Still Think Robots Can't Do Your Job?

STILL THINK ROBOTS CAN’T DO YOUR JOB?

ESSAYS ON AUTOMATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL UNEMPLOYMENT

Libreria di Neoantropologia

A series edited by Riccardo Campa

Scientific Committee

Antonio Camorrino, Federico II University in Neaples Vitaldo Conte – Academy of Fine Arts in Rome Michel Kowalewicz – Jagiellonian University in Krakow

Roberto Manzocco – City University of New York

Luciano Pellicani – Guido CarliFree International University for Social Studies in Rome Salvatore Rampone – University of Sannio inBenevento

Stefan Lorenz Sorgner – John Cabot University in Rome Daniele Stasi – University of Rzeszów

Piotr Zielonka – Kozminski University in Warsaw

Campa, Riccardo – Still Think Robots Can’t Do Your Job? Essays on Automation and Technological Unemployment

ISBN: 9788894830200

Copyright D Editore © 2018. All right reserved.” D Editore, Rome

Contacts: +39 320 8036613 www.deditore.com info@deditore.com

This ebook is made with StreetLib Write editor http://write.streetlib.com”

Contents

Preface

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1. Technological Unemployment: A Brief History of an Idea

Chapter 2. Automation, Education, Unemployment: A Scenario Analysis

Chapter 3. The Rise of Social Robots: A Review of the Recent Literature

Chapter 4. Technological Growth and Unemployment: A Global Scenario Analysis

Chapter 5. Workers and Automata: A Sociological Analysis of the Italian Case

Chapter 6. Pure Science and the Posthuman Future

Chapter 7. Making Science by Serendipity: A review of Robert K. Merton and Elinor Barber’s The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity

Bibliography

The first industrial revolution extended the reach of our bodies, and the second is extending the reach of our minds. As I mentioned, employment in factories and farms has gone from 60 percent to 6 percent in the United States in the past century. Over the next couple of decades, virtually all routine physical and mental work will be automated.

Ray Kurzweil

Preface

This is one of those books that one writes hoping to be wrong. The question with which I begin the book has recently been asked quite often. I ask it also to myself: Do I still think robots cannot do my job? My personal answer is simply “no”. Sooner or later, there will be robots that can teach and do science.

In spite of the fact that this is a collection of academic works, I ask my readers to allow me the indulgence of introducing the topic by offering a personal story.

I have always been fascinated by technologies, old and new, and especially by Artificial Intelligence and robotics. Not by chance, therefore, before turning into a social scientist I studied electronics. Still, I could never turn my back to the unwanted collateral effects of technological development.

When I was a teenager, I worked in a factory in summertime as a manual worker in order to pay for my studies. It was the 1980s, when the first wave of robotization was hitting Italian industries. I remember that every week a new machine was “hired” by my company, and a few fellow workers fired. Being seasonal workers we were not protected by long term contracts.

One day a computerized scale was introduced in my department. It was pretty obvious that it was there to do the job of my own team. I was at once fascinated and scared by that machine. On the one hand I was curious to see how it worked, on the other I knew it might lead to my firing. When the meal break started, by getting close to the machinery, I heard the boss saying

that the hiring manager was looking but they had not yet found a worker who could supervise its functioning. So instead of joining my colleagues at the canteen, I started reading the instruction manual.

When the bell rang to signal the end of the meal break, I went to the boss and told him that I was a student of electronics and I knew how the scale worked. He was quite happy to have the machinery immediately in function, and I was happy to leave the physical work and turn into a supervisor. Even though I had to wait until late that evening to eat, I did not even feel hungry. I was proud of myself, and I thought my parents would be proud of me also, if they just could see me. I was just sixteen years old and it was only a modest seasonal job, but to me that “career advancement” meant a lot.

Still, what I predicted would happen, happened. My friends and colleagues were fired. I knew it was not their “fault”. Even if all of them did what I did—give up eating and study the instruction manual—only one supervisor was needed. The machine would have done the rest. I also know that some of those friends did not find a new job for long time.

This happened almost thirty-five years ago. It was my first experience with technological unemployment. By resorting to sociological jargon, I can say that my first knowledge in the sociology of work came from “participant observation.”

