Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses United States

'Reskilling Revolution Needed for the Millions of Jobs at Risk Due To Technological Disruption' (weforum.org) 427

A new report, published by The World Economic Forum on Monday estimates that 1.4 million U.S. jobs will be hit by automation between now and 2026. Of those, 57 percent belong to women. Without re-education, 16 percent of affected workers will have no job prospects, the study finds. A further 25 percent would have one to three job options. The report adds The positive finding from the report is that with adequate reskilling, 95% of the most immediately at-risk workers would find good-quality, higher-wage work in growing job families. Report highlights the urgent need for a massive reskilling programme, safety nets to support workers while they reskill, and support with job-matching.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Reskilling Revolution Needed for the Millions of Jobs at Risk Due To Technological Disruption'

Comments Filter:
  • by Billy the Mountain ( 225541 ) on Monday January 22, 2018 @01:04PM (#55979225) Journal
    I liked retraining better.
    • I read this as res-killing, i.e. killing a player in a multiplayer game right after they resurrect following a previous death. So yeah, not a useful alternative for retraining.
      • That's a pretty accurate description of what the labor market is doing to some people. A filing clerk gets displaced by automation and retrains to a higher-skilled service job, like ... librarian. Then reasonable Web searches come along, and the demand for reference assistance dries up overnight. Just one example of a career res-kill.
        • Res-Killing:
          There was a guy who worked in the coal mine. Then the coal mine closed down.
          So he got a job working on an automobile assembly line. Then his job was taken by a robot.
          So he got a job driving trucks. Because those trucks aren't going to drive themselves!

          (and if they do, I hear that we're going to bring back clean coal.)
        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Yes... I suspect the "reskilling" revolution will be actually looking ahead. There's no point in retraining people to do work that is just going to be in the next wave (or the one after that) of jobs that are automated.

          The revolution will be telling people to go do something they like doing and not worry about whether some corp will pay you to sit in an office for eight to ten hours a day.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22, 2018 @01:06PM (#55979245)

    You cannot retrain a toilet cleaner to be a robot repairman.

    After this or maybe the next wave of automation, there will be many humans whose labor will NEVER be worth what it costs to keep them alive.

    A wave or two after that, there will be no humans who can do anything a machine can't do better and cheaper. Not engineers. Not artists. Not politicians. Not CEOs. Not you, either.

    Nobody. Period.

    "Jobs" are going to be OVER soon. Concentrating on putting people in different jobs ignores the main problem.

    We better fucking come up with a better way to run things and a way to make the transition, or we're fucked.

    • by Hizonner ( 38491 ) on Monday January 22, 2018 @01:12PM (#55979305)

      I think this is true.

      Even today, nobody seems to be willing to face up to the idea that not everybody can be high-skilled, and the economy can't necessarily absorb that much high-skilled labor even if they could.

      When machines are higher-than-high-skilled, human labor becomes more and more economically irrelevant.

      • You might want to look at history. Almost all of the jobs that were performed 500 years ago have been automated.
      • This is not true. There is no way that this statement can be true while there are millions of middle-skill job openings and low unemployment in the US. There are even fewer ways it can be true when low-skill assembly work in China is all done by tens of millions of human beings. Those facts on the ground and the idea that human work is on its way out are mutually exclusive. The latter idea is not grounded in reality. It presupposes science-fiction levels of machine capability that just don't exist in real l
        • by HiThere ( 15173 )

          Well, you lived up to your handle.

          OTOH, it does appear to be true that unemployment is actually decreasing at the moment. I haven't yet seen an analysis of *which* jobs are increasing, and what percentage of the population is counted as "not part of the workforce because discouraged", so I don't know what that means.

          OTOH, factories in China are being automated because it's cheaper than hiring workers. So far the Chinese government seems to be handling it, but there have been lots of predictions that their

    • by bettodavis ( 1782302 ) on Monday January 22, 2018 @01:23PM (#55979417)
      Ironically cleaning toilets, moping floors, de-dusting offices and a lot of menial tasks are very hard to fully or cheaply automate.

      And please, don't get all "Roomba!" on me, because what a Roomba can do is but a small fraction of what a passably good cleaning person can do.
      Many manual yet specialized blue collar jobs are equally difficult to fully automate. That's why self driving trucks are seen as such a big deal, given the mass of people potentially impacted and because such occurrences are not that common.

