Construction Firm Balfour Beatty Considers Drone Workers

cagraham writes "International engineering and construction firm Balfour Beatty is considering using drones in order to construct walls and monitor work sites, among other things. Beatty CIO Danny Reeves, speaking at the Fujitsu Forum, said drones could improve efficiency and safety on sites. He also talked of implementing sensors that would monitor worker's stress levels and bodily functions, and notify management when they became less effective, or mistake-prone, on the job."

Comments

Bodily ? - Boss - I need to pee now !

[burni2]

Boss: Can't be, your bladder is only 85% filled, you must give 120% !!

Brave new Odity

Ahh, predicting the future...

[Anonymous Coward]

What we envisioned: Man overseeing the construction robots doing their elaborate dance.

What we got: robotic sensors collect every bit of observable data, so that the man can be put into good use with highest efficiency.

Re:Ahh, predicting the future...

[hairyfeet]

The bigger question is how long are we gonna keep this broken system we call capitalism? Like it or not Star Trek had it right in that once the tech reaches a certain point capitalism doesn't work and I'd argue that for the majority we are already there.

Lets face facts, the entire basis of capitalism, trading labor for capital, is already dead. Like it or not the true moral of John Henry was that you could work yourself into a grave and still not beat the machine because it never gets tired, never hurts or gets sick, doesn't take bathroom breaks, it will work 24/7. Its quite obvious that we are already reaching the point that the majority simply isn't required to work as their labor is worthless when compared to the machine. Hell we are already at the point that corps like Walmart and Mickey D's have their wages paid by the government in the form of aid, why? Because if they had to pay a living wage they could just replace the workers with machines and end up better off, less errors, better performance, the human will always be at a disadvantage compared to the machine. You could replace the entire staff at a Mickey D with a modern computer controlled assembly line and it would run like Swiss watch, the people just aren't needed.

We have already seen the "just educate the masses herpa de derp" is a failure, the massive student loan defaults drive a stake through that particular lie, so what to do? I would argue the only thing one CAN do without having massive revolts is to simply pay the masses not to work, just as we pay farmers not to grow, because like it or not we are quickly reaching a point where the tech has made us humans obsolete.

Re:Ahh, predicting the future...

[Kiuas]

the entire basis of capitalism, trading labor for capital

Uhm, that'd be wrong. The basis of capitalism is the ownership of the means of production.

Yes, it also implies that since everyone owns their own bodies, they're free to trade the labor provided by their body - be it mental pr physical - to capital, but that is not what the ideology is founded upon.

You're entirely correct in that western societies are fast approaching a point wherein the need for low skill (ie. uneducated) labor will be zero. This means that we societies at large need to figure out how to best handle the masses of people who don't want to or cannot be educated and thus cannot employ themselves in a future where there is no need for manual labor. Personally I think that a person's ability to live and enjoy a decent standard of living should never be dependent on how much they are able to work.

However, it is important to realize that even if we agree to this, it does not mean the end of capitalism. Even if we an use machines to do work faster and better, those machines need to be built. And even though we will most likely end up at a point wherein we use machines to build those machines we will still need raw materials to do so. Even if we figure out a way to build a machine, which will produce anything we can think of, that machine will still be limited by 2 factors:

1) the resources available and
2) the energy needed to run the machine

Now, theoretically we can even eliminate the 1st one of these. But supposing we manage to build a functioning replicator, unless we figure out a way to get unlimited energy to the replicators it will still be constrained in how much stuff it can produce. As long as this is the case, meaning; as long as there exists any sort of material and/or energy-production scarcity, some form of capitalism will exist. Why? For the simple reason that if we need to utilize some finite resource to produce stuff, somebody will need to provide those resources.

Using the example of star trek, supposing we have the capability to replicate anything, I want to replicate myself an entire starship. If we have unlimited resources this will be no problem, because we can simply replicate entire starships or even fleets of starships to anyone who wants them. But if we have limited resources, producing a starship for me will mean that we can't produce a starship - or anything else using the same amount of resources - for anyone else.

