will cheap robots take jobs from costly humans?
TRANSCRIPT
16 February 2013 | NewScientist | 3
HOW would you feel if the food on your plate had been adulterated with a cheap ingredient and passed off as something it was not? Probably quite angry, and perhaps a little queasy.
That might sound like an obvious reference to the horsemeat scandal that has engulfed Europe over the past few weeks, but it need not be. We could just as easily be talking about basmati rice, which is routinely bulked out with inferior varieties.
The problem of food fraud has not just galloped out of nowhere. Past cases have generally been associated with high-end products – honey, olive oil, cheese, fish, coffee, even posh potatoes. But the fact that the lucrative trade in adulteration also infests the bottom end of the market should come as no surprise. It has probably been going on for years.
So why the scandal over this case? There was no such outcry over basmati rice, even though the crime would appear to be roughly equivalent.
One factor is clearly cultural taboos over horsemeat. A more important one, though, is surely disgust and guilt at how the human food chain operates to
satisfy our collective appetite for cheap meat. Why else would flesh from a Romanian abattoir find its way – via Cyprus, the Netherlands, France and Luxembourg – into cheap processed dinners in the UK? That is the real scandal here.
Meat is already a guilty pleasure for many, not just because of
animal rights issues but also its environmental impact. That is not an argument for universal vegetarianism, which is no panacea (New Scientist, 17 July 2010, p 28). But the scandal is an opportunity to recalibrate our relationship with meat, starting with stricter regulation and monitoring and ending with better consumer choices. Eating less, eating ethically and eating locally would all benefit personal heath, the environment, animal welfare and the economy.
And while we’re at it, why not rethink those taboos? Horsemeat is perfectly edible, so why let it go to waste? And what about algae, jellyfish, invasive species or insects? All are surely more palatable than a factory-produced meal of any description – let alone one that is a step away from the knacker’s yard. n
Who ordered that?
EDITORIAL
The horsemeat scandal offers a chance to rethink the whole industry
INDUSTRIAL robots, long caged up like zoo animals, are now safe enough to work in the open alongside humans. And not only are they physically compatible with us – but they’re also learning our psychology (page 22).
So robots can now be teammates as well as tools. But will cheap robots seize jobs from more costly humans?
To some extent, yes. Removing physical constraints will only increase the range of tasks that robots can perform – particularly repetitive jobs that exhaust humans, such as filling up crates or repeatedly fetching objects. It is easy to picture a company like Amazon, which has invested heavily in robotics, rolling out this technology as soon as it makes
sense to do so. AI that helps robots bond with co-workers can only hasten that turning point.
Some humans’ jobs do look vulnerable. There will probably be painful disruption, as with industrial revolutions past. But there are also likely to be jobs created where none existed before: for example, by small businesses that cannot afford human labourers. Their robots will still need human bosses – for now at least. n
Only robots need apply...
“The fact that food fraud infests the bottom end of the market should come as no surprise”
WHY does New Scientist have a dating site? Short version: because you asked us for it. Some years ago, we ran a one-off lonely hearts section in a special love-themed issue (New Scientist, 29 April 2006). It was a hit. We know of at least one marriage that
resulted, and readers kept asking us to do it again.
The idea of a science magazine having a dating site may seem a little eccentric. But why? We think our readers are likely to have as much, if not more, in common with each
other as the readers of any daily newspaper, fans of a musical genre or alumni of a particular university.
If you agree, and you are looking for someone special, you will find plenty of like-minded people at dating.newscientist.com. Good luck!
Great chemistry starts here
© 2013 Reed Business Information Ltd, England
New Scientist is published weekly by Reed Business Information Ltd. ISSN 0262 4079.
Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper and printed in England by Polestar (Colchester)
LOCATIONSUKLacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250
AUSTrALIATower 2, 475 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW 2067Tel +61 2 9422 8559 Fax +61 2 9422 8552
USA225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451Tel +1 781 734 8770 Fax +1 720 356 9217
201 Mission Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105Tel +1 415 908 3348 Fax +1 415 704 3125
SUbSCrIpTION ServICeFor our latest subscription offers, visitnewscientist.com/subscribe
Customer and subscription services are also available by:Telephone +44 (0) 844 543 80 70email [email protected] newscientist.com/subscribepost New Scientist, Rockwood House, Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3DH
One year subscription (51 issues) UK £150
CONTACTSContact us newscientist.com/contact
Who’s who newscientist.com/people
General & media enquiriesTel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected]
editorial Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 [email protected]@[email protected]
picture desk Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268
Display Advertising Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 [email protected]
recruitment Advertising UK Tel +44 (0) 20 8652 [email protected]
UK Newsstand Tel +44 (0) 20 3148 3333Newstrade distributed by Marketforce UK Ltd, The Blue Fin Building, 110 Southwark St, London SE1 OSU
SyndicationTribune Media Services InternationalTel +44 (0) 20 7588 7588
130216_R_Editorial.indd 3 12/2/13 17:26:57