A few years ago I found myself wandering through the Denver Museum of Nature and Science where I happened upon a robotics exhibition. In terms of the museum arts and sciences it was well conceived and executed, complete with a topical gift shop in the exit. All of the displays were accessible to the public in terms of language or hands-on widgetry. At each hands-on exhibit there stood a determined 5 to 8 year old yanking the controls around in a frantic effort to steer the robotic device away from the wall of the test area while onlookers yawned, waiting their turn. A visitor might have concluded that the purpose of the robot was to become stuck against an obstacle- a task it performed well.

These kinds of future technology exhibits are always popular at the museum. The lead-up to the exhibit is given all of the ballyhoo that the museum could afford. The theme of the exhibit is supercharged with the promise of a brighter tomorrow through the use of snazzy technology. If automobiles can be tied in, so much the better.  It is a celebration of the triumph of technology for the everyman. The subtext was that only by the clever application of technology will we continue to improve our lives. These wonderful robots with their mechanical limbs and primate form would free humans from the dangers and tedium of the work-a-day world.

As I threaded my way through the exhibit I was struck by a sad realization. We’re celebrating the replacement of people with automation. The exhibit was a valentine to all of the entrepreneurs, engineers, investors and vendors who are trying their best to render obsolete much of the remaining workforce. This planned obsolescence has been going for many, many years.

Despite being against our own best interest, we patrons excitedly embrace these “futurama” style exhibitions, perhaps because secretly all of us believe that we will evade the job title of “obsolete”. Absent in the exhibit was a display on what the redundant workers would be doing with their involuntary free time. Fishing or golfing no doubt.

The top-level beneficiaries of robotics are the owners of the factories that make and use them. The driver is that robotics properly done may extend margin growth into the future. A way to overcome foreign competition is by reducing overhead, especially labor costs. Robotics and AI are economic bubbles in the same manner that computers and smart phones have been. The early adopters could enjoy a competitive advantage by the way they use their resources. Profits are unlikely to be channeled into hiring because, well, they’re profiting from the use of robotics. Once automation becomes normalized, there is no going back.

Insider business tip: Healthy companies match labor to the demand for product. More demand, more labor. Increased profits may go towards growth and acquisition, or it may go to the stockholders or to bonuses for management. But rarely if ever a price reduction to the public. If you are making a dandy profit and sales are strong, why hire or reduce prices?

The secondary level beneficiaries will be the consumer who will likely be oblivious to the fact that widget prices have not risen lately. Lower overhead does not automatically result in price savings for the end user. Extra margins will be absorbed by the manufacturer or seller. Just as likely, extra margins may be consumed by the manufacturer in wholesale price negotiations with retailers in the eternal battle for retail shelf space.

Many will offer that the history of man’s use of tools from the stone axe and wheel to AI driven automation is/was inevitable. The ascent of mankind is driven in part by our ability to use tools and develop a command of energy. It is difficult to think of a progressive industrial technology that did not result in the reduction of labor contribution to the overall cost of production. Nobody mourns the loss of the mule team and wagon, steam locomotives, or whale oil. We celebrate obsolescence and we take rapid progress for granted. Technological triumphalism is what we all celebrate.

But we should remind ourselves that there exists a substantial negative aspect of the story of technological progress. It is the very thing it enables: the reduction of labor hours per unit of production. The drive to raise profit margins is relentless, partly because the cost of doing business rises always rises and eats into margins.  Labor costs in particular are always front and center in the mind of business owners.

The situation today is different than when Henry Ford developed his form of mass production. Then there was a smaller population with a significantly larger fraction of people living on farms capable of growing their own food. Many common goods and services were in the hands of local business operators who produced locally and distributed locally. Restrictions on manufacturing and business operations were less onerous than today allowing for greater flexibility in methodology. It may be fair to say that mass production is now widespread and optimized to some degree as a whole. Early automation with just limit switches and relays has given way to microprocessor-controlled process machinery. What is happening presently is the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI). This is the natural progression of technology.

However, we can look a step or two ahead further and ask the question, when will an AI system take over the total management of a factory? When will an AI system have human subordinates? How tight of a leash would we allow an AI system to have on the management of people? The presence of slack in the organization no doubt makes many job descriptions tolerable. What if AI tightened all of the slack in business operations where every half second is accounted for? Would people consent to working for an AI? Companies like Amazon are getting close to this, but there is still human oversight. Extrapolating, it is easy to predict that one day, very quietly, human management will disappear at some level and in its place will be an AI system.

AI has to be taught. Will there be standards of behavior built-in governing how AI interacts with its human subordinates? Will everyone want their companies managed by an AI programmed to have a Jack Welch profile? My god, I hope not.

Another awful thought is the possibility of government and the military run by AI. Let that roll around in your mind for a bit.

There is a need to get back to basic principles here. What is our purpose in life? For most I think it is to love and be loved as well as to participate in some kind of rewarding activity. We all want to be useful and to leave behind some kind of legacy. There is no doubt that the replacement of human labor by AI-driven systems will continue to move forward, encroaching on all of our lives. Ultimately this is driven by a few people at the top who will reap the rewards to the greater concentration of wealth by a few trillionaires. Is concentrated control of limited resources a good thing? Is there any choice?

There is also a large fraction of the population that is not very progressive or forward looking at all. While they enjoy the devices and comforts of advanced technology, they neither understand or care about what is needed to develop a drug or design a new semiconductor chip. Behind our modern civilization is an educated and skilled workforce. However, the US is comprised of many people who are anti-intellectual by nature. This trait has been there all along and will into the future.

In some ways these people are disruptive to the progress and stability of the American experiment and, as of this writing, it isn’t at all clear how this will play out. The USA may well not be a stable enough environment in the future to sustain the continued, very expensive growth of technology. Technological advance requires highly educated workforce who can afford the training to get there. Just to stay even with what we already have, the pipeline of educated people needs to be full.

Forward looking people, the ones who want to sustain our advanced civilization, must step up and be counted or the thing will expire. For all of its problems, the US has nonetheless been a productive incubator of innovation and a great many positive aspects of advanced civilization in the form of a noisy, somewhat chaotic liberal democracy. The goose that laid the golden egg is still alive. Shouldn’t we keep it going?