The Case against Automation

In "Skilled Perception, Authenticity, and The Case against Automation," David Zoller argued that we shouldn't automate everything.  Automating an activity implies that satisfactory performance of that task is sufficient; there is no need to do it excellently.   But doing something excellently is necessary for happiness (cf. Aristotle).

Moreover, each person defines himself by certain vocations (such as being a parent or a teacher or a firefighter), and fulfilling each vocation requires doing certain types of activities.  Automating those activities would contradict the requirement of the vocation.  For example, how can one be a teacher if the associated activities such as demonstrating and explaining something for one's students are done by machines or computers?

Acquiring the skills to perform the duties of a vocation requires training, which requires activity.  One cannot learn to perform a task that, because it is automated, one never does. Because humans and the time and resources available are limited, one can pursue only a limited number of vocations, and so one's skills are limited, which makes the skills that one has mastered more valuable as a sign of one's competence and ability to accomplish something.

David Zoller, "Skilled Perception, Authenticity, and The Case against Automation," in Robot Ethics 2.0, Patrick Lin, Ryan Jenkins, and Keith Abney, editors, Oxford University Press, 2017. ISBN: 978-0-19-065295-1.