of quantum computers. We're going far past our previous inventions/levels. Technology itself will leap outside of human hands. It will begin to increase itself faster than anything we can comprehend, manage or control.

What do you think about all this? Have you lost your job recently because of the enormous increase of technology in the past five or 10 years? Does this mean that every job may be replaced in every five-year period or less? How can human beings possibly retrain or keep up educationally at these new speeds?

Should society begin to discuss how far we will allow computers to go or if limits are possible?

Should every human job be replaced? What will society look like and what will happen to most human beings when 90 percent of jobs are gone (if not 95 or even 99 percent?) Who is currently winning from the lightning speed increases of technology and who is losing?

Share your thoughts! Leave some comments (keep in mind, I'm OK if you disagree with my thoughts here or if you believe technology will bring the promised positive utopia, prosperity and employment for all. If that's your thinking, then by all means, let us know your thoughts. Explain how the positive utopia will work for everyone? Would love to learn something new about this or take a look at it from a different angle.)
0 Comments

Public versus Private Schooling: Separate and Unequal Systems

1/6/2013

0 Comments

 
Watching interesting Dr. Phil television show about public school and other schooling techniques such as homeschooling and unschooling or child-directed learning (hope those are correct terms; those are what they're using on the show.)

Many interesting points and counterpoints. Talk centers about socialization, what kids are learning, school safety fears and more. Show dates from around 2006, but many of the issues are the same today.

One thing that stands out to me is there is no talk on the show about the issue of public schooling versus private schooling. Actually, now that I think about it, we hear very little on television and not much reporting about the separate and unequal system of private and public schools in the United States.

To give you some background, I was formally educated in West Virginia and Kentucky public schools. Thus I had no exposure to anything else growing up other than public education. Growing up, I just thought that's how everyone was educated.

I became more aware of issues of public versus private schooling after reading the book, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money--That the Poor and the Middle Class Do Not!" by Robert T. Kiyosaki. This is one of the best books about money and financial matters I've ever read.

"Rich Dad, Poor Dad" opened my eyes in a big way about the realities of what I myself was never taught in public schools and what others learn early on in a quite different education system. Or, as Mr. Kiyosaki says what his "rich dad" taught him versus what his "poor dad" taught him.

Don't get me wrong, I learned quite a bit in public schools and had some incredible teachers. Public school gave me a foundation of reading, writing, mathematics, history, science and other subjects. And I do feel that a public education is far better than no formal education at all in terms of providing a foundation for learning. Much is up to the person what or how much he or she will learn. Public school can teach us to read, for example, but it's up to us to pick up the book.

However, over the years, I've come to feel strongly that public schools are failing as a system to serve the people in some of the important aspects regarding the idea of FULL and EQUAL education of the majority of citizens. The net effect of this failure is that the system of public education (taken as a whole) is part of a combination of forces conditioning most people to be lifelong employees (or some would say serfs or debt slaves) for the far smaller percentage of the population which is educated in private schools.

I do realize this is a strong and controversial position to take. And I know there are many out there who will argue with me about this. They'll say "That's not true." Or "That's not the reality." But I will leave it to the reader to decide, based on his or her own knowledge and experiences. (And maybe those who disagree can teach me something new about this issue.)

I address this issue directly in a far more in-depth manner in my "STARLING Series" in hopes that more people, particularly those in education, begin to address this, or at least acknowledge this issue exists. The teenagers in the series are struggling to gain a full and equal education in the year 2045, despite the promises of increased technology and ever larger systems.

What do you think? Did our public schools live up to their promise or were we conditioned inside those halls to be, as the rock band Pink Floyd sang, "Just another brick in the wall?"

0 Comments

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

1/1/2013

0 Comments

 
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. 
 
Page URL:      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

U.S. National Archives & Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD, 20740-6001, • 1-86-NARA-NARA • 1-866-272-6272


0 Comments

    Get my books on Amazon!

    Archives

    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.