This probably explains why, once I became a professional sociologist, I focused so much on technology and future of work. I wrote much on these topics in both Italian and English. In this volume I present several of my works written in the English language. As often happens in a collection of essays published at different times, a few concepts and quotes are repeated. However, I wanted to leave the writings in their original form,

as they were published by scientific journals. Here is a short description of the chapters.

The first chapter traces a brief history of the concept of technological unemployment. The historical narration covers four centuries, since the beginning of the industrial revolution up to the present. As a consequence, it is highly selective, mainly based on sources in the English language and referring to only a few of the many social scientists involved in the debate. The scopes of the inquiry are essentially two. The first is to show that focusing on technological unemployment as an idea – and not simply as a phenomenon – is appropriate, because of the high level of controversy that still characterizing the debate. The second is to provide an understanding of critical societal changes occurring in the twenty-first century.

The second chapter proposes a short-term scenario analysis concerning the possible relations between automation, education, and unemployment. In my view, the scenario analysis elaborated by the McKinsey Global Institute in 2013 underestimates the problem of technological unemployment and proposes an education model which is inadequate for handling the challenges of twenty-first century disruptive technologies. New technological advances – such as the automation of knowledge work – will also affect the jobs of highly educated workers. Therefore, policy makers will not avert massive unemployment only by extending the study of math, science, and engineering. A better solution could be the establishment of a universal basic income, and the elaboration of an education model capable of stimulating creativity and the sense of belonging to a community.

In the third chapter I explore the most recent literature on social robotics and argue that the field of robotics is evolving in a direction that will soon require a systematic collaboration between engineers and sociologists. After discussing several prob-

lems relating to social robotics, I emphasize that two key concepts in this research area are scenario and persona. These are already popular as design tools in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), and an approach based on them is now being adopted in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). As robots become more and more sophisticated, engineers will need the help of trained sociologists and psychologists in order to create personas and scenarios and to “teach” humanoids how to behave in various circumstances.

The aim of the fourth chapter is to explore the possible futures generated by the development of artificial intelligence. The focus is on the social consequences of automation and robotization, with special attention on the problem of unemployment. To start, I make clear that the relation between technology and structural unemployment is still hypothetical and, therefore, controversial. Secondly, as proper scenario analysis requires, I do not limit myself to predicting a unique future; instead I extrapolate from present data four different possible scenarios: 1) unplanned end of work; 2) planned end of robots; 3) unplanned end of robots; and 4) planned end of work. Finally, I relate these possible developments not just to observed trends but also to social and industrial policies presently at work in our society which may change the course of these trends.

The aim of chapter five is to determine if there is a relation between automation and unemployment within the Italian socioeconomic system. Italy is second in Europe and fourth in the world in terms of robot density, and among the G7 it is the nation with the highest rate of youth unemployment. Establishing the ultimate causes of unemployment is a very difficult task, and – as we said – the notion itself of ‘technological unemployment’ is controversial. Mainstream economics tends to correlate the high rate of unemployment in Italy with the low flexibility of the

labor market and the high cost of manpower. Little attention is paid to the impact of artificial intelligence and robots on the level of employment. With reference to statistical data, we will show that automation can be seen at least as a contributory cause of unemployment in Italy. In addition, we will argue that both Luddism and anti-Luddism are two faces of the same coin both focusing on technology itself (the means of production) instead of on the system (the mode of production). Banning robots or ignoring the problems of robotization are not effective solutions. A better approach would consist in combining growing automation with a more rational redistribution of income.

The sixth chapter explores a more remote scenario, namely the hypothesis that machines could sooner or later “wake up”, become conscious, and have a role also in the pursuit of knowledge. It is a scenario analysis that often goes under the label of “transhumanism” and predicts the advent of the Singularity. Since the industrial revolution, humans have tended to reduce science to the ancillary role of an engine of technology. But the quest for knowledge using rational, scientific methods started at least two and a half millennia ago with the aim of setting humans free from ignorance. The first scientists and philosophers (at least that we know about because they wrote things down) saw knowledge as the goal, not as the means. The main goal was to understand the nature of matter, life, conscience, intelligence, our origin, and our destiny, not only to solve practical problems. Being skeptical of myths and religions, they gave themselves the goal to reach The Answer via rational and empirical inquiry. Transhumanism is a unique philosophy of technology because one of its goals is the creation of a posthuman intelligence. Several scientists share this hope: Making technology an ancillary of science, and not vice versa. By evolving and reaching the Singularity, the hope is that posthumans can

achieve one the greatest dreams of sentient beings: finding The Answer.

