Schools often say, these days, if they’re forward looking (or want to appear to be so) that they’re preparing learners for jobs that don’t yet exist. This article from the Guardian reports on the possibility that the problematic word might be ‘yet’:
Reporting on what it judges to be “a lasting a devastating effect”, the article outlines a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research which claims that, “between 1990 and 2007”, within the United States, “the addition of each robot into manufacturing industries resulted in the loss, on average, of 6.2 human jobs”.
The article uses the phrase ‘reverse luddite fallacy’, linking this blog piece, which provocatively asks:
“1900 was “peak horse” in the American workplace. Are we heading towards “peak human” in the workplace?”
Written by the author of Why the Future is Workless, this Guardian article clearly has a perspective of its own, but it also calls for a wider, more critical debate rather than generating dichotomies similar to those surrounding climate change. That debate is to be sought, in all schools and places of learning seeking to prepare learners for our emerging futures.