Statistics indicate that people are now more than ever more concerned about how technological advancements and digital technology is shaping our lives than politics or the effects of climate change (Morrison, 2017). Throughout history technological advances have defined how different generations of human beings have lived. These advances were brought about not by coincidences but from the need to do things in different ways. Technology has been termed as a disruptor of human life. This paper looks at both sides of the argument on what really the influence of technology has been to human beings. Technology is a wide area of study especially its impacts which can be categorized into three sub units for evaluation that are jobs, relationships and Competency (Stahl, 2007). This three attributes in relation to the effects of technology can be evaluated and the different strengths and weaknesses of arguments from either side assessed for comparison. Opinion in public is rife with people taking sides without the benefit of looking at well evaluated reasons to substantiate their claim. The debate is emotive and has led to divisions the world over (Woirol, 1996).
What is the real influence of technology? Choosing sides has led to divisions in our sides with some feeling left out while others feel they have gained a lot from the advances. There is more that needs be learned from the effects of a rapidly changing world due to the effects of technology. The first view on jobs is that as we adapted to the numerous historical technological advancements, so will we adapt to the expected job losses. In Kevin Kelly’s article Better than human: Why robots will and must take our jobs, robots are portrayed as efficient machines that do that which we ought not to do so that we can do better things (2012). He claims that robots are and will be better than humans in the future and as such competing with them would be a useless direction of effort. Instead he suggests that we work together with robots which will lead as to adapts we always have by creating jobs that never existed before. He thus concludes that we should not be worried by job losses by robots but rather look forward to them as robots replace us in doing the mundane things of life and live us to ourselves to discover what humans are meant for.
Similarly in Industries of the future, Alec Ross suggests that technological advancements in robotics, life sciences, and cybersecurity will help human beings be better at what they do (2016).He says the efficiency of robots and software programming would help humans be good at modelling the world better and thus further understand ourselves. A world where we understand ourselves and our core competencies would in turn lead to better relationships between human beings as we would be more connected in more ways than physical expression. The other view is that technology has done more harm than good to humanity, that it has influenced jobs, human relationships and competencies negatively. This claim is from a premise that advances in technology has led to irreplaceable job losses, poor relationships between human beings as it has pulled people apart rather than bring them together as the other side of the debate claim and has led to degradation of the human mind rendering us incompetent at doing things.
Malcolm Glawell in his article Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted says that technology may have increased the reach of people on issues but has dealt a blow to how people relate with each other (2007). He gives the narrative of four students who take part in a sit in to boycott their discrimination. He gives this as an example how real issues were tackled in the past where people really cared about other people issues as it was based on existing relationships. He says impersonal communications and interactions brought about by technology lead to bad relationships between people. Glawell also says that people are incompetent in a way as they don’t take time to see things through as was the case in the past where discussions took time to form.
In an article by David Rotman, emphasis is placed on how fast technology advances is resulting to numerous job losses without particularly creating new ones fast enough leading people to become jobless (2016). He cites the automotive manufacturing and travel agent sectors as highlighters of the fact that automation and software has resulted in those job losses and more and more industries are getting affected. In conclusion, technological advances in the past could not be stopped and are not about to be stopped any time soon. The only solution that seems to be workable for both sides is first the realization of arguments from both sides followed by a sincere talk where concessions can be made or given so that in the long run all people remain employed, in good relation with each other and have better knowledge of how to do things for our benefit.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Small Change.вЂќВ The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 19 June 2017, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell.Kelly, Kevin. вЂњBetter Than Human: Why Robots Will вЂ” And Must Take OurJobs. Wired, Conde Nast, 24 Dec. 2012, www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-robots-will-take-our-jobs/Morrison, Nick. вЂњRapid Technological Change Is The Biggest Threat To GlobalBusiness.вЂќВ Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 9 Feb. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2017/02/09/donald-trump-is-not-the-biggest-threat-to-global-business/#2d3c62b01b73.Ross, Alec.В The Industries of the Future. Simon & Schuster UK Ltd., 2017.Rotman, David. вЂњHow Technology Is Destroying Jobs. MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 1 Sept. 2016, www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/.Stahl, Bernd C.В Issues and Trends in Technology and Human Interaction. Hershey, PA: IRMPress, 2007. Print..Woirol, Gregory R.В The Technological Unemployment and Structural Unemployment Debates. Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Greenwood Press, 1996. Print