In November 2014, President Xi Jinping, in his congratulatory message to the first World Internet Conference, pointed out: “In today’s era, a new round of technological revolution centered on information technology is brewing and rising.” A distinctive feature of this new technological revolution is that it not only includes the rise of a large number of new technologies such as robotics, artificial intelligence, and 3D printing, but also that certain technologies alone are sufficient to trigger a revolution within the manufacturing industry (for example, the “robot revolution” or “3D printing technology revolution”). Clearly, robotics technology and industrial development (referred to as the “robot revolution”) is an extremely important domain within this new technological revolution. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, stated: “The robotics industry will replicate the rise of the computer industry, becoming the most promising new high-tech industry after automobiles and computers, thoroughly changing human production and lifestyle in the near future.” This article provides a preliminary discussion on several issues regarding China’s robotics technology and industrial development, or China’s robot revolution, against the backdrop of the new technological revolution.
Industrial robots and CNC machine tools, as automated machinery, can replace the labor of some skilled workers, thereby rendering certain production skills potentially obsolete. This is a fact. However, it is incorrect to assume that due to the emergence of industrial robots, “skills are outdated” or “learning skills is unpromising.” From the perspective of the promotion and application of industrial robots in countries like the United States, Japan, and Germany, although the types of skilled labor that robots combined with artificial intelligence can replace are increasing, they remain limited. For a considerable period in the future, much skilled labor will still rely on human effort, and many industries may continue to face shortages of skilled workers. This issue is particularly acute in Japan, which suffers from severe aging and declining birth rates, and in China, where the demographic dividend is diminishing.
The capabilities of robots are not innate; they first require engineers and skilled craftsmen to act as “teachers” to “train” them, which is a highly challenging skill and very labor-intensive work. After robots are deployed on production lines, they and other automated equipment must be operated by humans. Workers need to perform pre-production preparations, monitor and maintain operations during production, correct potential errors made by robots, and adjust, update, and repair equipment and components. Clearly, as robotics technology advances and production lines become more dependent on robots and automated equipment, the skill requirements for technical workers operating this equipment increase. In summary, when problems arise on the production floor, in most cases, it is highly skilled technical workers, not machines, who solve them. At the same time, with current technological levels, robots are not yet capable of improving skills; the development and refinement of skills themselves, as well as certain highly advanced skills nearing “perfection,” still rely on humans. For instance, the world’s most precise products are invariably polished by hand. “The sliding surface of ultra-precision mechanical guides, known as an ‘absolute plane,’ requires an accuracy of 1/10,000 millimeter or higher. No machinery or robot can process such an absolute plane; it can only be done manually.”
Furthermore, as automation levels increase, a single worker must oversee longer and more comprehensive production processes, thus requiring multifaceted skills. Robots and other automated machinery are complex; mastering them demands not only skills but also technical knowledge, particularly in computer technology, electronics, and automatic control technology, which are core to such equipment. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, many Japanese companies implemented “mechatronics” education, teaching mechanical workers about electronics and electronic workers about mechanics. In essence, with the widespread application of robots, workers need to possess both skills and technical knowledge, becoming well-rounded laborers proficient in both. In the era of the new technological revolution, skilled workers, beyond specialized technical knowledge and skills, must at least master the technology and skills to utilize computers.
To improve robots themselves, high-level technology and skills are also required, such as developing robots that handle irregularly shaped objects (wiring, cables, etc.), soft objects (food, gel, etc.), and difficult-to-recognize objects (glossy components, transparent components, etc.); developing robot components that do not require lubricants; creating “energy-saving robots”; enhancing superior visual, force, and tactile sensors to improve robots’ perception and response to external environments; advancing artificial intelligence, the “brain” of robots, to enhance their autonomous learning capabilities; developing technologies for the integration of humans, robots, and information systems; biomimetic materials needed for humanoid robots, bionic robots, and bio-robots; and materials for robot structural components, surface processing, additives, and modifiers. In terms of robot application technology development, efforts include creating robots suitable for industries highly dependent on manual labor and small-to-medium enterprises; promoting robots in preparatory processes where “robotization” lags in mature user industries like automotive and electronics; developing agricultural robots that contribute to labor savings and robots that use big data to identify damaged fruits; creating self-navigating cleaning robots for maintaining large-scale photovoltaic power stations’ solar panels; and developing robots applicable to logistics, commerce, catering, hospitality, and backend operations in these sectors, as well as robots for customer service in stores.
