If you ask anyone what they think the main purpose of technology is, they’ll probably say it is to make our lives easier—especially our work. But “removing people from work” is a double-edged sword, particularly in systems where people need jobs to survive.
History has already witnessed such cases, notably the Luddite movement—an organized effort by workers to sabotage newly introduced machines in production. On one hand, we might see the Luddites as reactionaries resisting inevitable progress. On the other, we must understand that for many, the “war against machines” was a battle for sheer survival. At that time, there was no retraining or social safety net; losing one’s job to a machine often meant falling to the very bottom of society—facing hunger and even death.
A current challenge with the potential to profoundly reshape social structures is the rapid integration of artificial intelligence into the labor market. Whether you're a graphic designer or a translator, there are now tools that can do at least the “rough” version of your job in seconds—tasks that used to take you days or weeks. While this may seem like a win, it also strips away a significant portion of paid work, especially in hourly-wage professions.
We are already seeing the emergence of "neo-Luddite" attitudes, warning of the dangers of our overly enthusiastic adoption of next-generation intelligent technologies—whose potential consequences we still don’t fully understand. Calls for regulation, adaptation to labor codes, or even outright bans are likely to follow.
Even today, when reflecting on the rapidly changing world of work due to AI, we must remember that technology is never self-sufficient. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum—it’s always tied to the broader social organization of labor it enters.
A Revolution in the Household?
One overlooked area where advancing technological innovation plays a significant role is the household. Canadian economist, philosopher, and post-work theorist Nick Srnicek, who once joined us at the Inspiration Forum, recently published a long-anticipated book After Work with his partner, media theorist and feminist philosopher Helen Hester. The book explores the impact of technology on a historically invisible form of labor in public consciousness—domestic, unpaid, reproductive work.
The domestic “industrial revolution” that took place in Western households from the 1940s promised to ease the burden of housework. The automatic washing machine, refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, dishwasher, and later, dryers and robotic vacuums all seemed revolutionary. But by the 1970s, studies revealed a paradox: despite automation in countless industries, the time people spent on housework hadn’t decreased. How could this be?
Technologie vstupovaly do domácností ruku v ruce s dramatickými změnami ve společenském organizování těchto prací, které se začala individualizovat (např. komunitní praní ustoupilo soukromé pračce v každé domácnosti atp.). Technologické „usnadnění” praní šlo zase ruku v ruce se zvyšováním nároků na čistotu. A to vše se navíc postupně koncentrovalo kolem jediné osoby, ženy v domácnosti. Autorský pár tak připomíná, že téma tzn. reprodukční práce v domácnosti je stále silně tématem genderovým.
These technologies entered households alongside a dramatic reorganization of domestic labor. For example, communal laundry practices gave way to individual washing machines in each home. The technological "simplification" of cleaning coincided with rising hygiene standards. And all of this became centered around one person—the woman in the household. Srnicek and Hester highlight how reproductive labor remains heavily gendered.
Household organization hasn’t changed much in the last few decades. (“A housewife from 1870 wouldn’t recognize a home in 1940, but a housewife from 1940 would largely recognize a home in 2020.”) New gadgets have mostly been slotted into predefined roles, merely optimizing existing tasks—still overwhelmingly performed by women.
This phenomenon—where time-saving tech doesn’t reduce the time spent on tasks—is known as the Cowan Paradox, named after sociologist Ruth Schwartz Cowan. Her research showed that despite a flood of new “convenient” technologies, the amount of housework from 1870 to 1970 remained the same.
This brief reflection reminds us that debates around new technologies shouldn't just focus on whether their benefits outweigh their risks. Any new tech that can shake up the social order tends to parasitize the current one—benefiting only a few. Perhaps we should reverse the overused slogan “turn crisis into opportunity” and instead start treating supposed “opportunities” as crises in disguise.
If new technologies are truly to drive social progress, we must first treat them as mirrors—reflecting the crises within our current order—and use that reflection to open broader public dialogue. Only a society willing to critically examine itself can ensure that new technologies work for people, and help create a better world.
Klára Vlasáková’s Recommendations
Speakers from the Inspiration Forum community choose from a collection of essays, podcasts, and videos.
What about free time in a world without work? Inventing the Future, by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, is one of the most compelling texts on the automation of labor. Its central premise: rather than fearing automation, we should see it as an opportunity to reshape our lives—liberating us from wage labor and giving us the freedom to manage our time as we choose. Lukáš Senft and guest Petr Bittner (translator of Inventing the Future into Czech) discuss how work transformations will affect various sectors—and why this matters in a country like the Czech Republic, which is heavily reliant on easily automated industrial production.
"Wage" work for platforms. In this 2020 discussion, political scientist Kateřina Smejkalová, trade union lawyer Šárka Homfray, sociologist Joanna Bronowicka, and former Uber driver Matěj Pohorský offer a layered view of platform labor and its effects on today’s workforce. Pohorský puts it plainly—Uber is a transnational giant without a contact number for drivers, who are left to solve problems on their own. What’s next for platforms? And what should we demand from legislation that has long failed to catch up with platforms like Uber and Airbnb? The discussion remains (unfortunately) timely and insightful.