Member of the Academic Council of Libertad y Progreso.PhD in Administration from the Catholic University of La Plata and Professor of Economics at the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences of the UBA. His research has been collected internationally and he has published books and scientific and outreach articles. He has served as Rector of ESEADE and as a consultant for the University of Manchester, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, OAS, IDB and G7Group, Inc. He has received awards and scholarships, including the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship and the Freedom Project of the John Templeton Foundation.
UFM – The impact of technology in our lives seems super interesting to me, but I realize that I look at it from a different place than what is usually planted. Perhaps because they have a “utilitarian” approach, the comments are usually about the benefits and costs that new technologies can cause. So, that’s why it’s about, for example, the negative impact on jobs, in the supposed destruction of opportunities. Or other consequences.
Regarding the destruction of jobs, I don’t know why is going to be different. They have been destroyed since the Industrial Revolution. Each new machine left a certain job obsolete, but history shows us that it has created many more, and a level of wealth never obtained in history.
In short, I am interested in another point regarding technology, and it is the impact it may have on our freedom. As always, technology is a tool, you can play for or against, but tied to be relatively optimistic. Writing something about it that I will publish later, but now there is a report from one of the most important management consultants, McKinsey. Well, actually from the McKinsey Globa Institute.
Also, of course, with the cost-benefit evaluation. It is titled: Tech for Good: Use of technology to soften the interruption and improve well-being;
And says:
“The development and adoption of advanced technologies, including intelligent automation and artificial intelligence, has the potential not only to increase productivity and GDP growth but also to improve well-being more broadly, even a lifetime Healthy and long-lived and more leisure. To achieve these benefits, reducing disruption and potentially destabilizing effects on society will require a challenge in growth driven by innovation and careful management of labor and other transitions related to the adoption and dissemination of technology.
Technology does not have a general purpose in itself; Its effects are driven by human choices and behavior. History is full of examples of its potential both to do good and to cause harm: electricity brought gains from productivity products, but also long transitions from agriculture to industry that was sometimes accompanied by the stagnation of real wages.
Once prosperous manufacturing and mining cities have been exhausted by the shift to a service-based economy. How different will automation and artificial intelligence be as they are based on digital technologies now ubiquitous?
These technologies could displace some jobs but also improve work when technology is used to complement human capabilities. They could cause stress by increasing the intensity of functioning, but also improve health and longevity if their uses include advances in personalized medicine and better disease prevention.
Its deployment will require new skills but it could also help make education more accessible. It consumes large amounts of energy even when
We help make homes, offices, and vehicles save more fuel. Automation can bring a greater risk of unemployment and social change and has already contributed to wage polarization between high and low-skilled workers. Robotics deployed since the 1980s has increased productivity and change in the workplace while creating new jobs elsewhere.
In short, technology will not improve life on its own: it will need a development agenda for policymakers and business leaders that will mitigate some of the negative effects of technology adoption, both in the short and long term. ”
Uhm!!! We better leave politicians out of this, although they are sure to leave a meter.
By Martin Krause