Robots and the Spirit of Craftsmanship
The so-called spirit of craftsmanship refers to meticulous manufacturing, dedicated service, “mastery in a specific field,” and long-term refinement of a particular skill. When visiting a Japanese factory, the author noticed a large slogan that succinctly encapsulated the spirit of craftsmanship: “One Product, One Soul,” meaning to infuse “heart” and “soul” into a unique, “only one” product.
Some might ask: if robots take over all factory workers’ tasks, what is the need for the spirit of craftsmanship? This view is clearly mistaken. The author once inspected a Japanese small-to-medium enterprise that produced blades. Founded in the late 1930s, the company initially made blades for cutting metal pen nibs. Later, as if obsessed with the concept of “cutting,” they embodied the “One Product, One Soul” craftsmanship spirit, making blades increasingly thinner and harder. By the 1970s and 1980s, they produced blades much thinner than paper, with dozens aligned in a row rotating at 30,000 revolutions per minute, swiftly and accurately cutting hard silicon wafers into hundreds of small chips, leaving cuts only a fraction of a hair’s width. These tiny semiconductor “chips” are essential components for mobile phones, computers, household appliances, photovoltaic cells, spacecraft, missile weapons, and all information products—indispensable supports for the “new technological revolution centered on information technology.”
The development of new technologies like robots and 3D printing also requires the support of the craftsmanship spirit in the research and development process. For instance, a critical step in industrializing new technology and turning it into productive force is transforming concepts or designs into physical objects. As a base for new technology R&D, if there are only scientists, designers, and entrepreneurs, without skilled craftsmen adept at hands-on creation, efforts would remain “theoretical” or limited to trade and business. Academician Shen Hong of the Chinese Academy of Sciences once said, “No matter how good an expert’s design drawings are, if technical workers cannot produce them well, it’s all in vain.” For genuine technology researchers, the most desirable environment is one where, whenever you have novel ideas or designs for new experimental devices, there are always skilled craftsmen to help turn those ideas on paper into tangible, touchable realities. These craftsmen often possess a craftsmanship spirit that takes pride in “creating the best things, making things others cannot,” viewing this as the fulfillment of their life’s purpose.
A significant reason why the new technological revolution may make the “craftsmanship spirit” more prominent is that with the development of internet plus big data, industrial production is forming a “dual-mode” of single-variety mass production and multi-variety small-batch production, with the latter further shifting toward “personalized production.” That is, producers increasingly engage in customized production according to consumers’ personalized needs. As customized producers, they need a craftsmanship spirit with the following characteristics: First, the ability to engage in one-on-one, caring dialogues with consumers, possessing a “tailor’s spirit” that produces exactly what consumers need and provides services precisely as required—a thorough service spirit not just “for the people” but “for each individual among the people.” This craftsmanship spirit in the era of “consumers need what producers make” is evidently elevated compared to the past era of “producers make what consumers consume.” Previously, producers pursued economies of scale by mass-producing shoes in a single size series, forcing consumers to “cut feet to fit shoes” or “squeeze feet to fit shoes”—such scenarios will increasingly become history. Second, the craftsmanship spirit of “personalized production” involves not only “making things” but also “doing things,” not only producing various products like household appliances and cars for consumers but also solving various problems consumers encounter in daily life. This shift from尽心尽力 “making things” to尽心尽力 “doing things” clearly elevates the craftsmanship spirit another level. Third, with the principle of “one for all, all for one,” since most people have dual identities as both producers and consumers, personalized production and consumption will enhance both the quality of work and the quality of life for producers, ultimately improving people’s physical and mental well-being, thereby enabling workers to better exhibit a high level of craftsmanship spirit and realize a society with higher taste and vitality. Additionally, more consumers will produce for themselves; for example, shoe factories may sell the rights and software for shoe production to individual consumers, who then use 3D printers to produce shoes meeting their specific needs. In summary, the gradual expansion of personalized production and consumption意味着 people’s lives will become better and richer, yet it will inevitably require more people to work, serve, and thus create more job opportunities.
In the 1980s, the author summarized several characteristics of the craftsmanship spirit through inspections of many Japanese factories, which remain relevant today:
- The craftsmanship spirit is a production-site-first ethos that values labor as a virtue.
