Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mines May Eliminate More Than Half Their Human Workers Within 10 Years (computerworld.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the canary-in-the-coal-mine? dept.

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes ComputerWorld: In the next decade, the mining industry may lose more than half of its jobs to automation, according to a new report... This industry is adopting self-driving trucks, automated loaders and automated drilling and tunnel-boring systems. It is also testing fully autonomous long-distance trains, which carry materials from the mine to a port...

A broader question is whether mining is a bellwether for other industries. There's no clear answer, but what Aaron Cosbey, a development economist and a report author, can say is this: "Where you can find robotic replacements for human labor you tend to do it." Cosbey estimates that automation will replace 40% to 80% of the workers at a mine...
Driverless technology can increase output up to 20%, while decreasing fuel consumption up to 15%, according to the article. "This will increase demand for people with IT skills who can set up and operate the automation systems -- but at far smaller numbers than the people automation displaces."

36 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. A broader question? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    A broader question is whether mining is a bellwether for other industries.

    Yes, it is, but we talk about that all the time and it's boring. Let's mine this topic for some other nuggets of value. Ore do you really want to take this opportunity for granite? Let's not cave in to the pressure to rehash that argument, and start with a clean slate. A boulder question would be weather the technology will translate to outer space. That other kind of thread hits rock bottom in a hurry.

    Schist, I'm out of gneiss rock puns.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re: A broader question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I might be able to help you with that pun if I could just bituminous of your time.

    2. Re: A broader question? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      I've been sitting here trying to come up with a pun for "bituminous" and I just cannot do it because I'm just too sedintary.

      I might be able to help you with that pun if I could just bituminous of your time.

      Well played, sir.

      My dear GP, you must concede an ignious defeat. ;-P

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  2. When automation is cheaper than people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... it's not going to be a good day for people. Less safety and environmental requirements for non-people, and if they get crushed/buried there's no real negative press. Designed correctly, they can be rebuilt/repaired/dusted off and the work continued.

    1. Re:When automation is cheaper than people... by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      On this other hand, at least in this situation, the only words I can think of are "Good. It's about time."

      Mining is dangerous work; mines collapse, get filled with dangerous gasses that kill people, and so on. Getting people out of those environments is a great step towards making the world a safer place. I'd imagine their pay will also go down, given that they were getting paid a premium because the job they were doing was dangerous, but that reduction in workers and pay is pretty much unavoidable. The only alternative would be to continue putting people in harm's way unnecessarily, which IMO would be irresponsible once alternatives exist.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:When automation is cheaper than people... by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Automation has been "cheaper than people" since the invention of the water wheel. That's why people use it. Those people at the time who were grinding grain between two rocks had to find other things to do.

    3. Re:When automation is cheaper than people... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes their pay is going down. To $0. In these systems one person oversees multiple vehicles so they can get rid of many people. And of course that's not saying the drivers are able to transfer over to operating the remote controlled vehicles so it's possible that all of the drivers are let go and new people are brought in.

      Over time, all jobs are made obsolete. The longshoreman career was made obsolete because of automation. The people who made vacuum tubes we made mostly redundant becauseof the transistor. The railroad workers faced a big reduction when we switched from steam locos to diesel - steam locomotives are tremendous powerful bits of technology, but are filthy and take insane levels of maintenance.

      Two tractor steam plowing has come and gone, nothing stays the same.

      Even over my career, instead of complaining about my jerb becoming obsolete, I adapted, learned new things, and didn't insist that what I originally did would continue forever. Where do we say - enough? No more technology, no more progress?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:When automation is cheaper than people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Physical labor was optimized, not automated. The former has happened. The latter has never happened. The two are mistakenly equated so much it's laughable.

      All you really said is the "I've got mine screw you" slogan, oblivious to how close you are to the edge.

      Fortunately "close" is relative; yes, we're inches away, your job is "exclusive" by the skin of its teeth, but it'll take generations to properly tick the last inch.

      Yes, We'll be fine. You'll die thinking you're well off, even your kids probably will. It's the 10 billion ahead trying to be simultaneous roborepairmen that are fucked.

    5. Re:When automation is cheaper than people... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      There is a problem with your logic and it is thus....what are you gonna do with all those billions you no longer need? they aren't gonna quietly go commit suicide so you can live your fat spoiled life ya know. The vast majority of the population cannot be trained to be rocket scientists and with all these technologies frankly we wouldn't need them if they could, so what EXACTLY are you gonna do with them all?

