A brave new (human) world

Some things never change. Technology changes, trends change, relationships change, many things, in fact, change, but some things just don't. One of these is the need for human interaction.

I recently toured ICT infrastructure distributor and storage manufacturer Axiz's production facilities. I found it interesting, on a philosophical level, that what the company considers to be one of the most significant stages of the assembly line, is not driven by technology.

Halfway through the production line there is a point where a person (yes, an actual person) checks the boards coming out of one machine for faults before it goes into another. Axiz has electronic checks and balances throughout its production and assembly line. Why still the need for a human being to stand and look through a magnifying glass and check everything out?

The sceptical perspective, argued by one of my colleagues, is that we live in an economy where government has punted labour-intensive processes as a way to address shockingly high unemployment levels. Put differently: "We don't really need this person to check stuff, but we need to create jobs, so let's plonk him in the middle of the production line and let him feel special."

This doesn't quite make sense though. On a purely practical level, no company is going to pay people for work it doesn't really need done. Labour expenses are far too high as they are and, with the current labour legislation, it is damn hard to get rid of someone once you have employed them. On a philosophical level, I believe it is important to retain a human element to the technology we deal with. After all, machines are created by people, they are operated by people, they serve the needs of people - there is a human element involved in every stage of technology, regardless of how complex it becomes.

It would seem many of us actually fear technology, and the potential it has to engulf the ugliness of our own ignorance.

Christelle du Toit, senior journalist, ITWeb

The human touch extends further though. An example: my mechanic runs a family business. His dad was a mechanic for about 20 years and he's been a mechanic for 30 years or so. He's in the process of handing the business over to his son, who is not a mechanic. Certainly, his son will keep the business running and will employ other mechanics to do what his dad used to do, but he won't be getting involved in the hands-on business, such as fixing my brakes or replacing my airflow modulator. Somehow, I feel more comfortable with his dad running the business...

To my mechanic, my car is not just one that has to be checked in and out as soon as possible - it has a history, it has unique little sounds and quirks, it has distinctive problems. To his son, it's a commodity, something that has to be moved as soon as possible in order to get someone else's business in. Even when it comes to servicing my car, I find myself wanting personal involvement.

The question then arises as to why we need this human touch? Think "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and it would seem many of us actually fear technology, and the potential it has to engulf the ugliness of our own ignorance. This theme is echoed in movies like "The Matrix" - machines taking control, destroying humanity. And that, perhaps, is the key word - control.

We need a human touch in our daily lives in order to remind ourselves that we matter, we have a say, we are not redundant - after all, we can control stuff!

Looking at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, technology can take care of the basics like food and shelter. For example, electric gates can protect us and genetically modified food can provide us with more nutrients than non-modified food. Technology can even take care of social needs through social networking platforms like Facebook. However, self-fulfilment is at the top of the needs-pyramid. We still need to control the technology - we desire the self-fulfilment of being needed.

The person checking the boards coming out of Axiz's machines is, therefore, not there because we need to appease the unions or because corporations feel the overwhelming urge to appoint random people to arbitrary positions. That person is there because we, as a society, need him to be there.

Seen in this light, our brave new technological world then becomes slightly less brave and slightly less new. People have, after all, always needed other people in order to feel safe, to feel secure. We can change the way we work, the way we live, and the way we socialise, but we can't change who we intrinsically are. We're creatures of habit and no technology will ever change that. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. It's good to feel needed.