- The craftsmanship spirit is honed through production practice; the stricter the requirements, the more it cultivates individuals.
- The craftsmanship spirit is egalitarian; ordinary workers, technical experts, and managers are equal in production, able to communicate, cooperate, and refine together to improve labor productivity and product quality.
- The craftsmanship spirit is combined with high employee morale, active suggestions for improvement, and an innovative spirit driving technological innovation.
- The craftsmanship spirit is not limited by academic background; junior high, high school, and university graduates can all excel on the production front line.
- The craftsmanship spirit embodies both focusing on a specific process to hone a “specialized skill” and maintaining an overall perspective of the production process without being confined to one’s own工序.
- The craftsmanship spirit is not hierarchical across industries; the craftsmanship spirit of employees in “low-tech industries” can fully transform into that of employees in “high-tech industries.”
- In most industrial fields, the craftsmanship spirit is always closely integrated with a “team spirit” or collectivist spirit that fosters mutual assistance.
- The craftsmanship spirit requires enterprise managers to highly value the production site and focus on cultivating skilled talent, and更需要 the backdrop of a nation’s high emphasis on universal education and vocational training.
- Employees’ craftsmanship spirit is proportional to the enterprise’s “lifespan”; the better and longer an enterprise operates, the stronger the employees’ craftsmanship spirit.
Recent surveys indicate that the average lifespan of Chinese manufacturing enterprises is 11.1 years, with only 7.9% lasting over 20 years, especially small-to-medium enterprises having an average lifespan of merely 2.5 years. Internationally, the average lifespan of Chinese group enterprises is only 7–8 years, a significant gap compared to European and American enterprises’ average of 40 years and Japanese enterprises’ average of 58 years. Clearly, the disparity in enterprise lifespan is closely linked to the gap in employee skills. Longer enterprise lifespans facilitate the cultivation of “skills suited to the enterprise’s needs,” particularly in Japanese companies with lifetime employment systems, which invest heavily in “in-house education” as managers are less concerned about employees acquiring skills and then “taking those skills” (possibly including trade secrets) to leave or even join competitors. Compared to Japan, it is hard to imagine how Chinese enterprises with average lifespans of only 11 years or even 2.5 years could be willing to invest effort in training employees’ skills.
Statistics show that as of 2012, Japan had 3,146 enterprises over 200 years old, the most globally, followed by Germany with 837, the Netherlands with 222, and France with 196. The concentration of such long-lived enterprises in these countries is because they all inherit a spirit—the craftsmanship spirit. A country where the craftsmanship spirit is widely传承 among its people is more likely to earn respect. Chinese scholar Wang Wen stated: Even during periods of poor Sino-Japanese political relations, “in 2014, Chinese travelers to Japan reached 2.2 million, an 82% increase from the previous year, and in 2015, it reached 5 million, doubling again, with nearly one-third of Chinese having visited Japan twice or more, commonly called ‘repeat visitors.’ More importantly, almost all Chinese tourists returning from Japan tell the same story: Japan is quite good, impressions are positive, things are not expensive, and healthcare, tourism, etc., are very attractive.” Wang Wen believes: “Apart from surpassing in economic aggregate, the gap in social development between China and Japan remains comprehensive. How to calmly perceive China’s own shortcomings and discover certain strengths and advantages of the ‘rival’ Japan considerably tests think tank scholars’ wisdom and responsibility. China continuing to learn and study Japan is as important as engaging in struggle and games with Japan.” “Chinese people should possess the magnanimity to respect the Japanese. This respect should coexist with detestation of Japan’s distorted historical views and criticism of its diplomatic ‘two-faced’ approach.” However, contemporary China relatively普遍 suffers from issues like low labor quality, inadequate dedication in work, a somewhat浮躁 work attitude, and neglect of product quality soul. Experts point out that while China is a manufacturing giant, “Made in China” rarely boasts world-renowned brands; due to the gap in craftsmanship spirit, “on the same assembly line, Japanese or German workers produce Grade A products, while Chinese workers might produce Grade B products.” The lack of craftsmanship spirit has become a fundamental reason why contemporary Chinese manufacturing enterprises struggle to become strong.
