Is the Fourth Industrial Revolution a blessing or a curse?

PHOTO

As the English author Mary Shelley wrote in "Frankenstein:" “Nothing is so painful to the human mind as a great and sudden change.” Humanity has experienced such teething pains through all three industrial revolutions it has lived through since the mid-18th century. As we stand at the threshold of the mind-blowing Fourth Industrial Revolution, the human mind is exploding with possibilities, but also with the threats these hold for the future of humanity.

In the last two-and-a-half centuries, industry and production have changed dramatically, and with them society beyond recognition. While the first and second industrial revolutions introduced mechanical innovations that fueled advances in the way goods are produced, the way we communicate and the way we organize our societies, the third and fourth ones are leading toward a complete change in the relationship between nature, technology and humanity that could reverse the relations between people and machines.

It would be misleading to underestimate the extent of the economic changes, cultural shifts and social and political upheavals that were a consequence of the first two industrial revolutions. They had a huge impact on individuals and entire societies. They led to urbanization, international trade, consumerism, long-distance and faster communications and transportation — and two world wars. However, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, built on the digitalization of the world since the end of the 20th century in the Third Industrial Revolution, threatens, should it spiral out of control, to surpass anything we have thus far experienced and to make humans surplus to requirement, or at least subject to the control of superior technology.

According to Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and a leading proponent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, this revolution “is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. There are three reasons why today’s transformations represent not merely a prolongation of the Third Industrial Revolution but rather the arrival of a fourth and distinct one: Velocity, scope, and systems impact.” As with all sweeping changes, there are exciting opportunities for improving the human condition, but also challenges in mobilizing these advancements to work for the many and not the few.

A new report introduced at the WEF in Davos last month addressed, for example, how the Fourth Industrial Revolution might well affect jobs in the coming decades, including how “a variety of manual and cognitive tasks are increasingly being augmented by machines and algorithms, or in some cases even automated completely.” However, as was the case in previous times of great industrial change, these new technologies may well be creating jobs on a large scale, but this requires resource allocation to reskill millions of people.

It was suggested that, between 2018 and 2022, as many as 75 million jobs will be displaced worldwide through automation; however, as many as 133 million new ones would be created. In the US alone it is estimated that 1.4 million workers will be displaced in the coming decade as a result of the introduction of new technologies. Much of this disruption, it is claimed, can be mitigated through reskilling those who are already employed, but businesses are not exactly queuing to foot the bill.

The “Towards a Reskilling Revolution” report by the Centre for New Economy and Society Insight, which was introduced at Davos, argues that, in the US labor market, nearly 90 percent of the $34 billion total cost for reskilling US workers displaced by the Fourth Industrial Revolution will likely fall on the government. While it makes sense for governments to participate in financing reskilling, as this benefits the entire society through the tax system and less government spending on benefits, as well as avoiding other adverse effects of unemployment, it makes equal sense for the private sector to contribute a much larger share of the cost, as businesses will increase their profits and, more importantly, their profit margins.

There are many other facets to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and some of them are no doubt exciting: Connecting people through digital platforms at will and without interruption across the globe; driverless vehicles; and the ability to receive instant, remote-controlled medical treatment without the need for medical staff to be present. The prospects are endless, but the abbreviation currently on everyone’s lips, in both anticipation and trepidation, is AI artificial intelligence.
When, rather than if, AI becomes a reality, for the first time in history machines will become totally autonomous entities able to make decisions in every sphere of our lives (and allegedly our deaths). This all points to a world where it is possible that, sooner or later, machines will declare independence from humans and the robots will control us, rather than being controlled by us.

It would be naive, let alone counter-productive, to suggest halting the Fourth Industrial Revolution, despite its inherent threats to the world as we know it. It is very much ingrained in our societies to seek technological innovation. However, it would be equally irresponsible, because of the speed of the current revolution and the seeds of potential destruction it carries with it, not to suggest that, for the first time, the pace of innovation and its implementation must be synchronized, controlled and monitored in order to assess its many impacts and, when necessary, to hit the brakes.

As Schwab contends: “The Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are.” It is going to determine our identity, our relations with one another and the social structures we live in. It would be an act of compromising future generations to get carried away with such profound innovative technologies without carefully assessing how they might alter our value systems as individuals and as societies.

Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. Twitter: @YMekelberg

Disclaimer: The content of this article is syndicated or provided to this website from an external third party provider. We are not responsible for, and do not control, such external websites, entities, applications or media publishers. The body of the text is provided on an “as is” and “as available” basis and has not been edited in any way. Neither we nor our affiliates guarantee the accuracy of or endorse the views or opinions expressed in this article. Read our full disclaimer policy here.