Two different perspectives on technology, and both are thought-provoking

 

First, an article in American Intelligence addresses artificial intelligence in the agricultural sector.  (American Intelligence provides very few details about itself or those behind it.  I did a search using Supergrok, which provided these details, if you're interested.)

America cannot lead the AI farming revolution while federal policy keeps imported labor cheaper than machines

Every agricultural economy has a legacy. The question is which part is being preserved. The fertile soil is a legacy. The family farms are a legacy. The harvest is a legacy. So is the labor model that brings it in. And across American agriculture, that model has for forty years depended heavily on foreign labor, illegal hiring, and a political class determined not to disturb either.

When a city brochure pairs “legacy” with AI robotics in the same breath, it is not just describing the future. It is making a quiet promise: the technology will advance, but the labor model will not.

America is preparing for the AI age everywhere except the place that feeds the country.

. . .

Autonomous tractors already plant, till, and spray without a driver. Computer-vision systems can scout crops plant by plant. Machine-learning models can optimize water, fertilizer, pest control, and yield down to the meter. Robotic harvesters can pick faster, cleaner, and longer than hand crews. Precision irrigation can be guided by satellite analytics. AI-assisted breeding can compress decades of plant selection into months.

The question is no longer whether American agriculture can automate. It is whether Washington will stop subsidizing the cheap labor model that makes automation a losing bet.

America should be leading this revolution. It builds the software, funds the research, trains the engineers, and talks constantly about technological dominance. Yet federal policy still props up an agricultural labor model built on cheap imported labor, illegal hiring, and guestworker expansion. That bargain has kept human labor cheaper than machines, delayed mechanization, and now risks leaving the United States on the sidelines of a revolution it should own.

There's more at the link.

To a technologist, that sounds wonderful.  Machine intelligence and labor will take over the agricultural sector, modernizing everything and guaranteeing much greater yields and more efficient utilization of resources.  So far, so good . . . but what happens to the many millions of people who earn their living working on farms and in the food industry?  When they're replaced in the fields and the food processors, where will they find employment?  Almost every other sector of the economy is also paring back on human resources and switching to ever greater automation.  How is our economy, our nation, going to cope with the burden of all those thrown out of work by this sea-change?

Furthermore, what will it do to nations that cannot afford to grow their own food even today, but also cannot afford to automate their agriculture?  Will there be seeds they can grow, or will even that be absorbed into techno-agriculture?  What about the illegal aliens who used to flood across our borders to work on American farms?  Now they'll be stuck in their own countries, without work, and possibly without local food either.

I'm not a Luddite.  I think automation and technology can serve us well, if properly managed, and hold out great hope for the future.  However, we can't embrace them blindly unless we also account for those who will be displaced by them.  How are we going to cope with them in our increasingly digital society?  How are they going to adapt, particularly if there's no work available for them to earn a living while they and their families adapt?

That dilemma was discussed last year at the Nexus Conference 2025, 'Apocalypse Now: The Revelation of our Time'.  It was held under the auspices of the Nexus Institute, which describes its mission like this:

As an independent non-profit foundation, the Nexus Institute brings together the world’s foremost intellectuals, artists, scientists and politicians, and encourages them to discuss the questions that really matter. How are we to live? How can we shape our future? Can we learn from our past? Which values and ideas are important, and why?

From reading its Web site, the Institute seems fairly typically left-wing and progressive, but it does appear to try to provide those with different philosophies with an opportunity to participate in wide-ranging discussions.  Here's an excerpt from a panel from last year's conference titled "The Wild West of digital technology in a capitalist system".  I don't agree with many of the points raised (unsurprising, from my right-of-center perspective), but I think they present aspects of the problem that are important, and worth examining.

The future of our technological society is far from settled, and is in many cases unsettling to think about.  I try to keep informed about all sides of the debate, and the article and video clip above have helped me to do that.  I hope you enjoyed them, too.

Peter