Robots and Unemployment
Carl Bass, CEO of Autodesk, once said: “The factory of the future will have only two employees: a human and a dog. The human’s job is to feed the dog, and the dog’s job is to keep the human from touching the machines.” Although this statement is somewhat extreme, the trend toward increasing “unmanned” factories in many manufacturing sectors is an undeniable fact. Indeed, the development of new technologies like robots and artificial intelligence may lead to “disruptive changes” in the labor market. In January 2016, the World Economic Forum report indicated that from 2015 to 2020, the development of robots and AI would eliminate approximately 7.1 million jobs in 15 leading countries, create about 2 million new jobs, resulting in a net loss of 5.1 million jobs. Similarly, in January 2016, a study by Citibank and the University of Oxford’s Martin School, titled “Technology at Work v2.0,” showed that in the next 10 or 20 years, 140 million knowledge workers could lose their jobs due to advancements in robotics and AI, with varying impacts across countries. On average, 57% of jobs in Western developed countries are estimated to be at risk of replacement by robots and AI, while this figure is 69% in India and 77% in China, significantly higher than in developed countries. Regarding Japan, a joint research report by Nomura Research Institute and University of Oxford associate professor Michael Osborne et al. in December 2015 suggested that within the next 10–20 years, 49% of Japanese workers’ jobs could be replaced by AI and robots, “with jobs requiring special skills and knowledge likely to be replaced.” Osborne also believes that 47% of the U.S. workforce and 35% of the U.K. workforce could be replaced by AI and robots. Nomura Research Institute’s “2030 Research Room” noted that Japan’s “replacement ratio” might be higher than the U.S. and U.K. because “Japanese white-collar workers have low labor productivity, and more are engaged in occupations easily replaceable by AI and robots.” This implies that countries with more workers in easily replaceable occupations may experience rising structural unemployment or “technological unemployment,” leaving those unable to keep pace with technological progress, adapt to the new technological revolution, or qualify for new jobs in structural unemployment. The figure of 77% suggests that China’s labor market may face severe challenges from the robot revolution and new technological revolution.
However, historically, new technological developments have generally created more jobs than they eliminated, almost becoming a rule. For instance, automobiles replacing horse-drawn carriages reduced jobs for carriage repairmen and veterinarians but created new occupations like gas station attendants and auto mechanics. The invention of the printing press enabled mass production of books, largely eliminating scribes’ jobs but bringing new jobs in binding, transportation, marketing, and sales, with job numbers far exceeding those in scribing. Yet, experts argue that the development of robots and AI may lead to a new problem where created jobs significantly fall short of eliminated jobs, because the technological foundation of robots and AI—digital technologies—exhibits “exponential growth” unparalleled by any technology in previous industrial revolutions, and its application extends from manufacturing to all knowledge-related service work, putting jobs in services and other non-manufacturing sectors at risk. This means the conflict between humans and robots could be much sharper than past conflicts between humans and machines. Therefore, “we need to transform education so more people can ‘race with machines’ rather than against them,” and “we also need to do much to promote entrepreneurship, as it can create new industries and jobs.”
As Marx pointed out, in pursuit of profit and market expansion, “capitalists rush to adopt improved machines that replace labor and new production methods.” In other words, capital’s profit motive drives最大 possible replacement of labor with robots, depriving workers of labor rights and subjecting them to “the injury of having no work.” However, numerous studies also show: “The conclusion is the same for both individuals and social groups: work is beneficial.” “Work provides a sense of achievement, satisfaction, and happiness.” As Thomas Friedman noted: “Work is very important for an individual’s identity and stability, and for a society’s stability.” Particularly noteworthy is Friedman’s point that work is “very important for a society’s stability,” as historically, the introduction of new machines has often led to social instability. Some experts even predict that by 2020, the U.S. might see anti-robot movements or even riots due to increased unemployment from robot普及, because, as Jim Clifton, author of “The Coming Jobs War,” believes: For most people, “the world’s first and most important desire is to have a good job. After that, everything else can follow.” Political turmoil and social disorder in many countries today stem partly from the unmet “world’s first and most important desire” for “a good job.”