      Paper pushers on the other hand, are in quite more risk of being replaced by a slightly better document processor/generator.
      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Actually, everybody is at risk. I agree that the "paper pushers" will suffer horribly and that is the first time this happens. Many jobs in the "paper pusher" class can already be automatized to a large degree and it keeps getting cheaper to do so. But keep in mind that an empty (or not built in the first place) office building does not need cleaners either.

    • They're not suggesting to retrain toilet cleaners into robot repairmen. What they're suggesting is even dumber, because the jobs they want people to train for are also going away.

      They're picking families of jobs, predicting the ebb and flow of jobs within that family, magically finding that they come out even, and saying thus reskilling is what we need.

      As I noted below, they think that we're going to need less data entry people and more receptionists. Since they're both in the Office and Administrative fami

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Good summary. Now, "receptionist" is a job that will not go away, but it will not provide many jobs. The market is just exceptionally small and it has pretty steep requirements: Helpful, educated, pleasant manner and to look at, punctual and dependable. Most people cannot actually be receptionists.

    • by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Monday January 22, 2018 @01:57PM (#55979771)

      You cannot retrain a toilet cleaner to be a robot repairman.

      After this or maybe the next wave of automation, there will be many humans whose labor will NEVER be worth what it costs to keep them alive.

      A wave or two after that, there will be no humans who can do anything a machine can't do better and cheaper. Not engineers. Not artists. Not politicians. Not CEOs. Not you, either.

      Nobody. Period.

      "Jobs" are going to be OVER soon. Concentrating on putting people in different jobs ignores the main problem.

      We better fucking come up with a better way to run things and a way to make the transition, or we're fucked.

      To take a real world example, you may not be able to turn a coal miner into a robotics expert but you can re-train the coal miner to be a solar panel installer or wind turbine installer. The real urgency is to bring the coal miner's kids to a level of education that allows them to become robot repairmen. However, what the US is currently doing is promising the coal miners that the 19th century will come back, that the nation will go back to coal and oil, (cue flags, xenophobic rhetoric and patriotic music) which is stupid because wind and solar have been cheaper than coal for a while now and they are becoming cheaper than oil and gas which means solar and wind are in effect better choices for pure business reasons. Meanwhile Betsy DeVos is busy tearing the guts out of the public educations system in the name of libertarianism, objectivist philosophy and the private education industry so that public education can be replaced with a private system that leaves you with a worthless business degree, the mountain of debt you piled up to pay for it and fat bottom lines for the private education providers that sold it to you. The result will be generations of young people with huge student loan debts that can be milked for money by Wall Street, no markatable knowledge or skill and who would have been better off going to a community college and getting a degree in something useful (even if it isn't a spiffy business degree from some private college or big name Ivy League institution) and that's assuming there are any such community colleges left that haven't yet been eradicated by the likes of Betsy DeVos or some variation on Sam Brownback's 'Kansas Experiment'.

    • wages will just go down. robots are certainly NOT free.
      if a human does it CHEAPER than the human gets the job. the only difference is that humans now compete against robots (and they already do TODAY)

      there are tasks where robot costs are LOWER than humans (chain assembly for ex) and other task where its not (janitorial task), that's mainly because one robot can assemble a million cars, but can't clean a million offices. you need a million robots for that.

      not that this is great or anything

    • by rhadc ( 14182 )

      I don't believe this is true. There will certainly be disruption and the need to "reskill" or "retrain." And there will be some who have a hard time doing so. But the machines simply aren't going to replace certain types of work for a number of reasons.

      (1) We prefer people doing some thing.
      (2) Our needs and consumption desires change. We always want the next thing.
      (3) By not being able to think like humans do, the machines aren't going to be able to address our needs. They can't deal with categorical d

    • by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      After this or maybe the next wave of automation, there will be many humans whose labor will NEVER be worth what it costs to keep them alive.

      That's an insightful and thought-provoking comment.

      I wonder about child-rearing. I don't think automation will replace that for at least 100 years. Currently we place a very low dollar value on looking after children (in the form of stay-at-home parents, nannies, teachers, child credit, child-care tax relief). In the future you point to, I wonder if that will change?

    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday January 22, 2018 @02:10PM (#55979871) Homepage Journal

      You cannot retrain a toilet cleaner to be a robot repairman.

      It's not clear to me this is true. Sure, there may be some janitors who literally cannot be trained for better jobs, but of the millions of people doing those kinds of jobs there's bound to be many who could be trained for something more challenging.

