The recent demonstration of a humanoid robot by the American startup Figure AI, which sorted packages for over 80 hours without stopping, marks a significant shift in the concept of labor. The robot autonomously recharged when its battery was low, allowing another robot to immediately take over its tasks, symbolizing a fundamental change in the nature of work. This event illustrates that the realm of repetitive tasks traditionally handled by humans is no longer solely theirs.
The key aspect of this demonstration is 'continuity.' Humans require rest, experience fatigue, and make mistakes, while robots can work continuously for 24, 48 hours, or even longer if conditions are met. Since the Industrial Revolution, machines have assisted human labor, but they are now moving beyond assistance to replacement. This trend will extend beyond factories to logistics, distribution, and even offices.
Similar changes are already underway globally. Amazon's logistics centers in the U.S. employ hundreds of thousands of robots to enhance efficiency, while China's JD.com operates unmanned warehouses with minimal human intervention. Japan's Fanuc has realized a factory where 'robots make robots.' The question is no longer whether this technology is possible, but when it will be fully adopted.
This transformation is not merely an evolution of automation; it represents a structural shift that reduces the need for human labor. Moreover, this trend is irreversible.
Efficiency Drives Market Choices
Perspectives on technological advancement often oscillate between optimism and pessimism. While some hope that robots will take on dangerous and laborious tasks, allowing humans to engage in more creative work, others fear that jobs will vanish entirely. However, this debate overlooks a crucial premise: the market operates on efficiency, not ethics.
From a corporate standpoint, robots are the 'ideal workers.' They do not require wages, do not strike, and make fewer mistakes. If companies can manage maintenance costs, robots are far more economical than human workers. Under these conditions, the incentive for companies to retain human labor diminishes. The assertion that 'technology should complement humans' is morally sound but lacks persuasive power in the real market, as businesses are unlikely to choose inefficiency voluntarily.
Thus, the essence of the issue lies not in technology but in structure. Technology merely indicates direction, while institutions and policies make choices. Without a social consensus on how to distribute the excess profits generated by robots and AI, maximizing efficiency is likely to lead to increased inequality.
Concepts like 'robot tax' or 'technology dividend,' discussed in some European countries, stem from this awareness. They advocate for sharing the costs saved and productivity gains from automation across society. This approach does not aim to regulate businesses but seeks to alleviate the concentration of technological benefits among specific groups.
Ultimately, the core question remains: Should the direction of technology be left solely to the market, or should society intervene to adjust it? The answer to this question will shape the future structure of labor.
Disappearing Jobs, Divided Humanity: Education Alone Is Not Enough
Many experts emphasize education as a solution in the age of AI, arguing that fostering creativity and problem-solving skills can create new jobs. However, this approach has significant limitations, as not everyone can become a highly creative talent.
The labor market is already polarizing. In the U.S. and Europe, wages for highly skilled workers are soaring, while mid-level office jobs and repetitive tasks are rapidly disappearing, leading to the phenomenon known as the 'collapse of middle-class jobs.' This is not merely a cyclical change but a structural transition.
Reforming education alone will not resolve this issue. While education can broaden opportunities, it cannot change the distribution of abilities. Ultimately, some will transition to high-value sectors, but many may struggle to find new roles.
Therefore, solutions must be more pragmatic. Rather than converging human roles into 'high-level creative labor,' they should be restructured across various levels. Sectors where human interaction is crucial, such as caregiving, healthcare, education, culture, and services, need to be expanded. This involves strategically developing areas that are difficult for technology to replace.
Japan is actively fostering the caregiving industry in response to its aging society, while Europe is creating jobs in cultural and welfare sectors. This is not merely a welfare policy but a reconfiguration of labor structures. The value of humanity is increasingly shifting from 'how much one produces' to 'what experiences and relationships one creates.'
In a Post-Labor Society, What Will Humanity Become?
A more fundamental question arises: In a society where labor diminishes, what will humanity's role be? In industrial society, work was not just a means of livelihood but a core aspect of identity. Occupations signified personal value and social standing.
However, this structure is now unstable. In a society where robots handle production, 'non-working humans' could become the norm rather than the exception. This necessitates a new distribution structure, which is why concepts like universal basic income are being discussed.
Finland's basic income experiment, though limited, offers meaningful insights. Ensuring a minimum income can enhance individual life stability and create opportunities for new activities. However, expanding this to a national level presents financial challenges. Therefore, an approach that simultaneously designs for growth and distribution is essential.
How to share the wealth generated by AI and robots, and what kind of society to build on that wealth, are critical questions. If technological advancement operates solely to maximize the wealth of a few, social conflicts will inevitably intensify. Conversely, if a structure is created to share the benefits of technology, the reduction of labor could enhance the quality of human life.
Here, redefining humanity is crucial. Defending human fatigue and errors in industrial settings as part of being human is less convincing, as such inefficiencies can lead to accidents and losses. Instead, human value should be rediscovered outside of labor, in areas such as relationships, creativity, empathy, and community activities.
Some countries are already shifting policies to reduce working hours and enhance quality of life. Discussions around a four-day workweek are gaining traction, and the value of leisure and self-development is being emphasized. This signals not just a change in working conditions but a transformation in the standards of human life.
Ultimately, we stand at a crossroads. Will technology create a society that displaces humans, or will it foster a society that enhances human life? The sight of robots working tirelessly for 80 hours is not an endpoint; it is a question.
How we answer that question will determine whether the post-labor era becomes a crisis or an opportunity. Now is the time to decide the direction.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.