      Because frankly we have already seen what happens when governments don't have a plan to deal with large masses of unemployed, they were called the "Arab Springs". When a person has no future? There is really nothing you can threaten them with, even death means little which makes them ripe for radicalization. And don't think because you live in the USA or the west it won't happen to you, because the governments of the west can't keep printing money forever, especially with the corps bailing to countries where they can pollute and poison to their hearts content, and all of the bleeding hearts opening the borders to millions of unemployable uneducated refugees that expect to live well on handouts and are ready to riot if they don't get them? Just gonna speed up the downfall.

      So this isn't what we have seen before, before all those machines still needed men to run them but those days are well and truly over. Today one could easily build a system where a product is never touched by a single human in the entire process, from the mining to the manufacture to the warehousing to the delivery, but who is gonna pay for the finished product? What are you gonna do with those millions living on hand outs when the hand outs stop because the 1% toddled off to tax shelter countries and nobody else has any capital?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:When automation is cheaper than people... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Physical labor was optimized, not automated. The former has happened. The latter has never happened. The two are mistakenly equated so much it's laughable.

      I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you are trying to say that labor has been optimized and ther ehas never been a fundamental change in the labor, that's simply wrong. Here is a Ford plan in the 1930's http://theoldmotor.com/?p=1546...

      Here is a modern assembly line https://telecotowalk.wordpress...

      We can play where's Waldo with the people - I count two.

      All you really said is the "I've got mine screw you" slogan, oblivious to how close you are to the edge.

      That's pretty cryptic. I adapted, and thrived. What I was educated to do I only did a few times in my career. I went back to further my education when needed as the job skillset changed. Screw no one, but if you insist on staying in the same place your entire life, and insist on having the same job doing th esame thing your entire life, a pretty good case can be made that you are screwing yourself.

      Fortunately "close" is relative; yes, we're inches away, your job is "exclusive" by the skin of its teeth, but it'll take generations to properly tick the last inch.

      Bizarre. My whole post was that times change, and you adapt. Not a thing exclusive about that.

      Yes, We'll be fine. You'll die thinking you're well off, even your kids probably will. It's the 10 billion ahead trying to be simultaneous roborepairmen that are fucked.

      There is a paradigm that proves very difficult to move away from, and that's the concept of work, and the concept of that work being provided by someone else. TRying to stop progress is like pissing against the tide. Even if you pursuade your country that your country must continue to say use only hand abor for mining - and never forget that all mininig used to be done by hand labor, then pack animals, then conveyor belts and other devices that put people out of work.

      Now Anonymous Coward - your decision. Should the automation have been stopped when miners climbed down ladders and teams of people hauled the rock out by hand? Or when pack animals hauled it, or when converyors and lifts came into use, Should w euse the hammer and tap method of drilling holes in the rock to place teh explosive charges, Or should w use the newer Jackleg drill. In fact, should we revert tohundreds of men with pickaxes - lots of employment opportunities there.

      So many decisions, and each element of progress opposed by you and your ilk.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. Mines are almost completely self contained by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    buddy of mine (pun not intended) is a part runner who sometimes delivers on the mines and they already control the roads so tightly that automation would be cake. Plus robots work around the clock, don't unionize and you don't go to jail for ignoring their safety.

    The real question is, given that mines are natural resources why the *bleep* do we let so few people claim ownership of them? I suppose we could just tax the end product on the way out too, but we don't even do much of that. We just sorta give away something that's the birthright of all mankind without batting an eye. Not saying we go full on commie ( the wars and violence that come out of that would just shift the ownership ) but there ought to be a better way.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Mines are almost completely self contained by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The real question is, given that mines are natural resources why the *bleep* do we let so few people claim ownership of them?

      We don't. If they're mining private land, they have to either own it or make a deal with the owner.

      If it's public land, we make the mining company pay a (very, very, very, very, very, very, very cheap) lease to mine the land.

    2. Re:Mines are almost completely self contained by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So why do we let national resources be private land?

      In America, if you own the land, you own the mineral resources under it. Many other countries nationalize mineral resources. Nearly all those countries are poorer and less productive than America, especially in the mining sector.

      Resource extraction should not be profitable for individuals, it should be profitable for the nation as a whole.

      Karl Marx would have been in total agreement. Your idea has been tried. You might want to read some history books to see how it turned out.

    3. Re:Mines are almost completely self contained by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      In America, if you own the land, you own the mineral resources under it. Many other countries nationalize mineral resources. Nearly all those countries are poorer and less productive than America, especially in the mining sector.