That is to say as long as we don't have infinite amounts of energy and materials, we cannot simply give anyone anything they desire. So if both me and Bob want a straship, but we can only manufacture 1 of them, what basis do we use to decide which one of us gets it? There needs to be some way to determine how the finite resources are to be allocated unless you're just advocating for a model of society in which anyone can ask for anything and someone randomly chooses which items get produced (and for whom). This doesn't necessarily mean we'll always have a money based economy - simply that as long as there is any type of scarcity there will also be supply and demand, and the demand has to be quantified in some way. I can say I need a starship more than Bob does and therefore I should be the one who gets it, but need is an entirely subjective concept and is of no use unless I tell, why I need it. I can say I need the starship to explore the galaxy and seek out new materials and life, and Bob can say he needs it because he really likes piloting a starship. Both are valid reasons for wanting a ship, but if we only have the resources to fulfill either my wish or Bob's, whoever controls the starship-factory will have to decide who he'll listen.

This is where the true basis of capitalism lies: the ownership of the means of production. Whoever controls the manufacturing, controls the supply. If Bob owns the replicator, he can simply build a ship for himself no matter how good arguments I might present to him for why I

Re:Ahh, predicting the future...

[fritsd]

It probably depends a lot on the cultural and moral values of each society: in a society that believes in the values of capitalism, the economic values will trickle up to the "1%", who will be quite happy with all the money and power and replacing all those potential "saboteurs" (original meaning) with obedient factory robot slaves.

Until the inevitable revolution, of course, when their heads will be proudly paraded around by their own industrial robots (operated by the workers).

In a society that believes in the values of socialism, I't imagine that this trend would evolve into the logical extreme of a basic income ("too much to die from, but too little to live comfortably"). A bit like the old people's basic pensions in Europe. Motivation is that it's better for the "1%" that all old people grumpily can afford their apartment's heating bills and a monthly bag of potatoes, rather than the obvious shame of having the people that built up your society and paid income tax all their life, begging and starving and freezing in the streets.

An important factor in social democratic thought in Europe was, that the masses need to be educated, to free them from the chains of ignorance that the bosses wrought ("the police exists to keep you obedient, the director exists to keep you poor, and the priest exists to keep you ignorant and happy with your lot").

But as you point out, educating the masses won't help much if they still will be unemployed/unemployable, because UNLIKE the early 20th century, they will never reach the level of income necessary to buy the capitalist goods (computers and 3D printers excluded).

reminds me of the story "manna"

[richlv]

the latter part sounds like the beginning on "manna" - computer system in a short story somebody linked to in ./ recently.

http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

creepy.

Re:reminds me of the story "manna"

[Blakey Rat]

I hate that story... no matter how many free energy robots you have, they can't build you a home on Lake Washington if all the lots are already taken. Nor can they arrange 50,000 people to *all* have the front row at a popular concert.

The economics of it make no sense.

Re:reminds me of the story "manna"

[femtobyte]

The main part of the economics that don't make sense is trusting a secretive technocratic savior, wielding trillions of dollars of resources, to actually give a shit about helping out all the low-level peons who initially funded the system. It's an extremely elitist vision, that, by people's parents handing over investment money to a small cabal of technological geniuses, their kids will be handed a post-scarcity utopia on a platter --- instead of the wealthy technocrats simply joining forces with the rest of the oppressive oligarchy, laughing at the suckers who gambled away their children's futures on promises of technology serving the people rather than vice-versa. The story provides a well-founded criticism of the use of technology/Taylorization to enslave the masses, but the solution offered (post-scarcity salvation handed down from a technocratic elite) is absurdly prone to failure (i.e. the typical pattern that a technocratic elite will be just as self-serving as any other authoritarian elite handed control over human society).

Re:reminds me of the story "manna"

[maxwell demon]

Except that if you look closer at it, the utopia isn't a real utopia. If you don't follow the rules, you get re-educated ... where did I hear something like this, again? Ah, right, from communist countries. Where people really did not enjoy their re-education. And you get an operation which essentially gives the system complete control over you (the system can control your body for you, cut off your sensory perception and inject arbitrary artificial perceptions. And it is installed operatively, so you cannot just remove it. And apart from the word of a single person (who itself has that system implanted, so how can you trust that person, or even that you are really speaking to the person herself, for which you also have nothing but her word), you have no guarantee that it really will work for your best.