In the seventh and last chapter I address the role of serendipity in the development of science and technology. It is a review of Robert K. Merton and Elinor Barber’s book The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity. A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science. Although this book does not treat the issue of technological unemployment directly, it critically discusses the orthodox Marxist theory on automation. According to this theory, scientific and technological discoveries are products of necessity. Industrial automation could not be developed in ancient times, because of the slavery mode of production. The cost of manpower was very low, so there was no need to produce machines. In the capitalistic mode of production characteristic of modern times, however, slaves are not available, so machines can fit the bill. While there is truth in this narrative, it is an oversimplification, because – as Merton and Barber convincingly argue – many scientific discoveries and technical inventions depend on chance and serendipity. Indeed, the fact that Heron and other Alexandrine engineers already projected and built automatons in ancient times does not fit Marxist theory.

If we ask common people if we need conscious computers and robots, the answer would probably be mixed, with – I guess – a majority against the idea. Personally, I am not prejudicially against the idea, but I think we should also take into account the possibility that conscious Artificial Intelligence may emerge from a serendipitous discovery, in an unplanned way and regardless of its social necessity.

In fact, as the development of Artificial Intelligence progresses, we may ask whether serendipity – intended as the capability of making fortuitous discoveries, or the ability to find something while we are looking for something else – will be a

virtue we share with our mechanical children, or whether it will be a factor – maybe THE factor – that continues to differentiate humans from intelligent machines. In any case, we should consider the role of serendipity when we reflect and speculate about the future of work.

Acknowledgements

I am particularly indebted to Alan Sparks for his editorial contributions to various parts of this book. Besides being an awardwinning non-fiction writer, Alan is also an accomplished computer scientist and astute social observer, and discussions with him have been very stimulating also with regard to content.

I am grateful also to Catarina Lamm for having translated from Italian into English chapters four and five of this book1 , and to Matt Hammond and Lucas Mazur for having proofread other fragments of the book. It goes without saying that any remaining inaccuracies in the facts or in the style are my own.

With regard to the title of this book, I have to credit Nikhil Sonnad, who published a press article in digital magazine Quartz entitled “Robot all too robot. Still think robots can’t do your job? This video may change your mind” (2014). After struggling to find a title, and after realizing that all the titles I was thinking of were already used for other books, I decided to borrow and reuse a fragment of that article title.

I also thank the readers of La società degli automi, a book written in my native language, partly covering the same topic but still more focused on Italian issues, that rapidly became a bestseller in Italy. Without the positive feedback of the public,

1 These two articles have been included, with little modifications and a different title, also in my book Humans and Automata. A Social Study of Robotics (Campa 2015).

my Italian publisher would have probably hesitated to print a second book on automation and technological unemployment in English. It will be a challenge also to D Editore to cross the borders and promote this book worldwide. So, the last thanks goes to Emmanuele Pilia for accepting the challenge.

Bibliography

Aristotle. 350 B.C.E. Politics, translated by B. Jowett, <classics.mit.edu>.

Ayres R.U. 1998. Turning Point. The End of the Growth Paradigm. London: Earthscan Publications.

Bachelard G. 1938. La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Paris: Libraire Philosophique J. Vrin.

Barbano F. 1968. “Social Structures and Social Functions: the Emancipation of Structural Analysis in Sociology.” Inquiry, 11: 40-84.

Bignami L. 2007. “Robot, la grande invasione.” La Repubblica, April 10th .

Black J., Hashimzade N., Myles G. 2012. A Dictionary of Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blackford R. 2012. “Robots and reality: A reply to Robert Sparrow.” Ethics and Information Technology 14 (1): 41–51.

Blaug M. 1958. Ricardian Economics: A Historical Study, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bloor D. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Boyer R. 2012. “The four fallacies of contemporary austerity policies: the lost Keynesian legacy.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36 (1): 283-312.

Boyle R. 2000. “The Three Princes of Serendip,” Sunday Times, July 30th and August 6th .

