Why dont we make Robot Mine Workers?

[The Sushi Bandit]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12637032

NPR.org, August 9, 2007 · Why do human beings still risk their lives burrowing miles under ground and doing one of the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs in the world?

It's an increasingly urgent question, given the recent high-profile mining accidents in Sago, W.Va., and Huntington, Utah. A small corps of engineers and robotics experts envision a day in the not-too-distant future when robots and other technology do most of the dangerous mining work, and even help rescue trapped miners, like the six men trapped in a mine in Utah.

[lynnertic]

1. because it's expensive to keep them up.

You'd need to hire expensive mechanics.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Reminds Me Of The Opening Of "Blazing Saddles"

Taggart: Horses? We can't afford to lose no horses. Send over a couple o' niggers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taggart: Oh, shit. Quick.

Taggart: Dang, that was lucky. Doggone near lost a four hundred dollar handcart.

[ladjf]

2. They should have had several 8" holes predrilled into

all of the major underground spaces. They would stand a better chance of keeping the minors alive until they could be freed.

[Kingshakabobo]

11. That's what I was thinking!! Why not? n/t

[TransitJohn]

18. Because more than likely

that'd violate lots of environmental regulations. Each well drilled generally must be registered/ok'd by the state engineer....water tables and all that.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. because

Robots always rise up and kill their makers. duh.

[billyoc]

5. Well, A robot that could even make a sandwich is nowhere to be found.

So it might be a while. :eyes:

[karlrschneider]

6. Asimov covered it in the chapter "Runaround" in "I, Robot"

;-)

[Petrushka]

7. Robots don't need to be unionized. (eom)

[sandnsea]

8. At $10,000 a year

Humans are cheaper. And illegal 'humans' don't even require maintenance when they break down.

[pitohui]

9. when robots take all the jobs we might as well be dead anyway

not to be cynical but too many jobs have been taken by machines already, there are not enough jobs to go around as it is

we live in a capitalist society, without a job, how do you take care of your family?

if we had a dole or guaranteed annual income for everyone it would be different, but it will never happen here, we don't even have universal health care for the sick

the robots will steal all the jobs soon enough, let us not hurry the day

[treestar]

15. somebody has to make the robots and maintain them

And make the materials that go into them.

all technology creates jobs.

Look up "Luddite."

[B Calm]

16. read post 13...

[treestar]

36. Not at the same company, maybe, but somewhere

there is somebody working because the robots have to be built, maintained, and there are materials that go into the robots, plus the people who design them and all the work that goes into that, which employs secretaries, etc., then all those people need materials for their work that their company is buying.

The problem is you see each economic unit as separate and not having to have a market. Whoever you work for could close down if the market goes down; but someone else could be doing something else and just starting up and need people to work for it.

[B Calm]

39. What will stop them from using robots to build robots?

Just something to ponder.......

[Petrushka]

19. If "all technology creates jobs." . . .

. . . why is it that hundreds of thousands of coal-miners were put out of work by longwall and mountaintop removal mining?

To compensate for the loss of those jobs, how many hundreds of thousands of workers were/are employed in the manufacture and maintenance of the machines used in today's mines?

How many years do you suppose longwall shearers & shield supports can be used before they need to be replaced? And: What's the useful life of a dragline such as "Big John"?

"all technology creates jobs."? Technological so-called "advances" in the coal-mining industry created/creates nothing but unemployment and other sociological problems, irreversible environmental damage, and . . . <**sigh**> . . .

Bring on the robots! And, long live the Luddites!



(Edited to correct typo.)

[BlooInBloo]

20. He/she didn't say tech advance creates THE SPECIFIC job you refer to....

... just that it creates some job or another.

[Petrushka]

25. He/she said, "somebody has to make the robots and maintain them" . . .

. . . and that seemed "SPECIFIC" enough to tempt me into popping off rather than lurking.



:banghead:



Methinks it's time to shut 'er down and get some sleep!

[BlooInBloo]

27. I think that was just a rhetorical for-example.

[Petrushka]

29. Consider this [**yawn**] to be a rhetorical "G 'night. Sleep tight." ;-) (eom)

[BlooInBloo]

30. I'm not far behind ya - 'nite!

[treestar]

38. That's the job that exists instead of miner

And all the support that goes to that. Would you rather work in a robot factory or in a mine?

Get a perspective on the bigger picture.

[Chulanowa]

47. So you're saying...

An unemployed miner can easily be integrated into the field of robotics?