      I don't think, however, retraining toilet cleaners is in the cards, for two reasons. First, there isn't a job "toilet cleaner"; it's a task glommed onto various low status jobs. It's unlikely we'll see that task automated because it's not a big, immediate head count win. Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think politicians care about people doing low status jobs to do anything for them if they lose their jobs.

      Look at rural and small town census tracts after the Great Recession -- there was no "after the recession" for them, it's still on. Sure they get lip service, but if you think anyone is going to prioritize the interests of an out-of-work coal miner over a fracking billionaire, consider that these are also the places which are ravaged by the opioid crisis. There's lots of posturing on that issue too, but no action. Drug wholesalers, over the course of two years, shipped nine million pills to a single pharmacy in West Virginia serving a community of less than four hundred people, and no politicians have proposed anything to prevent things like that happening again.

      59,000 people are killed in the US by the opioid crisis annually, the equivalent of a 9/11 attack every two weeks, but we must tread carefully lest we harm drug company profits. I submit to you that demonstrates the lower value we put on the lives of those people relative to the lives of bankers.

      If we can't be bothered lift a finger to save their lives, why would we save their jobs?

      • Look at rural and small town census tracts after the Great Recession -- there was no "after the recession" for them, it's still on. Sure they get lip service, but if you think anyone is going to prioritize the interests of an out-of-work coal miner over a fracking billionaire, consider that these are also the places which are ravaged by the opioid crisis. There's lots of posturing on that issue too, but no action. Drug wholesalers, over the course of two years, shipped nine million pills to a single pharmacy in West Virginia serving a community of less than four hundred people, and no politicians have proposed anything to prevent things like that happening again.

        59,000 people are killed in the US by the opioid crisis annually, the equivalent of a 9/11 attack every two weeks, but we must tread carefully lest we harm drug company profits. I submit to you that demonstrates the lower value we put on the lives of those people relative to the lives of bankers.

        If we can't be bothered lift a finger to save their lives, why would we save their jobs?

        My own theory on this, is that rural America is the new 'inner city'. As industry gets more complicated, desires more efficient supply chains, requires a nearby large pool of skilled employees, there is very little economic reason to be located in small towns that used to be supported by manufacturing companies effectively running company towns. The only real reason will be farming and natural resource mining, which are being greatly automated. Instead of urban decay, we are experiencing rural decay. Those

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      While said "toilet cleaner" has a pretty secure job, you are mostly right. I have some insight into the area of engineering and there the higher-to-highly qualified jobs will not go away. Same for some of the technicians. The thing is that machines have a snowflakes chance in hell understanding what a capable engineer does or having the flexibility of a technician that does custom installation jobs. There is nothing in true AI coming out way, absolutely nothing. But automation (weak AI) do a lot of jobs to

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by rally2xs ( 1093023 )

      You don't fucking get it.

      Thanks to Trump, this is no longer a zero-sum game. The influx of new jobs due to economy growth and the return of factories from out-of-country (like the Chrysler plant announced last week which will be closed in Mexico and re-opened in Michigan with 2500 new Michigan jobs) is going to make this 1.4 million not-a-factor. Its way past time to relax and enjoy. So, relax and enjoy. The big-money globalists who want to ship our jobs to every other country on the planet besides

  • AI will also be coming for our jobs too. In fact, AI is already here and is eliminating entire categories of jobs.
    • What distinction are you drawing between AI and automation? AI is what's driving the next wave of automation.

      • "AI" is things like Siri, playing Go and Chess and deep learning neural networks (like artificial human brains). I am thinking automation is things like kiosks at McDonalds and stuff like that. I guess that could be considered AI too though!
        • AI will also be coming for our jobs too. In fact, AI is already here and is eliminating entire categories of jobs "AI" is things like Siri, playing Go and Chess and deep learning neural networks (like artificial human brains).

          I had a friend with a good paying Chess job that he just lost it to an A.I!

          I am thinking automation is things like kiosks at McDonalds and stuff like that. I guess that could be considered AI too though!

          Only if you consider ATMs or vending machines to be A.I.

          • I am sorry to hear about your friend, but he needs to realize that progress is inevitable. Once they created a chess playing AI, we should have realized that it was only a matter of time before Go AI and poker AIs were created. And then of course AI will be created to replace doctors, lawyers and people who clean bathrooms and stuff. And yes: ATM and vending machines are a form of AI. How else would they work?
    • AI will also be coming for our jobs too

      No, it won't. You are a fool.