Therefore, in formulating China’s robot development strategy, respect for labor, respect for science, and respect for the “world’s first and most important desire” for “a good job” must始终 be upheld. It can be said that the presence or absence of these “three respects” likely leads to vastly different national or enterprise robot development strategies. Practices of some Japanese companies show that “excessive use of robots反而 leads to inefficiency,” with some even reverting from “robots replacing humans” back to “humans replacing robots.” Learning from international experience, China should gradually form a labor形态 of reasonable division between humans and robots. Recalling a past domestic novel titled “Working is Beautiful,” should we “reserve” certain job domains不让 robots “invade,” such as cooking, arts, gardening, pottery, journal editing, news reporting, product planning, R&D, data analysis, special crafts, etc., allowing people with special skills and passions to enjoy “the beauty of working” and gain dignity, satisfaction, and happiness from labor? Ultimately, the robot revolution is both a natural science and technology issue and a social science issue. As “top-level designers” of the robot revolution, they should not form a simplistic notion of “robots as mere replacements for humans,” but rather a scientific concept of “mutual assistance and complementary relations between robots and humans” and “robots as labor companions共同 creating high added value with humans.” We need to solve problems related to “machinery,” yet our problem-solving thinking must not be “mechanized.” Human society in the robot era should never become one where robots exclude humans, leaving humans “with nothing to do.” In the end, what the future of robot development will look like should and must depend on humans, not robots. Robots are created by humans; humans certainly should not and will not create a future where many are “idle.”
Robots and Competitiveness
The effects of the robot revolution may vary greatly across countries; how much a country benefits depends on how quickly it adapts. In this sense, Japan, Germany, and South Korea are considered the three countries with the strongest adaptability to robots,有望 gaining the greatest economic and social benefits from the robot revolution.
The driving effect of the robot industry on economic growth is primarily reflected in its contribution to labor productivity growth. In the 1980s and 1990s, the author多次 visited robot-equipped production lines in Japanese automotive companies and ultra-clean rooms in semiconductor enterprises, particularly in automotive lines using robots. It was observed that using robots saves raw materials, ensures stable product quality, allows work in harsh environments without休息, saves on expenses like air conditioning, heating, and lighting necessary for worker protection, and enables alternating production of different models on the same line. Marx once said: “For capital, machines are used only when there is a difference between the value of the machine and the value of the labor it replaces.” As robot prices increasingly fall below labor costs, more manufacturing enterprises adopt robots to replace labor, leading to automotive and other production lines becoming increasingly “less manned” or even “unmanned” (as early as the 1980s, a color TV production line in a Japanese factory in Fukaya producing 150,000 units monthly had only one person on duty), significantly reducing labor required for a given output, thereby making important contributions to improving labor productivity.
The contribution of robots to labor productivity varies across industrial sectors. Currently, scholars have obtained data on robots’ contributions to overall economic growth and total factor productivity in some countries. In 2015, Graetz and Michaels, analyzing data from the International Federation of Robotics on industrial robot usage across 14 industries in 17 developed countries from 1993 to 2007, along with economic indicators from the EUKLEMS database, concluded that using industrial robots in manufacturing increased annual labor productivity growth by 0.36% during that period, accounting for 16% of total labor productivity growth, thus finding that “industrial robots提高 labor productivity, total factor productivity, and wage levels.” Graetz and Michaels also calculated that robots’ contribution to labor productivity growth in the 1990s and early 2000s rivals that of the classic general-purpose technology—steam engine technology—from 1850 to 1910.
Robots enhance labor productivity, reducing labor cost per unit product and boosting product competitiveness. As early as the 1980s, Japan’s automotive industry became the world’s most advanced and active in adopting robots. The Harvard Business Review in November 1981 noted that当时 producing cars of the same specifications, there was a $1,500 cost difference between Japan and the U.S., with higher costs for U.S. companies due to落后 in production robotization.可见, in industries with intense international market competition, actively introducing robots and other automated production technologies is a crucial means for manufacturing enterprises to improve labor productivity and enhance product competitiveness.