So why would this be set up? Well, to deal with the potential trouble makers, of course. The narrator of the story has several times tried to leave the zone she has to remain in. She's clearly someone who might cause serious trouble sooner or later. So she gets the control system implanted. Like all the other potential trouble makers. And to make sure they don't resist it, they get told this nice story about the Australian paradise. When they notice that they have been tricked, it is too late: They already have that system implanted in their head (and also, they have to remove something from the brain to install it; what function does this removed part normally perform? Maybe something related to critical thinking?).

Knowing them, it'll be for labor relations uses

[sethstorm]

In addition to adding drones to its workforce, Balfour Beatty is exploring the possibility of incorporating “body area networks” into its work-sites. Such networks consist of wearable tech devices that monitor various bodily functions such as heart rate, stress levels, and hydration. For companies, the idea is that such networks could alert management when individual workers stress or fatigue levels make them ineffective on the job, or even a danger to themselves and others.

If anything, it'd be more likely to be used to get rid of soueone that is hard to fire(e.g. whistleblower, minority, union support) while maintaining a clean excuse. They'd just point to the sensors and fire/not renew the contract of the worker.

And do what with the unemployed?

[Rigel47]

This is all well and good and inevitable but society really needs to think hard and fast about what we are going to do with a future where there are only so many jobs available for people with a shovel or a wrench. It used to be something like 30% of the nation was involved with food production. Thanks to industrialization that's now 1-2%. Even the last bastions of farm work -- fruit picking -- is being inched into by robotics. The farm hands who left the fields and went into the factories are now finding themselves being replaced en masse by sophisticated machines.

In the utopian fantasy the rise of the bots means the people have more leisure time and devote themselves to intellectual pursuits. In the reality playing out they go on disability and other "safety net" programs and lead meager lives of not-so-quiet desperation. As it is there are now more people going on disability than entering the work force. The economics of all this is just disastrous. From the government deficit on down to the generation of kids being raised in food stamp households the situation is untenable. One can only hope we find a path forward that does not involve increasing social decay and civil unrest.

It's a brave new world alright.

Re:And do what with the unemployed?

[fermion]

The answer is a 30 hour work week.

Look, higher efficiencies have tended to lead to less hours dedicated to survival. While some research has indicated that a hunter gatherers actually worked less those based of fixed agriculture, for recorded history is does seem that the average number of hours required to subsist has decrease. For much of history those that worked worked all the time. When formal government and royalty emerged, peasants certainly never got a day off. Judism may be several centuries old, but we don't know when anyone started getting a day of rest. Certainly Christianity has only been giving some workers a day of rest for a couple thousand years. I suppose the American slaves worked seven days a week, at least a partial day.

So through the 19th century we has a 60-100 hour work week, with one day off. Kids worked. In fact kids working were such a ingrained part of the time that in some places when a kid was accidental killed there was a statutory payment made by the culprit representing the value the he had to the family.

So that is another thing. Fewer people working. When we gained sufficient efficiencies, and enough wealth, we implement child worker laws. So four year old kids were no longer employed in factories during the industrial revolution. In 1904 children were regularly employed int he textile industry in the US. Want to know what killed manufacturing in the US? Cheap child labor. Wan to to know why we have child labor laws in the US. Because increases in efficiencies and a bad economy meant there were not enough jobs to go around for everyone. Except for agriculture which no one wanted to do. Which children continued to do until the later quarter of the 20th century. At which point immigrants became the primary agricultural worker.

In the mid 19th century though, professionals enjoyed a 10 hour work day. and federal workers had an 8 hour work day. By the turn of the 20th century we had an 8-10 hour work day for most people, and many firms increased wages to account for the decreased time. It proved beneficial for profits, so the movement grew. Around the time that we stopped employing children in factories, the US also required employers to generally only ask for 40 hours of work, pay overtime, and pay a minimum wage. Again, because efficiencies to productivity were not being pass on the workers, unemployment was high, and clearly that many firms did this voluntarily indicated it was not bad for bidness.