Hmmm. Well, not saying a miner isn't smart enough to do so, but taking all those college courses is bound to be expensive... and being unemployed tends to break the bank. Oh. Almost forgot - what's the technician-to-robot ratio? If it's like other maintenance jobs, you need one guy per fifty or so machines. He can cover more if they're well-made, more still if he's well-trained.

So.
Couple tens of thousands of miners fired and replaced by mine-bots.
A handful are able to qualify for the "new jobs" this technology has opened up
a handful of the handful are actually employed to work those jobs.

There seems to be a flaw here.

[treestar]

37. You're only seeing the loss and not the gain

The media never seems to report on the gains, either.

You're not seeing the big picture.

If the Luddites were right, whatever they were doing would still be a job. But it can't be, in these days. In their day, there were no computer programmers. In the 1920s there weren't jobs for computer programmers. When computers first came out, the typewriter manufacturers were probably bummed, but the loss of jobs in the typewriting industry is more than made up for by the gain in the computer industry.

The OP points out that the robots would eliminate a dangerous job in favor of making people safer. I can hardly believe you'd rather that people work in a mine just to keep the job forever when they could be working in a relatively safe robot factory.

That's one person wanting to hang onto the job they have just to avoid looking for another one when the other one could be better.

[Petrushka]

48. If, from where you're sitting, I'm "...not seeing the big picture." . . .

. . . perhaps it's because I'm looking at a bigger picture than you are, a picture called Reality, not Wishful-thinking.

Unless/until your home is damaged or destroyed, your barn collapses, your natural water sources/supplies are dewatered, and your rural way-of-life is undermined, you'll never appreciate the hidden costs of irresponsible mining practices made possible through technological advances in the coal industry.

Robot miners sure as hell ain't a-gonna change the fact(s) that not everyone living in the coalfields is working in the coal industry! Some of us were raising our own Herefords and eating our own grass-fed beef, milking our own Jerseys and churning our own butter, etc., etc., etc. HOWEVER---


In case nobody's ever been generous enough to give you a clue, don't tell 'em I told ya: Ya cain't pasture livestock in a pasture 'less ya got water in th' pasture.

You can, of course, take your life into your hands by driving for thirty-five minutes to the nearest WalMart to not only purchase whatever you open your mouth to bite, chew, and swallow at mealtime while hoping it's safe to eat; you might (at my age) even find work as a Greeter offering free smiley-face stickers for the kiddie's.

WalMart, by the way, is the largest employer in this "pork-barrel" State where technological advances made/makes it possible to mine more and more coal with fewer and fewer miners---all in the interest of exorbitant profits for out-of-state coal-operators and "cheap" electricity for folks who haven't, yet, paid any of the hidden costs of coal-mining.

When a well-meaning person with nothing to lose (except an argument) believes robot miners'll be a handy-dandy way to eliminate someone else's job and, thereby, make safer jobs for those affected, perhaps he/she should take off the blinders or have his/her peripheral vision checked.

All best!

[thunder rising]

10. What if we shipped the mines to China

The problem is coal is that it tends to be part of the country where it located. To solve this (and without any disrespect) there is strong evidence that the miners in that mine were not US citizens; like, none of the relatives spoke English.

[ben_meyers]

12. You didn't see 2001?

They always get tired of being exploited and then they take over!

[B Calm]

13. When I use to work at a GM foundry we had over 100 iron pourers

on three shifts. Then the company put in robots. What use to take 100 workers is now done by 3 workers who oversee the robots. This was just in one part of the foundry. They did it all over the place. Whenever I hear some ignorant union hating bastard putting down the UAW and blaming the high cost of automobiles on high priced union labor, I take the time to enlighten them!

[BlooInBloo]

14. Because we don't live in sci-fi books? Sheesh.

[Telly Savalas]

57. If we did, the robots would rise up and make us their slaves.

[Wiley50]

17. Murray is Too Stupid to Operate Them n/t

[ContraBass Black]

21. I invite the author to build one

And show us how it's done.

[Monk06]

51. See # 49

[cigsandcoffee]

22. They'd put lots of people out of work, for one.

Secondly, they'd be creepy.

[The Sushi Bandit]

56. Lets see... a job... high motality rate.... or do something different..

which is better?

[book_worm]

23. And then what happens to those thousands of workers without jobs?

who have probably, in many cases, spent their whole lives working in mines. Oh, maybe they can get a job at a car wash or fast food joint. (I mention only the workers but I'll add their spouses and children as the toll of replacing workers with robots).

