What's the harm? By the end of the century robots will be doing most of the work anyway. People can concentrate on the things that matter to them instead.
We don't have the parts that we need now to build new cars and tractors. Can we really afford to be building robots?
Growing and processing food should be highly automated, and soon. If we have "infinite" (renewable) energy we can cut down on the chemical input and have robots plucking each weed and carefully metering out the water. The price of "organic" should drop close to or even below "conventional".
> We don't have the parts that we need now to build new cars and tractors. Can we really afford to be building robots?
half a billion people have food insecurity, and with climate change that is growing. Can we really afford to build more meat puppets?
More to the point, the article talked about the population of SK dropping by a half by the end of the century. A transient parts problem today is irrelevant, especially given we have to design better robots over the next 78 years.
I don't share your blithe optimism that we can automate the millions of tasks that humans do so quickly and easily.
1. https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/20-69...
Poor people in other countries, just like it is now.
1) What if they don't? 2) The end of the century is 78 years away, somebody's going need to turn you on your side every few hours when you're in that old folks home - what happens if there aren't enough people to do those jobs?
Obviously we will have robots doing that job! Elder care is already a major area of robotics effort in Japan.
And if the robots don't get there? Well, it's not terrible. A smaller population doesn't need as many buildings erected, or crops grown etc. Some people can move in from other countries. I'm confident it will all work out.
You might look how elderly patients and other end-of-life patients are treated by their (almost all quite low-paid) carers. It's pretty shocking, but the experience of being the person providing that care is also pretty shocking.
I think you underestimate the emotional and physical labour involved in looking after a dying person, and in particular a relative. I saw (mostly remotely) my mother in law die and her two younger daughters restructured their lives to help her -- and this despite the twice daily visits from the Diakonie to change dressings, attend to medication etc. And, because that was in Germany there was no meaningful financial burden for this process.
There's another factor: my mid-80s mother (herself a physician) doesn't want human caregivers for privacy and prodding sake. She doesn't mind human physiotherapist or actually talking to another doctor about her complaints. But she doesn't want people fussing over her. And her mother in law (my grandmother), from a completely different culture from a completely different continent, also hated the consequences of losing her autonomy. She was still delivering meals on wheels at 89, and when she finally needed assistance in her 90s, just couldn't stand it.
IMHO machines that support more autonomy for people are an unalloyed good.
You’re describing modern Japan, FYI.
But I might feel different in a few decades if my physical body starts breaking down while my mind still works. Maybe I'll become afraid of death, or I'll suddenly want to stay alive watch my kids/grandkids grow up.
This is only a problem because we gained the ability to keep people alive much longer given extreme resources. If we just cap the resources dedicated here we would have no issue.
you re not wrong, but people are always looking for meaning in life. If kids are not there, they will look for meaning elsewhere. But maybe kids are too demanding and have repetitive needs, which is off-putting for meaning-driven uberhumans. Well then maybe we should automate the raising of kids , but wait, daily school already exists and now we have tablets too. OK so how did the adults find meaning now that their hands are untied? Oh, they are in social media all day