We do have a similar situation now. Gains in efficiencies are not being passed on to workers. In a generation or two many studies have suggested that most manual labor, even professional trades like lawyers, who have already taken a significant hit, will be greatly diminished as viable work. Engineering is expected to take a hit soon after that. The reduction from 16 to 8 was quick as the industrial revolution progressed. I have seen offices go to a four day week, and time will show that nomore work gets done in 10 hours than 8. It will be 32 hour week, then 28 hour week.

Re:And do what with the unemployed?

[femtobyte]

The only reason technological advances have benefited the working class in the past is Luddites.

That is, the working class organizing into labor movements saying "give us a cut of the improvements in production, or we'll bring your wage-destroying, employment-destroying factories to a grinding halt." The wealthy elite love spinning a narrative where technological improvements come along, and the elite generously hand out the benefits to the working class (so everyone should uncritically love technological improvements). But, throughout history, the only reason technology hasn't been an unmitigated disaster leading to starving masses of the unemployed is that those potential starving masses of the unemployed *fight back* and demand things like minimum wages and maximum working hours to re-distribute the benefits of mechanization. We need Luddites (who, rather than misunderstanding technology, understand its impacts best) to keep up the good work of striking fear into the hearts of the ruling oligarchy, and making sure We The People aren't left in a post-employment, post-getting-food-on-the-table dystopia of maximized profit.

I am a Luddite, and proud of it.

Not really

[rsilvergun]

because you're ignoring the core problem he's discussing because he didn't name it: idle capacity. The wealthiest Americans have 40% of their net worth in cash. They're not investing. They're grabbing all the wealth and grinding the US economy to a halt. If anyone calls them on this and suggests we use the gov't to address the idle economy they're shouted down with cries of "Theif!" and "Deficits!".

Basically, we have enormous idle capacity in our economy and it's getting worse because we're racing to give ownership of everything to an increasingly small number of people, and these people can't possible use that idle capacity. No matter how greedy you are there's only so many hours in the day to buy stuff with...

Re:Why?

[maxwell demon]

The trouble is everything above makes perfect sense

Everything except the one fundamental premise on which the whole argumentation is built:

If you don't work you don't eat, because you haven't earned the right to eat

You must eat in order to live, and to live (and therefore by extension, to eat) is a fundamental human right which you do not have to earn. Since the basis of the argumentation is invalid, the whole argumentation falls down.

Re:what about a basic income CEO / EX pay caps / t

[Ol Olsoc]

what about a basic income CEO / EX pay caps / taxes and a OT limes can all help in that.

Why should some be on the disability bench while others are pulling 60-80 hour weeks?

I'm going to take a lot of heat here, but the fact is, people have different talents. Unless your job is exceedingly simple, you aren't going to just plug another person into it. Not everyone is cut out to be the CEO, and not everyone is cut out to work on construction or work on the highway.

The Disability issue is an extremely interesting one. Many of the recipients are 50 plus year olds who have been displaced from local factory jobs. While they usually want to work, they have essentially no options. Training that they might have is in a field that doesn't exist any more, and where they are at, there are no where near enough jobs available. And packing up and moving somewhere else is a bad option, their best hope would be to gat a jobe at a fast food place making near minimum wage. Even if they were to do that, fast food is becoming the new province of college graduates, while once upon a time it was entry level work for the young. Now the average age of a McDonald's woeker is 30. Fast food has become a career option. But it is a career option that qualifies you for food stamps and other subsidized living.

So these thousands of virtually unemployable people need some option. So enter disability. Most people in their 50's have some physical issues. But like other 50 year olds, most are capable of working. But of what use is packing up your life, moving to another city, still not getting a job, or if you are lucky enough, you'll still be on the federal or state dole?

Alternatives are letting these people starve, or perhaps churches can open soup kitchens ala the Great depression. Then they can go live under bridges or something.

There really aren't many good alternatives.