The Future of American Work in an Age of Smart Machines
Jay W. Richards
September 13, 2018
Bestselling author and economist Jay W. Richards makes the definitive case for how the free market and individual responsibility can save the American Dream in an age of automation and mass disruption. For two and a half centuries, America has been held together by the belief that if you work hard and conduct yourself responsibly in this country, you will be Read More ›
Automation will eliminate some jobs, but consumers will often pay a premium for the human touch.
Jay W. Richards
July 20, 2018
Experts have predicted the looming automation of everything, with machines replacing labor and putting half the population out of work. This forecast seems to follow from basic economic logic: Economic growth is about getting more output from less input. Labor is an input. We are now devising powerful forms of automation, which will dilute our labor to homeopathic levels—especially in middle skill, blue-collar trades. Therefore, much of the population will soon be jobless. That inference is too simple. There’s disruption ahead, but other trends may fend off the job famine. Here’s one: As ever more goods become cheap commodities, the economic value of the human touch—of literal labor—goes up. Starbucks provided early evidence that an automation apocalypse isn’t inevitable. Fifty years ...
There are some definite “Stop the world, I want to get off” moments in the new Great Minds with Michael Medved podcast from Discovery Institute. Michael talks with economist Jay Richards about the future of “smart machines,” including sex robots. Dr. Richards, author of the new book The Human Advantage: The Future of American Work in an Age of Smart Read More ›
A group of scientists and activists wrote the president to warn him of an automated future that will give rise to “a separate nation of the poor, the unskilled, the jobless.” To blunt the coming mass unemployment, they proposed a universal basic income. The group, called the Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution, wrote that letter in March 1964, to President Lyndon Johnson. Their prophecy was way off, but it had its desired effect. Johnson promptly launched his “War on Poverty,” which jumpstarted the growth of federal, means-tested welfare programs. We now have 80 such programs. Instead of ridding the country of poverty, these programs create cycles of dependency and despair.
According to a new International Monetary Fund research paper, the answer to the above question is yes. As one story on the IMF report put it, “The future of work run by robots appears to be a dystopian march to rising inequality, falling wages and higher unemployment.” This is just the latest in a long line of predictions that artificial intelligence and automation Read More ›
In this edition of the Evangel Guest Lecture Series, Jay W. Richards discusses his book on the capitalist system within the context of the Christian faith and examine how enterprise based on hard work, honesty, and trust fosters creativity and growth. Jay W. Richards, PhD, is author of many books including the New York Times bestseller Infiltrated (2013). Richards is Read More ›
“Fine-tuning” refers to various features of the universe that are necessary conditions for the existence of complex life, including the initial conditions and “brute facts” of the universe, the laws of nature or the numerical constants present in those laws, and local features of habitable planets.
In Icons of Evolution, biologist Jonathan Wells compared icons of evolution — such as homology in vertebrate limbs — with published scientific evidence, and revealed that much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. Published in 2000, the book raised troubling questions about the status of Darwinian evolution that are still plaguing scientists today.
In our new book Indivisible, we argue that Americans are "like tourists on a sunny beach. We've heard news of an earthquake on the sea floor, hundreds of miles away, but everything still looks normal. People are sipping iced tea, enjoying the warm sand and the sun overhead. Many think, 'We've never had it so good.' And yet, when we look closely, we notice that the beach is growing wider as the tide recedes toward the horizon."
My friend Jordan Ballor has a great piece about conservative fusionism, and in particular, the tensions between market oriented and communitarian oriented conservatives. He focuses on the special case of Rod Dreher, Crunchy Con author who recently moved to a small town in Louisiana.
"While an adherent of a materialist philosophy would readily agree that material factors account for all reality, this accords neither with Catholic teaching, nor with sound philosophical argumentation."
Rather than high tech teleo-mechanistic philosophy, ID draws on elements from both the Aristotelian and teleo-mechanist traditions, but doesn't fit wholly in either camp. It is in many ways a tertium quid, a third possibility.
Whenever the old stream media report on someone who is supposedly “conservative” but who nevertheless agrees with them, you can be pretty sure a snow job is coming. On January 6, Neela Banerjee reported (in the Seattle Times and elsewhere) about conservative scientists who nevertheless . . . wait for it . . . believe in climate change. Wow! (Of course, “believe in climate change” is the confusing euphemism for believing that we are catastrophically altering the natural climate — which always changes — and that the only solutions involve increasing the power of the federal government and the UN. But never mind that for now.) Banerjee tells us about scientists, such as “politically conservative” Kerry Emanuel, from MIT, and Read More ›
On this episode of ID the Future, Anika Smith interviews Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Jay Richards about the bizarre claim made by certain atheists that intelligent design is bad theology. Read Dr. Richards’ “Is Intelligent Design Bad Theology?” here.
On this episode of ID the Future, Anika Smith interviews CSC Research Director Jay Richards about when it’s wise to doubt a “scientific consensus.” With growing skepticism on issues where the public is told that scientific consensus exists — most notably Darwinian evolution, but also climate change. How can we tell if the consensus is based on social pressure or on scientific evidence? Listen in, and be sure to read Dr. Richards’ article at The American here.
CSC’s Logan Gage interviews senior fellow Jay Richards about how philosophers of science use demarcation criteria to determine what is or isn’t science. One of the most commonly referred to demarcation points is falsifiability. Many scientists see the question of falsifiability as the gold standard in determining whether something is science or not. Richards defines what falsifiability is, why it’s important and answers whether or not intelligent design can be falsified and is therefore scientific. About Jay RichardsJay Wesley Richards has a Ph.D.(honors) in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he was a Teaching Fellow. He is presently a Research Fellow and Director of Media at the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Richards has been published in Read More ›
In this edition of ID The Future, CSC’s Logan Gage interviews Dr. Jay Richards about William Paley, David Hume, and the arguments for intelligent design. Dr. Richards begins with a description of William Paley’s 1802 book Natural Theology, in which the author infers from the natural world that there must be some intelligent force (God) responsible for its design. Richards then addresses David Hume’s critique of analogical arguments like those used by Paley. Dr. Richards closes by differentiating between analogical arguments and arguments for intelligent design.
On this episode of ID The Future we have a short clip of Dr. Jay Richards, discussing the question who designed the designer? Critics of intelligent design theory often throw this question out thinking to highlight a weakness in ID. Richards shows that the theory’s inability to identify the designer is not a weakness, but a strength. ID does not identify the designer is because ID limits its claims to those which can be established by empirical evidence. As CSC Senior Fellow Dr. Michael Behe puts it: ” [A] scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open.”
Even as Darwinists at SMU are moving to stifle an intelligent design conference on their campus, this episode of ID The Future features a short clip of an address to the National Press Club by Dr. Jay Richards about academic freedom. As Richards explains, Darwinists are actively working to censor scientist and scholars advocating intelligent design, and are trying to curb their right to freely discuss even just scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution. There is a growing trend of dogmatic Darwinists trying to intimidate people who are in some way associated with researching intelligent design into being quiet, rather than engaging in a civil debate about the scientific merits of their arguments.
On this episode of ID The Future we have a short clip about the The Privileged Planet. In the book, authors Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards suggest Earth was designed for scientific discovery. They introduce a new idea, more than just that the earth is just a rarity in the universe they argue that Earth is ideal for scientific observation. Specifically they critique the Copernican principle, which holds that Earth is not special in its ability to support life. In this clip, Jay Richards lays out the problems with the Copernican principle.