Brynjolfsson E., McAfee A. 2011. Race against the machine: How the digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy. Lexington (MA): Digital Frontier Press.

Brynjolfsson E., McAfee A. 2016. The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York and London: Norton & Company.

Bunge M. 1962. Intuition and science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Bunge M. 1998. Social Science under Debate. A Philosophical Perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Campa R. 1998. “The Epistemological Relevance of Merton’s Sociology of Science.” Ruch Filozoficzny, Volume LV, No. 2.

Campa R. 2001. Epistemological Dimensions of Robert Merton’s Sociology. Torun: Nicholas Copernicus University Press.

Campa R. 2003. “In Memoriam: Robert K. Merton.” In: T. Saccheri (ed.), Prima che: Promozione della salute e responsabilità istituzionali. Milano: Franco Angeli.

Campa R. 2004. “La ‘Storia filosofica dei secoli futuri’ di Ippolito Nievo come caso esemplare di letteratura dell’immaginario sociale: un esercizio di critica sociologica.” Romanica Cracoviensia, Vol. 4: 29-42.

Campa R. 2006. “Transumanesimo.” Mondoperaio, N. 4/5, March-April: 148-153.

Campa R. 2007. “Considerazioni sulla terza rivoluzione industriale.” Il pensiero economico moderno, Anno XXVII, n. 3, July-September: 51-72.

Campa R. 2010. “Le radici pagane della rivoluzione biopolitica.” In: Divenire. Rassegna di studi interdisciplinari sulla tecnica e il postumano, vol. 4. Bergamo: Sestante Edizioni: 93-159.

Campa R. 2014a. “Workers and Automata: A Sociological Analysis of the Italian Case.” Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 24, Issue 1, February: 70-85.

Campa R. 2014b. “Technological Growth and Unemployment: A Global Scenario Analysis.” Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 24, Issue 1, February: 86-103.

Campa R. 2015. Humans and Automata: A Social Study of Robotics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Campa R. 2016a. “Non solo veicoli autonomi. Passato, presente e futuro della disoccupazione tecnologica.” In: F. Verso, R. Paura (eds.), Segnali dal futuro. Napoli: Italian Institute for the Future: 97-114.

Campa R. 2016b. “The Rise of Social Robots: A Review of Recent Literature.” Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 26, Issue 1, February: 106-113.

Campa R., Zielonka P. 2003. “Serendipity.” Nasz Rynek Kapitalowy, 4 (148).

Carboni C. 2015. “Partita tecnologica sul lavoro.” Il Sole 24 Ore, May 1st .

Daerden F., Lefeber D. 2000. Pneumatic artificial muscles: Actuators for robotics and automation. Brussel: Vrije Universiteit. <lucy.vub.ac.be> (accessed November 19, 2015).

Darling K. 2012. “Extending legal rights to social robots.” Paper presented at We Robot Conference. University of Miami, April 23, 2012. <ssrn.com > or <dx.doi.org> (accessed November 19, 2015).

Dennet D. 1991. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Desai J.P., Dudek G., Khatib O., Kumar V. (eds.) 2013. Experimental robotics. Heidelberg: Springer.

Di Nicola P. 1998. “Recensione: Luciano Gallino, Se tre milioni vi sembran pochi. Sui modi per combattere la disoccupazione.” <dinicola.it>.

Douglas P. H. 1930. “Technological Unemployment.” American Federationist, August.

Durand J-P. 1995. La sociologie de Marx. Paris: La Découverte.

Dyson F. 1979. “Time without End: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe.” In Reviews of Modern Physics vol. 51, 447460.

Dyson F. 1979. Disturbing the Universe, New York and London: Harper and Row.

Dyson F. 1988. Infinite in All Directions. New York: Cornelia and Michael Bessie Books.

Dyson F. 1997. Imagined Worlds. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

EUROSTAT. 2009. Report on science, technology and innovation in Europe. <epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu>.

Feldmann H. 2013. “Technological Unemployment in Industrial Countries.” The Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Volume 23, Issue 5: 1099-1126.

Feng A., Graetz G. 2015. “Rise of the Machines: The Effects of Labor-Saving Innovations on Jobs and Wages.” Centre for Economic Performance LSE, Discussion Paper no. 1330: 155.