Robots and Industrial Chain
Marx said: “When machine operation expands in one industrial sector, production in other sectors supplying生产资料 to that sector increases accordingly.” Since the robot industry correlates with numerous other industries to varying degrees, the development of the robot industry drives the growth of directly related industrial sectors, which in turn stimulates indirectly related sectors, generating ripple effects far exceeding the robot industry’s own development. First, robot industry development drives the growth of “component groups constituting robots” (reduction systems, sensing devices, motors, batteries, servo systems, drive systems, control systems, etc.). Second, it drives the development of indirectly related sectors like special industrial machinery, electronic devices, raw materials, and even public services. This means the robot industry not only contributes to economic growth through its own output but also stimulates the entire related industrial chain and its extensions. Takao Itakura of Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Kinki Bureau, through interviews with Japanese robot-related enterprises and institutions combined with market forecasts, found that the “indirect ripple effect” of the robot industry on indirectly关联 industrial sectors is 2.38 times that of the “direct ripple effect” on directly关联 sectors, higher than the average manufacturing multiplier (about 2) but lower than the automotive industry’s multiplier (2.99). This calculation likely reflects reality, as the number of robot components (e.g., about 2,000 for ABB’s industrial robots) is far fewer than automobiles (at least 20,000–30,000), and the automotive industry’s strong driving effect on the overall economy stems largely from its many components, high intermediate input比重, and extensive, long industrial chain. Therefore, the robot industry’s driving effect on economic growth, whether in terms of scale, chain length, or multiplier,显然 cannot compare to the automotive industry.
Currently, although China’s robot industry development and robot market growth are rapid, with hundreds to thousands of robot enterprises emerging nationwide and robot application market growth leading the world, China’s robot industry does not have a complete industrial chain. Most domestic robot enterprises are in the middle and lower ends of the chain. In the upstream, due to lagging core component R&D, a core components industrial chain has not formed; in the midstream, there is a lack of large pillar enterprises. With many enterprises聚集 in the middle and lower ends, this leads to overcapacity in low-end robots, even necessitating “capacity reduction” in what is considered “high-tech.” The incomplete robot industrial chain and dependence on foreign core component technology and equipment mean that although China has numerous domestic robot enterprises, 80% of robots needed by domestic enterprises must be supplied by foreign or foreign-funded robot enterprises. Thus, with an incomplete industrial chain, the potential of China’s robot industry in promoting economic and social development and serving the overall national strategic layout is far from fully realized.
Robots and Labor
Marx said, “Once the means of labor assumes the form of machinery, it becomes the competitor of the laborer himself.” This statement fully applies to robots;可以说, robots’ competition for workers’ jobs is more咄咄逼人 than any previous machinery. The correct way to resolve this contradiction is for workers to engage in jobs robots cannot yet do or cooperate with robots through education and training.
As mentioned, in previous industrial revolutions, newly created jobs generally exceeded eliminated ones. For example, automobiles replacing horse-drawn carriages reduced jobs for carriage repairmen and veterinarians but created new jobs like gas station attendants and auto mechanics; the printing press’s invention enabled mass book production, largely eliminating scribes’ jobs but bringing new jobs in binding, transportation, marketing, and sales, with job numbers far exceeding those in scribing. However, experts argue that the development of robots and AI may lead to a new problem where created jobs fall far short of eliminated jobs, because the technological foundation—digital technologies—exhibits “exponential growth” unmatched by any technology in past revolutions, and its application extends from manufacturing to all knowledge-related service work, putting jobs in services and other non-manufacturing sectors at risk. This means the “human-robot矛盾” could be much sharper than previous “human-machine矛盾.” Therefore, “we need to transform education so more people can ‘race with machines’ rather than against them,” and “we also need to do much to promote entrepreneurship, as it can create new industries and jobs.”
As Marx noted, in pursuit of profit and market expansion, “capitalists rush to adopt improved machines that replace labor and new production methods.” In other words, capital’s profit motive drives最大 possible replacement of labor with robots, depriving workers of labor rights and subjecting them to “the injury of having no work.” Yet,大量 research also shows: “Whether for individuals or social groups, the conclusion is the same: work is beneficial.” “Work provides a sense of achievement, satisfaction, and happiness.” As Thomas Friedman stated: “Work is very important for an individual’s identity and stability, and for a society’s stability.” Here, Friedman’s point that work is “very important for a society’s stability” is particularly noteworthy, as historically, new machine introductions have often caused social instability. Some experts predict that by 2020, the U.S. might experience anti-robot movements or even riots due to increased unemployment from robot普及, because, as Jim Clifton, author of “The Coming Jobs War,” believes: For most people, “the world’s first and most important desire is to have a good job. After that, everything else can follow.” Today, political turmoil and social disorder in many countries partly stem from the unmet “world’s first and most important desire” for “a good job.”
