I often hear the argument "the destroyed jobs will be replaced easily, as has been the case in all technological revolutions", but I think it's deeply flawed:
Up to know, all technological revolutions have occurred in an exponentially growing economy. That's why Schumpeter's "creative destruction" was not a problem: it was compensated by the opening of new areas for growth, mostly unlocked by consuming more resources.
But now we are hitting the limits of the planet, and amongst others the limit of extraction rhythm for most our materials. So the exponential growth can't continue. (apart from the growth from technological progress, which will be much lower)
That's where the argument doesn't hold: we do not have a growing supply of work anymore, so the increased productivity of some workers will just prevent the others from working.
Up to know, all technological revolutions have occurred in an exponentially growing economy. That's why Schumpeter's "creative destruction" was not a problem: it was compensated by the opening of new areas for growth, mostly unlocked by consuming more resources.
But now we are hitting the limits of the planet, and amongst others the limit of extraction rhythm for most our materials. So the exponential growth can't continue. (apart from the growth from technological progress, which will be much lower)
That's where the argument doesn't hold: we do not have a growing supply of work anymore, so the increased productivity of some workers will just prevent the others from working.