Flandorfer P. 2012. “Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: The importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance.” International Journal of Population Research, Article ID 829835 (13 pages). <dx.doi.org> (accessed November 19, 2015).

Fleck L. 1979 [1935]. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Floreano D., Mattiussi C. 2008. Bio-inspired artificial intelligence: Theories, methods, and technologies. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

Ford M. 2009. The Lights In the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future. USA: AcculantTM Publishing.

Ford M. 2015. Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. New York: Basic Books.

Fourastié J. 1949. Le Grand Espoir du XX° Siècle. Progrès technique, progrès économique, progress social. Paris: PUF.

Fourastié J. 1954. “Quelques remarques sur le chomage technologique et notamment sur la distinction entre deux types de progrès technique, le progrès processif et le progrès récessif.” In: Études européennes de population: manin-d’oeuvre, emploi, migrations: situation et perspectives. Paris: Éditions de l’Institut National d’Études Démographiques.

Fukuyama F. 2002. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Gallino L. 1998. Se tre milioni vi sembrano pochi. Sui modi per combattere la disoccupazione. Turin: Einaudi.

Gallino L. 1999. “Disoccupazione tecnologica: quanta e quale perdita di posti di lavoro può essere attribuita alle nuove tecnologie informatiche.” January 13th. <mediamente.rai.it>.

Gallino L. 2003. La scomparsa dell’Italia industriale. Turin: Einaudi.

Gallino L. 2007. Tecnologia e democrazia. Conoscenze tecniche e scientifiche come beni pubblici. Torino: Einaudi.

Ge Shuzhi S., Khatib O., Cabibihan J.-J., Simmons R., Williams M.-A. (eds.) 2012. Social robotics. Fourth international conference. Proceedings. Heidelberg: Springer.

Ge Shuzhi S., Li H., Cabibihan J.-J., Tan Y.K. (eds.) 2010. Social robotics. Second international conference. Proceedings. Heidelberg: Springer.

Geroni A. 2011. “Trenta fallimenti al giorno.” Il Sole 24Ore, March 9th .

González C. 2004. “Knowledge, Wisdom, and Luck.” Science 304, 5668: 213.

Graeber D. 2013. “On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs.” Strike! Magazine, August 17th. <strikemag.org>.

Green H.M. 2004. “Merton, Robert K., and Elinor Barber. The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity: a Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science,” International Social Science Review, Fall-Winter.

Haberler G. 1932. “Some Remarks on Professor Hansen’s View on Technological Unemployment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 46, No. 3, May: 558-562.

Haddadin S. 2014. Towards safe robots: Approaching Asimov’s 1st law. Heidelberg: Springer.

Hagen E. 1942. “Saving, Investment, and Technological Unemployment.” The American Economic Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, Part 1, September: 553-555.

Hansen A. 1931. “Institutional Frictions and Technological Unemployment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 45, August: 684-698.

Hawking S. 1981. “Is the End of Theoretical Physics in Sight?” Physics Bulletin, January: 15-17.

Hermann G., Pearson M. J., Lenz A., Bremner P., Spiers A., Leonards U. (eds.) 2012. Social robotics. Fifth international conference. Proceedings. Heidelberg: Springer.

Horgan J. 1997. The End of Science. New York: Broadway Books.

Hughes J. 2004. “Embrace the End of Work. Unless we send humanity on a permanent paid vacation, the future could get very bleak.” USBIG Discussion Paper No. 81. <usbig.net>.

Hughes J. 2004. Citizen Cyborg. Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Cambridge (MA): Westview Press.

Hughes J. 2014. “Are Technological Unemployment and a Basic Income Guarantee Inevitable or Desirable?” Journal of Evo-

lution and Technology, Vol. 24, Issue 1, February: 1-4.

ISTAT. 2010. “La popolazione straniera residente in Italia.” <istat.it>.

ISTAT. 2011. “Censimento industria servizi.” <istat.it>.

Kanda T., Ishiguro H. 2013. Human-robot interaction in social robotics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Kaplan J. 2015. Humans Need Not Apply: A Guide to Wealth and Work in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press.

KELA. 2016. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health request opinions on a basic income experiment, <kela.fi>, [accessed August 26th 2016].

Keynes J. M. 1963 [1930]. “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren.” In ID., Essays in Persuasion. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.: 358-373.