      Many people have found out that that is not true. Locally, a company that owned the mineral rights proved that they have the right to extract the limestone under other people's property. Quite the court battle. Mineral rights can be sold separately. This also happens a lot with natural gas. The company buys the land, and then sells it to people while retaining the mineral rights of the land underneath the surface.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  4. Counterpoint by justthinkit · · Score: 2

    I read the recent Ars piece on how the pizza biz uses robots to make pizza. At first this was a bit of a surprise/news to me, but then you immediately realize how repetitive the job is. Great use for robots -- faster, less waste, tireless, etc. But also, great job for a human to no longer do -- brain-deadening, low-paying and a RSI maker if ever there was one.

    --
    I come here for the love
  5. what drives automation by ooloorie · · Score: 2

    but what Aaron Cosbey, a development economist and a report author, can say is this: "Where you can find robotic replacements for human labor you tend to do it." Cosbey estimates that automation will replace 40% to 80% of the workers at a mine...

    You do it when government imposes massive mandatory benefits on employers and raises the cost of labor. That is, the primary benefit of robots is that they don't unionize, don't get minimum wage, don't need health insurance, don't need retirement plans, don't need worker's comp, and won't sue over discrimination or injuries.

    Of course, I don't think that's a bad thing either in this case. Robots replacing people in dangerous, boring, repetitive jobs is a good thing for everybody.

    1. Re:what drives automation by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you serious? Mining is and always has been the POSTER CHILD for worker exploitation. Your notion that the government is somehow trampling on the poor put-upon mine owners is laughable on its face. Are you choosing to forget that hundreds of workers were killed (less than 100 years ago) by company goons for trying to unionize? Are you choosing to forget the thousands of miners who have died due to the incredibly lax and callous safety practices of mine owners, both from cave-ins and from firedamp?

    2. Re:what drives automation by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Regardless of the humanitarian merits of high wages, good benefits, and better safety regulations (which I'd hope everyone agrees is a good thing), the simple fact is that those all increase the cost of labor, which in turn provides a greater incentive to automate production as much as possible, reducing production costs.

      Automation of labor-intensive tasks is a difficult thing. A high degree of automation tends to benefit the economy as a whole by producing more consumer goods for less cost, increasing the purchasing power of the common citizen. Unfortunately, it also has an immediate detrimental effect on the directly affected workers. I think this is why most people agree that it's critical to provide a safety net with unemployment and retraining, to help minimize the human impact of disruptive change like this.

      For the most part, I think societies have been reasonably adept at finding other employment for workers as old industries scale down and other industries ramp up or spring into existence. For instance, my job (a videogame programmer) simply didn't exist a generation ago, and is largely possible because many people now have a bit of extra money to spend on a PC, videogame console, and the occasional $60 videogame. We just have to hope that trend continues - that these sort of advancements and transitions occur, but not so fast as to be too disruptive to society as a whole.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:what drives automation by davidwr · · Score: 2

      For instance, my job (a videogame programmer) simply didn't exist a generation ago,

      And a generation or two from now the bulk of the "programming" will be done by a computer, and the only human part of making a video game will be design and high-level programming (what we call architecture or high-level design today) and some artwork.

      In other words, just as the late-1970s/early-1980s video-game programmer writing in assembly language would barely recognize the day-to-day work done by people who make today's big-hit video games, today's programmers will barely recognize what passes for "programming" video games 30-40 years from now.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    4. Re:what drives automation by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      Mining is and always has been the POSTER CHILD for worker exploitation

      Hence my comment: I don't think [government regulations destroying these jobs] is a bad thing either in this case

      Are you serious?

      Yes, I am. I'm also serious about this: you are an illiterate bigot and partisan.

    5. Re:what drives automation by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      Those are just some of the groups that aren't even counted as unemployed and the percent of the total population employed has generally dropped with a few upticks.

      Don't you know even the basics of our economy?

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      The labor force participation rate increased pretty much steadily from 1945 to about 2003, a period of spectacular increases in automation; automation does not decrease labor force participation, period.

      It's been declining somewhat since, not due to automation, but a combination of demographics, changing definitions, the recession, and some bad economic and social policies.

  6. My experience with those leases by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    at least over here in the States is that they exist to shield the company from property taxes and liabilities involved with owning the land. The leases are a fraction of those costs. In America we have a thing called "Trusts" where land is held "In Trust". What it really means is the gov't is holding onto the land for a wealthy land owner until it's worth owning (usually if they want to build houses on it). That way no property taxes.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  7. This is gonna happen fast by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    we just finished prosecuting a mine exec for ignoring safety. It was a big deal because he'll do some jail time, which has almost never happened. The saddest thing is that somewhere is somebody who'll argue we shouldn't have prosecuted that guy because this is what will happen. E.g. it's better to have a job you get killed at than no job at all. Even when there's no good reason for that job to exist anymore. People just can't get over the idea that if you don't work you don't eat.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. Re:Not if Trump wins by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As the price of automation continues to drop, I seriously doubt that Trump, or anyone, would be able to prevent it without creating new and increasingly heavy tax burdens for companies that use automation so that it is less expensive for them to hire people instead. This will, in turn, make any products that are produced through automation (most consumer goods these days) substantially more expensive. Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, one should think that this is an unintended consequence, because if it is not, it would speak volumes about how ignorant Trump might be to those who aren't in the top 20% or so of income earners, which wouldn't even give him a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election, so it's pretty clear he'd have to at least *pretend* to care about everybody else... and making the price of most things go up is not going to accomplish that.

