This is an analysis of the essay “Better than Human: Why Robots Will-and Must –Take Our Jobs” by Kevin Kelly. The essay is an argumentative piece where the author attempts to argue that robots are indeed replacing human beings in most jobs. The author raises a number of arguments to support his side of the story. Notably, robots and machines are widely used in most jobs in the current era of industrialization. The author stages a number of reasons as to why robots and machines are used today. He goes ahead to argue that soon, human beings will be kicked out of their positions by robots whether they like it or not (Kelly 300). It is also clear that the author has a particular audience which he intends to reach and communicate with. His audience is comprised of employers and employees in all types of jobs and opportunities. He comes out clear that whether human beings like it or not, they will have to pave way for machines and automation. However, Kevin argues that although machines are taking up all the jobs in factories, the new technology is creating a lot of job opportunities. According to the article, in the near future, robots will replace all jobs in the world. The disturbance is being led by the second wave of computerization. According to Kevin, this is centered on simulated cognition, machine-knowledge, distributes smarts, and cheap sensors. This implies that this robot replacement will touch on all types of jobs, ranging from manual labor to knowledge works (Kelly 303). This implies that robots will not only be used in factories for manual works, they can also be used in fields where their knowledge input is required.
Kevin Kelly advises the audience not to be worried on the coming of the robots. Instead, people should be welcome the new robot overlords. He states that the robots will do the jobs humans have been doing; in some instances, they will even do the jobs better. The robots will even do the jobs human beings cannot do, according to Kelly. Further, they will execute work that humans never imagined it could be done. According to the piece, the robots will even discover new jobs for people, new tasks, and even expand the scope of humans. He defends the taking of the jobs by robots by stating that human beings did lose jobs before and everything turned out fine. Therefore, people should not be worried or shocked when other jobs are taken by the machines. Although most jobs will disappear and most people rendered jobless, productivity and the economy will grow and develop (Kelly 306). This implies that the Gross Domestic Product of the country will grow; and so will the overall pie. It will not matter if a lot of people lose their jobs. Kevin, however, fails to furnish us with details on how people will earn a living without jobs. However big the economy, people will not rely fully on the government to provide all their basic requirements. The evolution of robots and machines has also brought about unfairness in the job market. This is because some people will acquire workbots before the others. Those who acquire faster will be way ahead of the others in terms of productivity and efficiency. Kevin also points out that these robots are continually becoming efficient, cheap to manage, and cheap to acquire. Therefore, in the near future, most employers will be able to acquire robots which will need little supervision. Kelly also points out that the chances of a person to survive in the job market will depend on how good they interact with the robots (Kelly, 309).
I am impressed with the logic of the essay. The author brakes down all his points in a systematic manner. He introduces the essay with an introduction which catches the attention of the reader, then enters the body where he gives reasons as to why robots should be embraced in the society, and the finalizes with a conclusion.
The strategies of the author are persuasive and compelling. He uses proper examples and real life situations which supports his side of the story.
Although the author borrows information from other sources, he does not cite the source of his information. This is why I question the credibility of his sources.
The statistics are represented in flawed manner. For instance, in the introduction, he says that about 70 percent of jobs in the farms have been substituted by machines. He does not state where he got his information. Also, there are a number of statistical representations which he does not cite their sources.
There is no enough backing of some points in the essay. For instance, there is no proof that robots will be able to handle jobs without much supervision.
There is no enough consideration for the other side’s arguments. The author does not answer all the questions; like where the jobless people will get their fortune.
Biased sources and quotes are used. The sources are not reliable
The message reaches out to the intended audience
Analogies and anecdotes are effectively used in the essay
The essay contains all the sources contained in the casebooks.
There is a major difference between a liberal and conservative ends. The liberal end believes in the action by the government to ensure equality and for all. It also trusts the government to alleviate social ills while protecting the civil liberties and human rights. This implies that government should watch over all people without prejudice or bias. Generally, the liberal end emphasizes on the need of the government to take care of the citizens and to solve all their problems. On the other hand, conservatives believe in a limited government which has limited control of its people. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility and a free market. The end also believes that the government ought to provide its citizens with the liberty they require to chase their goals. It is clear that the author edges to the conservative end. This is because his essay is based on a situation in which the government does not have full control of the operations. The government will always stand by its people, meaning it will not allow the evolution of robots to remove people from their places of work. Although some machines may be introduced to the market, they shall be moderated by the government. The conservative perspective is that the government shall not have control over the market forces and therefore anything can happen, such as the replacement of humans by robots. The author uses rhetoric, analogies, and examples to enforce his points. He is successful in persuading people because his strategies are powerful and calculated. Example and analogies are powerful linguistic strategies which work well in argumentative essays.
Works Cited
Kelly, Kevin. "Better than human: Why robots will—and must—take our jobs." Wired, décembre (2012). Print
