Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday July 28 2015, @10:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the dreaming dept.

Not long ago, schoolchildren chose what they wanted to be when they grew up, and later selected the best college they could gain admission to, spent years gaining proficiency in their fields, and joined a company that had a need for their skills. Careers lasted lifetimes.

Now, by my estimates, the half-life of a career is about 10 years. I [Vivek Wadhwa] expect that it will decrease, within a decade, to five years. Advancing technologies will cause so much disruption to almost every industry that entire professions will disappear. And then, in about 15–20 years from now, we will be facing a jobless future, in which most jobs are done by machines and the cost of basic necessities such as food, energy and health care is negligible — just as the costs of cellphone communications and information are today. We will be entering an era of abundance in which we no longer have to work to have our basic needs met. And we will gain the freedom to pursue creative endeavors and do the things that we really like.

I am not kidding. Change is happening so fast that our children may not even need to learn how to drive. By the late 2020s, self-driving cars will have proven to be so much safer than human-driven ones that we will be debating whether humans should be banned from public roads; and clean energies such as solar and wind will be able to provide for 100 percent of the planet's energy needs and cost a fraction of what fossil fuel– and nuclear-based generation does today.

In other words, every industry is disruptible by technology. Presumably, banking and punditry are forever?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @05:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @05:32PM (#215559)

    I'm confused about the requirement on "white ones". Are you saying that an African tribal warlord authorizing marriage to young girls within his tribe is worse than a white supremacist creating a whites-only commune where marriage to young girls is authorized?

    Perhaps you're saying that a non-white community authorizing marriage to young girls is of no benefit to you because you are white and you wouldn't be invited?

    Or are you saying that you don't find young non-white girls attractive, and can't imagine that anyone else would?

    What reason would you give for why white racial purity is a prerequisite for marrying young girls to be acceptable? I'd think that those two things would be orthogonal; success in one shouldn't depend on success in the other.