So, uh, I reckon there’s heavy spoiler material here. If you keep up with Doctor Who and haven’t seen the episode that aired on 11/18 you probably shouldn’t read this. In fact, the entire purpose of this paragraph is to make sure they don’t show up in the article preview text. Not really sure how long it should be, but that’s the idea anyway.
I’m rapidly growing tired of all these headlines about Doctor Who and fear/criticism or Amazon. Yeah, I get it, Kerblam bears some resemblance to Amazon as we know it. Is it to much to just let it go as a creative re-imagining of a contemporary company? At the end of day it seems that the episode is more about ideological extremism than it is about Amazon. I certainly didn’t feel that it was a “rollicking critique.”
I mean, both members of management seem genuinely interested in the well being of both the company and it’s employees. Well above and beyond what I would expect from your run of the mill contemporary manager anyway.
Even The System itself is trying to prevent a major disaster from occurring, though maybe trying to disintegrate organic matter on the conveyor isn’t the mostly friendly way to deal with contaminants. No system that high tech would miss either, it’s simply to fast for us to avoid, I think.
It ultimately boils down to one fringe idealist who’s willing to kill large numbers of people in order to achieve the desired outcome. Ultimately only the extremist and his test subjects died, but the goal of increasing the human work force seems to be accomplished anyway.
Now, I have views on the whole “only 10% of the population is employed” and “we’re proud to be a 10% organics employer” type of stuff. I do genuinely believe that this is the current trend of manufacturing. It’s complicated, in a lot of ways, but at the end of the day automation will prove to be less expensive. Less expensive means potentially higher profit margin and/or more profit. More profit and/or better margins, even the potential of such, makes the company more desirable which increases share value which makes shareholders happy. People criticize corporations for being purely profit seeking when, at the end of the day, it’s the humans that are profit seeking. The corporations we create merely reflect our own nature.
If a society can provide for it’s own needs with only 10% of it’s workforce, and that 10% does so willingly, is it really so wrong to allow the other 90% the freedom to pursue their own happiness? If machines and computers can provide most of the goods and services required for society to function and free the humans up to engage in what makes humans happy, wouldn’t that be better than requiring most people to perform a task they dislike just to barely make ends meet?
Of course, I’m hinging on people actually being happy with what they have and seeing the bright side when in fact we tend to always want more and we need conflict. We thrive on it. If there isn’t any naturally occurring we will either create it or seek it out.
Either way, I’ve wandered quite far from where I started, so I’ll go ahead and wrap it up and ship it.
Y’all stay safe out there.