    If you increase people's wages to try and counter the effect of goods,, then all you do is make automation more attractive, so in the end, I don't think Trump can actually change it or stop it.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  9. Going by complaints, job loss is a good thing by John+Jorsett · · Score: 2

    Isn't it universally acknowledged that mining is dirty, dangerous, difficult, and a threat to worker's health? I'd think eliminating as many mining jobs as possible would be seen as a good thing. Same for all the other industries where the work itself is said to be bad for workers: fishing (dangerous), truck driving (dangerous, deleterious to health), fast food (poorly compensated, demeaning, dead end), etc.

  10. Re:Great news! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    Coal isn't much cheaper than renewable energy and will soon be more expensive, especially if pollution stops being an externality. Customers may be willing to pay more for a cleaner energy source anyway if there aren't many jobs on the line...especially those living downwind of coal power plants.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  11. Re:Great news! by Mashiki · · Score: 2

    Uh it isn't? Green energy pays between 0.43-0.92kWh in most places due to FIT programs. It's around 0.04-0.08kWh for coal which is still 0.01-0.03kWh more expensive then nuclear and roughly double the cost of hydro-electric. Looking at Ontario, yes you notice very quickly when your price of electricity goes from 0.07kWh@peak to 0.17kWh@peak in under 8 years. If you want to see the train wreck in motion of this happening, you can look at Alberta.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  12. To be honest.. by ckatko · · Score: 3, Funny

    When I read the title I first thought mines as in land mines, and then I thought, "Yeah... that's kind of the point..."

  13. i am ready by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 2

    "Mines May Eliminate More Than Half The Human Workers"

    If its mines vs humans now, I am ready. I have been training for years using the tactical simulator codenamed "minesweeper.exe", waiting for a day like this to arrive.

    --
    -
  14. In other words, what's happened to farming by sandbagger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The biggest change to labour -- probably -- has been the early 20th century creation of the tractor and its attendant grain handling machines to agriculture. It wiped out the largest employee type in the world - agricultural labour. Of course there are plenty of people picking produce today but it's a fraction of the population compared to our grandparents' era.

    That mines have become automated with pneumatic diggers happened in a generation ago and those of us who are old enough to remember the miner's strikes of the 1970s and 1980s watched entire communities vanish from the map. (Watch the film Brassed Off as an example with the amazing Pete Posthewait.) That digitization and robotics have now matured enough to finish the job is really an end game, not anything new.

    I was up north when GPSs came in and guides were an ancient and honoured profession that got wiped out in ten years at the lumber camps.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  15. Re:Take this tech and build subways! by bluegutang · · Score: 2

    Why build an underground freeway, when an underground subway tunnel of the same size can carry approximately 10 times as many people? (1000 people per subway train, 30 trains per hour, vs 2000 cars per hour in a lane of freeway)

  16. Re: Not if Trump wins by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Most mining jobs are ALREADY gone. They disappeared when the steam engine and the backhoe replaced men with shovels and pickaxes.

    We have been replacing people with technology for centuries. The biggest job destroyer in the history of the world was the steel plow.

  17. Wait, what? by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mimes? Robot mimes are going to eliminate human workers?

    Well, JFC. There goes white-glove service...

    What?

    Oh, mines. I can dig that. I saw Zoolander. I know about the black lung, you bet.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  18. Re: Not if Trump wins by zmooc · · Score: 2

    Many shareholders are economically useless. Works fine. There's no reason we can't all be economically useless shareholders of our planet.

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
  19. Re:Great! by Charcharodon · · Score: 2

    So what do we do with all the people who don't score high enough to do anything other than mining (basic manual labor)? War? Deport them? Sterilize them? Soylent green?

  20. And we already have so many illegal miners! by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 2
    Every time I turn on the radio I hear about all of these illegal unaccompanied miners crossing the border. We don't have enough jobs for you!

    Also these lighthouse workers, how many lighthouses can there possibly be that need workers?!