With fully automated production and business operations, the prices of goods should theoretically decrease. Automation reduces labor costs, improves efficiency, increases production speed, and lowers the overall cost of manufacturing. Yet, unfortunately, we do not always see those savings reflected in the prices consumers pay. That is an interesting contradiction, isn’t it? If one of the main goals of automation is to reduce production costs and make goods more affordable, why do prices often remain high?
This question made me think more deeply about what automation actually accomplishes. In many cases, it seems to make companies richer and richer. I understand their position because the main purpose of a company is to generate profit. Unfortunately, that is the essence of business: profit, money, growth, and increasing returns.
On the other hand, there are consumers like me. Naturally, I would prefer high-quality goods to become cheaper and more accessible. Let us imagine that automation eventually causes prices to fall significantly and that almost everything becomes affordable. At first, this sounds wonderful. Who would not want better products at lower prices?
However, this is where human nature becomes part of the problem. Once something becomes affordable, we often do not stop after purchasing what we actually need. We begin thinking, “I want this too,” or “Maybe I should also buy the newer version.” As prices fall, people may start buying more and more.
At the same time, the central objective of companies will remain unchanged: they must continue making a profit. When prices are low, one of the main ways to increase profits is through higher sales volume and faster inventory turnover. The more products companies sell, the more money they make. Therefore, lower prices may not reduce the pressure on the planet. They may create an even larger problem: more production, more consumption, and more waste.
Our planet is already in poor condition. If automation allows companies to produce unlimited quantities of inexpensive goods while people replace products more frequently, the environmental situation will undoubtedly become worse. A car is only one example. Imagine the waste created by discarded vehicles, batteries, tires, plastics, metal, electronics, clothing, furniture, packaging, and countless other consumer products.
Freedom of choice must therefore be accompanied by responsibility. I believe society may eventually need something beyond traditional regulation. “Regulation” may not even be the correct word. Perhaps we will need reasonable purchase limitations for certain categories of goods.
For example, a person might be allowed to purchase one new car every five years unless there is a legitimate reason to replace it sooner. With automation and falling production costs, cars may eventually become much cheaper. Because people naturally want something newer and better, some may begin replacing their vehicles every three to six months simply because they can afford to do so.
The same principle applies to clothing and other everyday products. A person may buy twenty pairs of jeans even though three pairs would be sufficient. Someone may own thirty pairs of shoes while regularly wearing only five. These choices may appear harmless at the individual level, but when billions of people behave this way, the combined environmental consequences become enormous.
For some reason, I believe there may eventually be a need for a global organization responsible for coordinating and limiting the production and consumption of certain goods. Its purpose would not simply be to control people or eliminate freedom. Its purpose would be to balance individual choice with humanity’s responsibility to preserve the planet.
Of course, this may sound like an unacceptable restriction of personal freedom. However, we must look beyond the present moment. What are we going to leave for future generations? Will we leave them a healthy planet with clean oceans and usable resources, or a world covered in garbage, plastic, abandoned products, and toxic waste?
Unfortunately, regulating manufacturers alone may not be a realistic solution. Experience has shown that large corporations often have enormous financial resources, powerful legal teams, and significant political influence. They have the money and time to challenge regulations, search for loopholes, delay enforcement, and continue operating as they did before.
Another popular proposal is to make manufacturers pay for the collection, recycling, or disposal of the waste created by their products. In theory, that sounds fair. In practice, however, serious questions remain. Who will monitor every company? Who will verify that the waste is actually recycled or disposed of responsibly? Who will prevent companies from hiding information, transferring responsibility to contractors, or simply passing the additional cost on to consumers?
Large corporations may spend years fighting environmental requirements in court or delaying implementation. During that time, production continues, consumption increases, and waste continues to accumulate. Companies that possess enough money and influence may always find ways to drag their feet, avoid full compliance, or weaken the regulations intended to control them.
This is the saddest part of the problem. Humanity has the technology to make production more efficient, goods more affordable, and life more comfortable. Yet without responsibility, the same technology may accelerate environmental destruction.
True freedom cannot simply mean doing whatever we want without considering the consequences. Freedom must include responsibility. It should mean having the ability to make our own choices while ensuring that those choices do not destroy the future of the next generation.
Automation itself is not the enemy. The real danger is unlimited production combined with unlimited consumption on a planet with limited resources. If we fail to control our desires, technology will not save us. It may only help us produce waste faster.
Leave a comment