Are machines replacing people??
Since
Industrial Revolution, people have observed how machine were replacing them little
by little. Even though the reference is far away from nowadays technology, the
effect is almost the same. The difference is that high-speed technology not
only replaces people regarding manufacturing jobs, but also regarding services.
For
example, having a doubt about you telephone service, you can call the assistance
number, and an operator will help you out; when going to the bank, you don’t need
to talk to a person if you want to withdraw money and you have your credit card
with you; and even when studying at the university, you can just listen to a
recording, and answer a list of questions.
However, the question is: can technology actually
replace people’s jobs? In you opinion, is there a different between talking to
a computer and talking to a real person? If you ask me, I would say that there
is a huge difference. Above all, there is a great contrast concerning the
quality of the services and the jobs. This is a link to a piece of new in which President Obama blame on technology for the lose of jobs
http://exposethemedia.com/2011/08/18/obama-blames-job-loss-on-technology-internet-and-efficiency/
I agree with you Constanza. Maybe now machines can do the same job we did in the past, but the quality of the job makes the difference. For example, currently I am working in a supermarket where I have to packed and put the price to different products. For this, we have a really modern machine that does all the job in just few seconds. The problems is that it does not do it correctly, and most of the time, I have to do it again on my own. With that, I want to show you that high-technological equipment can complements our job but never replaces it.
ReplyDeleteit's definitely not the same, but people who are in charge of hiring workers don't care about this as long as they reduce costs, so even when the quality of the job is higher when a real person is doing it, if the job can be performed by a machine, the replacement will be inevitable.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you girls will take this in the bad side of it, but I think that people in service of a machine is not so bad after all.
ReplyDeleteDeveloping my point, I would say that people is the dominant factor when it is about jobs. I mean, employees are people (da'h). The thing is, if a machine can perform a good job, why not letting it take ur place in a certain industry? I think it's fine.
Where are people going to do? What re they going to do? Easy, keep the machines working. Oiling them, repairing them, maintaining them in order. Don't tell me that being in service of some other thing is bad...or even new. We have served a big huge system which is the money system for years!
Machines: as long as they keep on the service of people (and I don't mean people who are actually money-counting machines), everything will be fine.
I think that Paula and Catalina are absolutely right. Actually, Paula has made an important point when she said that machines can complement people’s job. I would put that into words as “humanitarian function” that is helping people instead of taking their jobs. However, I don’t agree with Matias when he stated that machines don’t necessary replace people. This is because Matias has missed a point which is that people who work fixing machines are not the same people who might be replaced by them.
ReplyDelete