SCIENCE ROBOTICS | EDITORIAL

ROBOTS AND SOCIETY

Robots will open more

doors than they close

I
n early 19th-century England, the Luddites rebelled Timing matters because, although there will be gains
against the introduction of machinery in the textile in the long term, there will certainly be losses in the short Michael M. Lee
is the Editor of
industry. The Luddites’ name originates from the term. Support for retraining those most at risk of job dis- Science Robotics. Email:
mythical tale of a weaver’s apprentice called Ned Ludd placement is needed to bridge this gap. Unfortunately, mlee@science-int.co.uk
who, in an act of anger against increasingly dangerous progress is disappointingly slow on this front. On one
and poor working conditions, supposedly destroyed level, there are those who are apathetic to the challenges
two knitting machines. Contrary to popular belief, the facing the workforce and feel that the loss of jobs is part of
Luddites were not against technology because they were the cut and thrust of technological change. On another
ignorant or inept at using it (1). In fact, the Luddites were level, it is possible that there is a lack of awareness of the
perceptive artisans who cared about their craft, and some challenges of transitioning people to a new era of work.
even operated machinery. Moreover, they understood the We need to bring change and light to both cases, respec-

Downloaded from https://www.science.org on July 20, 2023

consequences of introducing machinery to their craft and tively. Those at risk of being displaced by machines need
working conditions. Specifically, they were deeply con- to feel empowered by being a part of the change and not a
cerned about how technology was being used to shift the by-product of change. Moreover, in developing the infra-
balance of power between workers and owners of capital. structure to retrain and support those at risk, we must
The problem is not the advent of technology; the also recognize that retraining is itself a solution encased
problem is how technology is applied. This is the essence in many unsolved problems that include technical, eco-
of the intensely polarizing debate on robotic labor. Too nomic, social, and even cultural challenges.
often the debate is oversimplified to two opposing fac- There is more that roboticists should be doing to ad-
tions: the anti-tech pessimist versus the pro-tech opti- vance the debate on robotic labor beyond the current ob-
mist. On the one hand, the deeply pessimistic make the sessive focus on job-stealing robots. First, roboticists should
case that there will be greatly diminished workers’ rights, provide a critical and fair assessment of the current tech-
mass joblessness, and a widening gulf between socio- nological state of robots. If the public were aware of just
economic classes. On the other hand, the overly opti- how far the field of robotics needs to advance to realize
mistic believe that technology will bring better jobs and highly capable and truly autonomous robots, then they
unbridled economic wealth. The reality is that, although might be more assured. Second, roboticists should openly
extreme, both sides have valid points. The debate in its communicate the intent of their research goals and as-
present form lacks a middle ground, leaving little room pirations. Understanding that, in the foreseeable future,
for nuanced and thoughtful discussion. It is simplistic to robotics will be focused on task replacement, not compre-
assume those who are pessimistic towards technological hensive job replacement, changes the conversation from
change do not understand the potential of technology as how robots will take jobs from workers to how robots can
it is incorrect to conclude those who are optimistic about help workers do their job better. The ideas of collaborative
technological change are not thinking about the conse- robots and multiplicity are not new (3), but they seldom
quences. Pessimists may fully understand the potential for get the exposure that they deserve. Opening an honest and
technological change and still feel that the drawbacks transparent dialogue between roboticists and the general
outweigh benefits. Optimists may not want change at any public will go a long way to building a middle ground that
cost, but they feel that the costs are worthwhile. will elevate discussion on the future of work.
There are various examples of how the introduction of
machines have made industries more efficient and innova- – Michael M. Lee
tive, raising both the quality of work and the quality of out-
put (for example, automated teller machines in banking,
automated telephone exchanges in telecommunications, REFERENCES
1. J. Sadowski, “I’m a Luddite. You should be one too,” The Conversation, Copyright © 2022
and industrial robots in manufacturing). An important de-
25 November 2021; https://theconversation.com/im-a-luddite-you- The Authors, some
tail in these success stories that is rarely mentioned, however, should-be-one-too-163172 [accessed 3 April 2022].
rights reserved;
are timelines. The first industrial revolution did lead to higher 2. R. C. Allen, Engels’ pause: Technical change, capital accumulation, and
exclusive licensee
levels of urbanization and rises in output; however, crucially, inequality in the British industrial revolution. Explor. Econ. Hist. 46,
418–435 (2019). American Association
it took several decades before workers saw higher wages. for the Advancement
3. K. Goldberg, Editorial multiplicity has more potential than singularity.
This period of constant wages in the backdrop of rising IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 12, 395 (2015). of Science. No claim
output per worker is known as Engels’ pause, named after to original U.S.
Friedrich Engels, the philosopher who first observed it (2). 10.1126/scirobotics.abp8432 Government Works

Lee, Sci. Robot. 7, eabp8432 (2022) 27 April 2022 1 of 1

 Robots will open more doors than they close
Michael M. Lee

Sci. Robot., 7 (65), eabp8432.

DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.abp8432

View the article online

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.abp8432

Downloaded from https://www.science.org on July 20, 2023

Permissions
https://www.science.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Use of this article is subject to the Terms of service

Science Robotics (ISSN ) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1200 New York Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20005. The title Science Robotics is a registered trademark of AAAS.
Copyright © 2022 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim
to original U.S. Government Works