Krugman, Paul. 2013. “Sympathy for the Luddites.” The New York Times, June 13th .

Kurfess, T. R. (ed.). 2012. Robotics and Automation Handbook. CRC Press. Kindle Edition.

Kurz H. D. 1984. “Ricardo and Lowe on Machinery.” Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 10 (2), April-June: 211-229.

Kurzweil R. 2005. The Singularity is Near. When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Viking.

Lefebvre H. 1982 [1968]. The Sociology of Marx. New York: Columbia University Press.

Liu Y., Sun D. 2012. Biological inspired robotics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Mabry R.H., Sharplin A.D. 1986. “Does More Technology Create Unemployment?” Policy Analysis, No. 68, March 18th .

Manyika J. et al. 2013. Disruptive Technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy, McKinsey Global Institute.

Martorella C. 2002. “Shigoto. Lavoro, qualità totale e rivoluzione industriale giapponese.” <cristiano-martorellaarchivio.blogspot.com>.

Marx K. 1976 [1867]. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Menghini M., Travaglia M.L. 2006. “L’evoluzione dell’industria italiana. Peculiarità territoriali.” Istituto Guglielmo Tagliacarne. <tagliacarne.it>.

Merton R.K. 1965. On the Shoulder of Giants: A Shandean Postscript. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Merton R.K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.

Merton R.K. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Merton R.K. 1975. “Thematic Analysis in Science: Notes on Holton’s Concept.” Science, 188, April 35: 335-338.

Merton R.K. 1996. On Social Structure and Science, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Merton R.K., Barber E. 2004. The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity. A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

Minsky M. 1956. “Some Universal Elements for Finite Automata.” Automata Studies: Annals of Mathematics Studies, Number 34.

Minsky M. 1985. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Montani G. 1975. “La teoria della compensazione.” Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, Nuova Serie, Anno 34, No. ¾, Marzo-Aprile: 159-192.

Moravec H. 1988. Mind Children. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.

Moravec H. 1993. “The Age of Robots.” <frc.ri.cmu.edu>.

Moravec H. 1997. “When will computer hardware match the human brain?” <transhumanist.com>.

Moravec H. 1998. Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moyle W., Cooke M., Beattie E., Jones C., Klein B., Cook G., Gray C. 2013. “Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older people with dementia: A pilot RCT.” Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 39(5): 46–53.

Mutlu B., Bartneck C., Ham J., Evers V., Kanda T. (eds.) 2011. Social robotics. Third international conference. Proceedings. Heidelberg: Springer.

Neilson S. 2011. Robot Nation: Surviving the Greatest Socioeconomic Upheaval of All Time. New York: Eridanus Press.

Neisser H.P. 1942. “‘Permanent’ Technological Unemployment: ‘Demand for Commodities Is Not Demand for Labor’.” The American Economic Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, Part 1, March: 50-71.

Noble D.F. 1995. Progress without People: New Technology, Unemployment, and the Message of Resistance. Toronto: Between the Lines.

Norton R. 2002. “Unintended Consequences.” In: Henderson D.R. (ed.), The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Odetti L., Anerdi G., Barbieri M.P., Mazzei D., Rizza E., Dario P., Rodriguez G., Micera S. 2007. “Preliminary experiments on the acceptability of animaloid companion robots by older people with early dementia.” In: Conference proceedings: Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society: 1816–1819.

Oldroyd D. 1986. The Arch of Knowledge. An Introductory Study of the History of the Philosophy and Methodology of Science. New York: Methuen.

Paprotny I., Bergbreiter S. 2014. Small-scale robotics: From nano-to-millimeter-sized robotic systems and applications. Heidelberg: Springer.

Pasquale F. Cashwell G. 2015. “Four Futures of Legal Automation.” 63 UCLA Law Review Discourse, 26: 26-48.

Pellicani L. 2007. Le radici pagane dell’Europa. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.

Pellicani L. 2015. L’Occidente e i suoi nemici. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.

Polchi V. 2011. “Il governo ora chiede più immigrati.” La Repubblica, March 11th .

Ricardo D. 2004 [1821]. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Kitchener: Batoche Books.

Rifkin J. 1995. The End of Work. The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era. New York: Putnam Publishing Group.

