Machines will replace more and more people. In a perfect world, that'd mean everyone would instead follow a study and specialise in something which cannot be efficiently performed by machines: working with your hands is obsolete, so you'd have to work with your brains. In the real world however, many countries do not 100% cover studies, thus when lacking finances and not being lucky enough to get a scholarship you're stuck fighting for a labour-involved job in a sector where machines take over labour. Not to mention many countries are so poor that about only >1% of it's population goes to any kind of school at all: where they could previously do export labour making things for foreign western and the richer eastern countries, they too are eventually replaced by cheaper machines.
I've spoken to some people before who had mixed union/luddite approach to things. They often spoke they'd prefer everyone'd work on only what's nescesary to breathe, eat and live, making rediculous claims that 'life is comfortable' and that 'we need no fancier technologies, you can live fine'. I find their opinions extremely selfish, with a point of view they want to see firmly forced upon others. I don't want to die aged 100 with the same TV and radio I had when I were 25. I like to see how NASA takes a step further each decade, how we will eventually kick AIDS and cancers ass with radically new medicines and how a teenager who lost his hands in a cycle accident can someday work a brush again with advantaged prosthesises. Their lack of interest and perhaps simple contentment with working hard and going to bed early isn't for everyone. Heck, I've heared plenty of other crazy suggestions by unions and (neo)luddites which are all aimed short-term, causing depletion of reserve resources or further damage on a long term scale.
20-30 years ago those of my parents' generation were told to 'just work with your hands' if going to school wasn't exactly their forte. Yes, it's sad that we're in an era where machines take over a lot of labour. Perhaps it's humane to artificially halt that a little bit and make sure the young generations all go to school and study so that when the working generation retires, machines can take over almost full-time. But there'll be business owners anyway who want the cheapest labour force possible and they'll employ machines regardless.
I guess the best answer is we all try and find solutions to make sure younger generations are pushed into specialising rather than labour and those of the working generation who are still eager try to follow additional studies to specialise in some area to have a better chance at the job market. But the harsh reality is that the economy and social system, on a global scale, needs time to grow along with such change and in the meanwhile a lot of people are in trouble. Still, that doesn't approve luddism which in my opinion is just plain silly, completely regressive and as harsh as it sounds, often a philosophy for those who aren't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.
A dutch saying goes 'niet verder zien dan je neus lang is', which translates to not seeing further than your nose is long. It roughly means being shortsighted and making ill decisions which only stall the inevitable and often make it worse. I guess the whole movement behind the 'work with your hands if you can't learn' attitude had a bad case of short noses too, but the luddites must have hit their nose one time too many, they're just plain flat. If we stall technology now in favour of human labour, we'll burn up all resource reserves we have left, eventually leaving none to ever allow machines or technology to boom. Maybe allowing machines and technology to grow further will at some point allow for a perpetual motion in economy and resources, meaning a future generation will have a brighter future. Right now we'll have to deal with the shrinking labour jobmarket as best as we can.
/rant over