      • It has already happened. With deep learning neural networks which think like the human brain, we already have systems that can replace a large swath of professions. Go ask a Go or Chess master how many job offers they get nowadays!
        • It has already happened. With deep learning neural networks which think like the human brain, we already have systems that can replace a large swath of professions. Go ask a Go or Chess master how many job offers they get nowadays!

          How many job offers did they get 10 years ago?

          • You are missing the point. Since we can create AI programs that can play Go and Chess, we will soon have AI systems that can replace doctors, lawyers and everything in between. It is inevitable, especially with computers getting faster and faster every year.
            • You are missing the point. Since we can create AI programs that can play Go and Chess, we will soon have AI systems that can replace doctors, lawyers and everything in between. It is inevitable, especially with computers getting faster and faster every year.

              Go and chess is a little different from doctors and lawyers. People who go to doctors and lawyers tend not to care how human the doctor or lawyer is (lawyers were questionable long before AI), they just want the job done. People who watch a go or chess tournament are interested in entertainment and watching who plays the most interesting strategy, not necessarily the most efficient.

              Motorsports has started looking into AI driven race cars. This will be interesting but I'm not sure how successful it will b

        • deep learning neural networks which think like the human brain

          That's not at all how they work because we don't even understand how our brains do that so how the hell can we make something artificial that does? You have no idea what you're talking about, you're living in a fantasy world.

          • Uh, why would they call the "neural nets" if they didn't work like human brains worked??? Plus they are "deep learning" so they learn at a deeper level.
            • No, you have no idea what you're talking about, you think what you see in movies and TV is real -- it's NOT. None of this "thinks". There's nobody in there. It's just a bunch of decision trees and things like that. No actual cognition. It's just software, it is not a "mind".
              • Baloney. If it wasn't intelligence then they wouldn't be calling it "A.I". The "I" stands for "intelligence". A bunch of decision trees are just computer programs. I am talking about deep learning neural networks. It is completely different.
                • Confirmed for troll. Bugger off.
                • by Hizonner ( 38491 )

                  Deep learning is still pretty stupid. It doesn't do what real intelligence does, namely achieve goals through directed action in unconstrained environments with incomplete information.

                  The thing is that that won't last. A few more breakthroughs along the lines of the last few years of deep learning, maybe in somewhat different areas, and you might very well have truly general AI.

                  You'll definitely get truly general AI sometime, because humans are just physical objects not magic. If humans are generally intell

                  • Definitely. Intelligence isn't magic. Technological progress is inevitable. My phone has more memory than the most powerful computers in the 1940s. So it is only a matter of time before general AI is here.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      It is not really AI, it is plain dumb automation. But it is a lot cheaper now and a lot faster and accurate at being dumb. That is a killer. It will not replace the 1...10% of a low-skill job that actually cannot be done with "dumb", but that still means most workers in entire classes of jobs will not find work anymore.

  • These people (not 100%, maybe 90%) are in these jobs for a reason = mostly an inability or unwillingness to learn more valuable skills.

    What to do with them is a problem. The US is an expensive place to live.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday January 22, 2018 @01:30PM (#55979467)
    it didn't work when the blue collar jobs went overseas and it's not going to work now. That's because:

    a) older folks learn slower than young folks (fact)

    b) it's kinda hard to work full time supporting the family you made when you had a job and go to school full time.

    c) A lot of the folks being asked to re-skill didn't make it through college the first time when they were young and still had the support of their parents and access to scholarships only available to high school seniors

    d) Nobody wants to support these folks while they go back to school, since that means tax hikes and we just did a $1.5 trillion dollar tax _cut_.

    This is precisely why Hilary lost the election. Just telling them to reskill isn't an answer. It's not going to work. Think of something else or get ready for some pain while they elect God only knows what kind of people in a desperate attempt to find someone who will listen to them.
    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      it didn't work when the blue collar jobs went overseas and it's not going to work now. That's because: b) it's kinda hard to work full time supporting the family you made when you had a job and go to school full time.

      Did you even read the summary? From TFS:

      Report highlights the urgent need for a massive reskilling programme, safety nets to support workers while they reskill, and support with job-matching.

