He has a better way, and it is coming.
Well that, of course, takes the discussion off in an entirely different direction - and is a dialogue which I would prefer not to engage in! (Not right now, anyway).
Certainly, mechanisation of industry has always brought with it certain social dislocations. However, in the past, these have been more than offset by its benefits.
For example, when mechanisation of the textile industry began in the 18th century, traditional crafts such as hand-weaving became obsolete. Persons who previously worked in those now obsolete hand crafts, though, could quickly be retrained as factory workers. The result was a much greater output of textiles, which made clothing much more affordable.
Another case is the mechanisation of civil engineering activities, which took place between the two world wars. The question was back then raised "You have introduced one bulldozer, which does the work of at least 100 men. What now happens to the other 99 workers?" The answer was "We obtain another 99 bulldozers". Most former labourers could easily be retrained to operate such earthmoving plant as a bulldozer, and the result was a spectacular increase in output. This made possible such activities as the open cut mining of very low-grade mineral deposits. (One example of that being some of the world's largest gold mines, where the ore yields just 0.3 grams of gold per ton. To recover just one ounce of gold, they have to process some 16 tons of ore. A person using hand tools would be there a long, long time trying to win their single ounce of gold!)
It would have to be admitted, though, that the social problems resulting from the present level of industrial automation are a much harder nut to crack. Not every redundant factory hand has the makings of an IT specialist!
That being said, you will never, ever stem the tide of progress:
- In 18th Century England, saboteurs ("Luddites", they were known as) attempted to do that by destroying the new weaving machines.
- At the start of the railway era, a race was organised between a train and a horse. The horse came out the winner, but the result changed nothing.
- Similarly, when the first chainsaws were introduced into the timber industry, another race was organised; this time between a chainsaw and a handsaw. The result was an even draw. Set against a log of four feet in diameter, the two-man team with the newfangled chainsaw took just as long as the two men on the end of the handsaw. Again, that result changed nothing in the longer term. The clumsy IEL chainsaw of 1953 was by 1960 superseded by the single-handed McCullough - and crosscut saws disappeared from the shelves of hardware stores.
- In the district where I grew up, coal mining was once the principal employer. However, that industry was killed off almost entirely because the all-powerful mining union refused to countenance any form of mechanisation. Even by the early 1970s, those mines were still being worked by hand labour. Hardly surprising, then, that they have long since gone the way of the dinosaur!
Progress will never be halted, but the present unresolved social issues that have resulted could easily leave a person hoping for that man on a white horse to step in and rescue us all!