[The Sushi Bandit]

24. Gee i thought every robot would need a trained miner at the remote control!

[Petrushka]

26. More likely: Somebody sitting in front of a computer in an office hundreds of miles away! (eom)

[Wilber_Stool]

35. Like China or India.

I remember in the 50s, we were told how "automation" would provide us all with more free time. What they didn't say was that the free time would be in the form of unemployment.

[pitohui]

28. my husband's job is this

no, every robot don't need its own worker or my husband would be fired on his ass as a programmer

many many robots can be supervised long distance by ONE worker, this took my job, this took many of my friend's jobs

when 20 robots can be controlled by one dude, that one dude will be the son of the plant manager

[MonkeyFunk]

31. the same thing that happened

to all the farriers a hundred years ago.

[frustrated_lefty]

32. The technology does not exist.

[Monk06]

49. Oh yes it does. It's used in deep underground mines and long wall mining

http://www.joy.com/jmm/products/pdf/Miner_Brochure_Joy.pdf

Many underground mines are 6000 ft deep with projections
that some mines will go to 10,000 ft deep. At those depths,
temperature and pressure is too high for human workers
survive for more than short periods of time.

[Petrushka]

54. In our State, too many believe mining 300-feet below the surface is "deep mining"! (eom)

[RestoreGore]

33. If we invested in renewable energy instead of being slaves to coal...

We wouldn't need humans or robots to do it, and those humans could be working at jobs that do not endanger their health. Why are we still digging for coal in the 21st Century at all?

[Petrushka]

46. Amen! (eom)

[Philosoraptor]

34. Its the ILLEGAL robot mine workers that piss me off.

[shance]

45. ROFL**************

:rofl:

[Telly Savalas]

58. I'm waiting for Grovelbot to chime in on this thread

and chastise you for your anti-robotism.

[Solon]

40. We aren't there yet, technically....

Robots are best suited for jobs that are repetitive within controlled environments, such as cutting out parts in sheet metal at a factory. All the other variables, the thickness of the metal, where it is positioned, where the tools are at, etc. are all the same, whether its the first time the robot makes the part, or the millionth time the robot made the part.

Robots are ideal in a place like a factory, not so much the "real world", mainly because of the uncontrolled variables that humans deal with from day to day. This is part of the reason why we don't have a K.I.T.T. option in automobiles, yet(Knight Rider geek reference). A robot in a mine would have to be quite robust, intelligent, and be able to cooperate with and communicate with other robots and humans, and can deal with unpredictable phenomenon by learning. Simply put, we are probably at least 10 years, most likely 20 before a robot like this can be manufactured.

[Monk06]

50. See #49

[JVS]

41. wouldn't stripmining be easier?

[Monk06]

52. Stip or Open Pit mining is near surface. The deepest open pits are

around 1000 ft but these deposits are low grade
and must be in the billion ton range to be profitable.

Also going deeper than 1000 ft in an open pit is
very complex from and engineering standpoint.

[rainbow4321]

42. At the very least have better communication equipment...

for when a mine collapses. A guy who wrote a book about mine safety issues was on TV last night..posed a good question: Why is it that he can sit at home and watch live pictures of Mars on his computer and yet there are no means to communicate w/ miners after they are trapped?
Started me wondering why not have miners where some sort of small locating device on them that can be detected by equipment above ground if they get trapped...letting rescuers knowing exactly where to dig, etc. I know there is alot of soil/rock/ground between them and the rescuers but with today's technology is there NOTHING along those lines that can be created?

[MountainLaurel]

43. They would cost more

In the eyes of mine owners, miners are expendable. Back in the day, if a man died in a mine, their family would get, say, $10. If a horse died, the owner would get $50. Things haven't changed much. Owners know that for every miner that dies there are 50 more men and women desperate for that job.

And, without the jobs those mines provide, mine owners realize the local citizenry would never let them get away with the environmental damage, mine subsidence problems, frequent dynamiting, et al.

[glitch]

44. Look how well it worked out when we made CEOs robots. Look at Cheney, and shudder.

Robots aren't the answer for anything that requires more than grabbing and moving and releasing (hence the Cheney overreach).

[BlooInBloo]

53. I think we should make Green Beams that come from Lamps, and do anything we want!

[dave123williams]

55. Because if there are robots, you can't exploit human labor, and that's what's fun.