      And the summary is right. At some point we are either going to have to have massive retraining efforts, instill some sort of strong, robust social safety net (UBI, strong unemployment, whatever), or face the horribly destabilizing and violence-producing effects of massive numbers of idle, frustrated, unemployed people. It's your choice.

      • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday January 22, 2018 @02:39PM (#55980137)
        or at least it does to most people. It's certainly what I think of when I hear the phrase.

        Also, what the devil are they going to retrain for? We're about to put every cashier and driver out of work. They're not all going to go off and be doctors, most folks just don't have the capacity. I guess we could think up new service jobs, but who's gonna pay them? It's not looking like folks are gonna have much money [cnbc.com].

        Also, you're assuming folks need to work or they become listless and frustrated and violent. I think that's only going to be a problem if they don't have enough money for food/shelter and (maybe, big maybe) a modicum of living (e.g. have a kid or two, go get drunk occasionally, that sort of thing).

        All I see is more folks trying to put the onus on people to 're-skill' without talking about how they're gonna do that, if they even _can_ do that and where are the jobs going to come from. It sounds like blame shifting so we can all look the other way while 20% of the country's lives go to shit. That's certainly the vibe I got from Hillary Clinton.
  • Reskill into what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [enimaf.copa]> on Monday January 22, 2018 @01:30PM (#55979469) Journal

    I skimmed the article to find out, and came up with this gem:

    According to this forecast, only one job family—Production—will experience an overall net job decline. However, both Production and Office and Administrative roles are set to experience a significant employment decline. Unlike Production, however, the Office and Administrative job family is forecast to experience sufficient new job gains as well in roles like Billing, Cost and Rate Clerks, Receptionists and Information Clerks, and Customer Service Representatives to counter-balance the shrinking of other occupational categories, such as Data Entry Keyers, File Clerks, Mail Clerks, and Administrative Assistants

    So one of their super amazing findings is that data entry people will reskill into receptionists, and we'll need a lot more of those.

    It seems to me that they don't have any idea what they're talking about. If you have less jobs under the Office and Administrative category from losing data based ones, you don't need more billing people and receptionists. And how is billing not going to see a similar reduction?

    They seem to miss the fundamental issue here, which is that we're quickly getting to the point of being able to replace all of the jobs they think that we'll need more of that we could fill with the people already being made redundant. Some how their magic math shows that we can just retrain people for existing jobs and then we'll suddenly need lots more people in those positions. If that doesn't happen, a lot of the article falls apart. If those jobs also start going away, they're arguing for exactly the wrong approach.

    I don't know about everyone else's office, but around here we're not hiring more receptionists and customer service reps. The trend is in the opposite direction, actually. Overall, just a rather fantastical article that seems detached from reality. It sounds good, and if you're selling retraining services, I bet it sounds even better.

  • Lots of people have foreseen this problem for a long time, myself included. I've also foreseen that the concept of UBI (universal basic income) will be rejected because of ideology as well as the sheer number of people living in denial about the problem. The workers threatened by automation that are in unions will try (and fail) to outlaw the technologies that are going replace them. Truckers are already doing this but it's a failing strategy. It's only when a very large number of people are their most

  • We live in a world of extreme surplus, but we're still stuck to the notion that you must work to live. For those humans that can't get a job, do we feed them or treat them as useless? If useless, do we exterminate them? If so, how far do you go? Until there's one last human and everything is automated for him/her?

    I like the idea of Universal Basic Income, but I fear that human instinct will cause it to fail. Remember, work hard! Millions on welfare depend on you! I have a difficult time letting go of th
    • I think that once things get bad enough, you're going to start seeing things like potential parents having to prove an above-average or even superior IQ to avoid being sterilized. And when that isn't enough, everyone below a certain IQ is just going to get euthanized.

      Universal income will never take hold until something like this has been tried, unfortunately. The US is too wrapped up in the Protestant work ethic, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps ethos and just plain greed. You'll never get the rich and

  • Multiple thoughts on how this is being presented. To me 1.4 million seems WAY on the low side with things like automated driving, delivery, order fullfillment likely arriving before that. McDonald’s new order Kiosks are horrible, but likely they will have voice input on the next go round. Why the emphasis of the likely impact on women? Likely minorities by race will be affected much more.

