- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
This discussion is on the hypothetical future, not historical events. Obviously, software and machines lend themselves to duties revolving around the processing and management of data (medical diagnoses, data entry, etc.); the question is (as stated in the OP) whether they'll become a viable alternative to low-skill jobs.
"Interestingly the safest jobs in the future may be ones that require manual skills as in gardening , shelf stacking , restaurant work etc ,etc. as bots are not yet advanced enough to carry out these tasks ."
You mean, the very same labor jobs robots are predicted to replace in the near future?
This is pure speculation, but I'm guessing that, as the cost of unskilled labor decreases (due to the replacement of employees by machines), the cost of raw/simple resources will decrease, which will in turn make said resources more plentiful/readily accessible, thereby increasing the general standard of living.
You're correct, though not entirely: my description of Evolution (capitalized) was indeed flawed; I was describing the Theory of Abiogenesis. Evolution, however, does not refer to just any change in alleles, however, nor does it theorize that alleles are capable of changing. That alleles change is an observable fact, clearly demonstrated by such examples as animal breeding and genetic heritage.
The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, states that genetic mutation is capable of, and has performed, the alteration of one species to another. Its nature as a theory, rather than observation, is due simply to the fact that its core ideal far overreaches observational evidence (given the astronomical periods of time involved), not to mention the sheer volume of circumstantial evidence contradicting it.