Russo L. 2004. The Forgotten Revolution. How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had to Be Reborn. Berlin: Springer.

Russo M., Pirani E. 2006. “Dinamica spaziale dell’occupazione dell’industria meccanica in Italia 1951-2001.” <economia.unimore.it>.

Sandhu S. 2016, “Finland to consider introducing universal basic income in 2017.” Independent, April 1st .

Schor J.B. 1993. “Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today’s.” < groups.csail.mit.edu>.

Schor J.B. 1993. The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. New York: Basic Books.

Schumpeter J.A. 2006 [1954]. History of Economic Analysis. Taylor & Francis e-Library.

Shapin S. 2004. “The Accidental Scientist.” American Scientist, Volume 92, Number 4.

Shin D., Yeh X., Narita T., Khatib O. 2013. “Motor vs. brake: Comparative studies on performance and safety in hybrid actuations.” In: Desai J.P. et al. (ed.), Experimental robotics. Heidelberg: Springer: 101-111.

Siciliano B. 2013. “Foreword.” In: Desai J.P. et al. (ed.), Experimental robotics. Heidelberg: Springer: v-vi.

Siciliano B., Khatib O. (eds.) 2008. Springer Handbook of Robotics. New York: Springer.

Smelser N. J. 1976. “On the relevance of economic sociology for economics.” In: Hupper T. (ed.), Economics and Sociology: Toward and Integration. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media: 1-26.

Smith A. 1998 [1776]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: The Electric Book Company.

Sonnad N. 2014. “Robot all too robot. Still thing robots can’t do your job? This video may change your mind”, Quartz, <qz.com>, August 15th .

Sparrow R. 2002. “The march of the robot dogs.” Ethics and Information Technology 4(4): 305–318.

Steuart J. 1767. An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy. London: Printed for A. Millar, and T. Cadell, in the Strand.

Stone J. 2016. “British parliament to consider motion on universal basic income.” Independent, January 20th .

Stuart Mill J. 2009 [1848]. Principles of Political Economy. Project Gutenberg TEI edition.

Swedberg R. 1987. “Economic Sociology: Past and Present.”

Current Sociology, 35, March 1st: 1-144.

Sztompka P. 1986. Robert K. Merton. An Intellectual profile. Hong Kong: Macmillian.

Tabarrok A. 2003. “Productivity and unemployment.” Marginal Revolution, December 31st. <marginalrevolution.com>.

Tipler F. 1994. The Physics of Immortality. New York: Doubleday.

Tipler F., Barrow J. 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. New York: Oxford University Press.

UNECE. 2004. “Over 50,000 industrial robots in Italy. up 7% over 2002. Italy is Europe’s second and the world’s fourth largest user of industrial robots.” <unece.org>.

UNECE. 2005. “Worldwide investment in industrial robots up 17% in 2004. In first half of 2005, orders for robots were up another 13%.” <unece.org>.

Wallace W.A. 1981. “Galileo and Reasoning Ex Suppositione.”

In: ID., Prelude to Galileo: Essays on Medieval and Sixteenth-Century Sources of Galileo’s Thought. DordrechtBoston: Reidel: 129-159.

Wang L., Chen Tan K., Meng Chew C. 2006. Evolutionary robotics: From algorithms to implementations. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

Wessel D. 2015. “The Typical male U.S. Worker Earned Less in 2014 Than in 1973.” The Wall Street Journal, September 18th .

Wicksell K. 1977 [1934], Lectures on Political Economy, Fairfield: Augustus M. Kelley Publisher.

Wladawsky-Berger I. 2015. “Technological Unemployment and the Future of Work.” Wall Street Journal, November 6th .

Woirol G.R. 1996. The Technological Unemployment and Structural Unemployment Debates. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Woirol G.R. 2006. “New Data, New Issues: The Origins of the Technological Unemployment Debates.” History of Political

Economy, 38(3), September: 473-496.

Worstall T. 2015. “Finally, Someone Does Something Sensible: Finland To Bring In A Universal Basic Income.” Forbes, December 6th .

Złotowski J., Weiss A., Tscheligi M. 2011. “Interaction scenarios for HRI in public space.” In: Mutlu B. (ed.), Social robotics, Heidelberg: Springer: 1-10.