    Let’s not be Pollyannaish about this. The only way this doesn’t get dark and ugly is with universa

    • That is what I am thinking too. Once they have voice input on the kiosks there will be no reason to have people at McDonalds. And Amazon will be delivering packages via automated trucks and drones soon too. They just have to figure out how to get the package up the steps to the house, but once they do they will be ready to get rid of delivery drivers!
  • I think that a lot of people who are just assuming everything is going to be OK with this next transition are going to be in for a surprise. Automation is also coming for knowledge workers, at all levels. Assume doctors didn't have an ironclad professional organization that will never allow them to be replaced or marginalized. Right now, the requirements for medical school are a photographic memory, a straight-A academic record and the ability to live through a rigorous training regime. With automation, tha

    • You are right. You can replace a doctor with a computer that has photographic memory. Good thing doctors have an ironclad professional organization that prevents this happening. I just wish we all had such luck.
  • Ruling thought of people pulling strings there is: If you are not doing well, you are doing something wrong, you need to be penalized so you learn to do it right.

    That's not a fact but a religious-like thought model to create peace of mind and justify why it is good to accumulate Millions/Billions of green stuff and using it to multiply it and game the system. Citizens United, sponsoring - ah, bribing is the right name - politicians to do the "right" thing for them with the help of "how to make friends and

  • Robot inspector, for one.

    Robot attendance checker.

    Robot dance instructor.

    Robot speech trainer. (Must they all speak in a dull.Shatner.impression. in.that.metallic.monotone?)

    Come on, I can't think of everything; I'm stuck in the *present*

  • by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ) on Monday January 22, 2018 @03:43PM (#55980653)
    We are moving towards automation of our core requirements. Humanity requires three core categories of sustenance :
    a) Food and water
    b) Housing
    c) Energy

    If we leave out sex as a fourth requirement (though I'm hesitant to do so as I'm practically a dog at heart), we do not need anything more than what is listed above.

    Food
    We will eventually have 3d printers in our houses that are supplied by cartridges of core materials to produce meals of sustenance. They may or may not be yummy, but they will provide us with the nutrients we need to survive. The supply chain can eventually over time be automated as well. I've always dreamed of using underground tunnels with high pressure sodium lighting, air filtering, etc... to produce massive amounts of food of high quality rapidly. I have considered most of the details of automation, and I can't see why humans would have to be too involved with the process if the crops are managed and harvested using overhead robotic arms. It will have many bugs (technical and creepy crawly) at first, but over time, it could prove to be able to provide extremely high quality produce reliably and with minimal toxicity. With good generic alterations of the seeds, it should be possible to have almost perfect crops at almost all times. By improving the delivery chain through automation, a house could order what they need only when they need it and therefore greatly reduce waste.

    An alternative approach to 3d printing is a meal on wheels kind of solution which would have centralized kitchens producing meals to order using machines and delivering them via drones. This could be more practical.

    Real meat will become a luxury and we'll either switch to eating bug meat or we'll switch to eating meat grown from stem cells. I believe stem cells makes more sense. But we'll do away with animal farms in the future as they're terrible for the planet, generally inhumane and they require far too much work for something we can do far better with stem cells. Also consider that we waste more than 30% of the meat we produce currently. Milk is actually not a requirement of life, but if we decide to keep it around, I have no answer to how to do that.

    Water
    Most of humanities problems with water can be resolved with better logistics. There are places on earth which are perfect for managing water and there are places which are not. For example, California is not a good place for water. If we force people to abandon California for more suitable places like Colorado or even Alaska and Canada for example, we can solve many of our water supply problems. In addition, thanks to problems in places like South Africa today, we will put a great deal more effort into solving water supply chain problems. This can be done through reclamation, filtration, etc... we will get better with water by necessity sooner than later and these systems will be highly automated over time.

    Housing
    As we automate waste removal which already has seen massive improvements through trucks that can lift trash cans from the side of the road using arms... we will see further automation of gathering of raw materials. The raw materials will be collected and shipped to recycling plants which automatically sort trash (see waste management in places like Sandefjord Norway) and once the materials are properly sorted, much material can be automatically reprocessed into raw materials for new construction.

    China has made massive progress in flatpack housing, highrises, even almost complete cities. Trucks are loaded with click together housing components in the opposite order they should be removed from the trucks. Cranes are then operated to remove item by item to click into place and with little additional work, a house could be built in a an hour or two using nothing but self driving and self operating robots. The factories will eventually be automated to produce the components using automated systems. With a little more work, the materials delivered from trash recycling (parti

If you fail to plan, plan to fail.

Working...