Therefore, in formulating China’s robot development strategy, respect for labor, respect for science, and respect for the “world’s first and most important desire” for “a good job” must始终 be upheld. It can be said that the presence or absence of these “three respects” likely leads to vastly different national or enterprise robot development strategies. Practices of some Japanese companies show that “excessive use of robots反而 leads to inefficiency,” with some even reverting from “robots replacing humans” back to “humans replacing robots.” Learning from international experience, China should gradually form a labor形态 of reasonable division between humans and robots. Recalling a past domestic novel titled “Working is Beautiful,” should we “reserve” certain job domains不让 robots “invade,” such as cooking, arts, gardening, pottery, journal editing, news reporting, product planning, R&D, data analysis, special crafts, etc., allowing people with special skills and passions to enjoy “the beauty of working” and gain dignity, satisfaction, and happiness from labor? Ultimately, the robot revolution is both a natural science and technology issue and a social science issue. As “top-level designers” of the robot revolution, they should not form a simplistic notion of “robots as mere replacements for humans,” but rather a scientific concept of “mutual assistance and complementary relations between robots and humans” and “robots as labor companions共同 creating high added value with humans.” We need to solve problems related to “machinery,” yet our problem-solving thinking must not be “mechanized.” Human society in the robot era should never become one where robots exclude humans, leaving humans “with nothing to do.” In the end, what the future of robot development will look like should and must depend on humans, not robots. Robots are created by humans; humans certainly should not and will not create a future where many are “idle.”
Robots and Market
Engels said: “Once there is a technical need in society, it advances science more than ten universities.” For robots, first industrial production needs advanced industrial robot technology and industry development, then service industry needs advanced service robot technology and industry development. Compared to industrial robots with relatively clear “existing needs” (e.g., robot arms on automotive production lines), social needs for service robots are “vast as the sea and sky,” with extremely broad application ranges,甚至可以说 no boundaries,随时可能开拓 “unexpected” new applications and practices. Thus, with unclear market needs, market开拓 uncertainty is high.
Service robots are generally divided into “work-use service robots” and “household or personal-use service robots.” Globally, about 45% of demand for “work-use service robots” in Europe and the U.S. is for defense and military purposes, while in super-aging Japan, “household or personal-use service robots” for nursing, cleaning, entertainment, etc., receive more attention. In summary, service robots are a new industrial field需建立在 new knowledge and culture基础上, different from用途比较单纯的 industrial robots.
In reality, technology workers often encounter two types of contradictions: first, the矛盾 between “existing needs” and “currently lacking technology,” requiring creation of new technology; second, the矛盾 between “currently lacking needs” and “existing technology,” requiring creation of new demand. Indeed, human desires or needs are endless;所谓 “creating new demand” essentially挖掘尚未显露的潜在 demand, creating demand即 “creating market” and “creating customers.” According to Schumpeter’s innovation theory, innovation is “the combination of market and invention,” the “intersection of (market) insight and technological invention.” In robotics or other technology fields, successful innovators need both deep “market insight” and “technological invention” talents, developing new products at the “intersection of insight and technological invention.”
For robots to be market-welcome, they must achieve “three usability”: practical, easy to use, and durable. “Practical” means having actual utility (depending on whether robot enterprises truly stand from consumers’ perspectives, carefully grasp实际消费需求 of various groups, not just based on technicians’ interests and hobbies in product conception and design); “easy to use” means being operable by普通人; “durable” means achieving the required “lifespan” and low failure rate for practical use (relating to product quality and reliability).
In the late 1990s, Sony developed the pet robot (“robot dog”) AIBO, considered Japan’s “first household robot.” Since its launch in 1999,累计仅 sold 150,000 units. Although the robot dog avoided the hassle of排泄, it was far from fluffy real dogs,很难讨人喜欢. Thus, this “pioneer” of household robots had a commercial lifespan of only eight years, ceasing production in 2006. Experts say giving robots skin and hair like living beings or humans requires tens of thousands of skin sensors and an unimaginably large number of signal lines, posing extreme technical difficulty. AIBO’s failure stemmed from违背 the principle of developing new products at the “intersection of insight and technological invention,” as while宠物机器人 might seem appealing, consumers truly love “warm,” fluffy robot dogs (“guide robot dogs”另作别论), and technological invention far from meets this need. This example shows AIBO developers neither truly洞察 market demand nor recognized current technological limitations.
另一种情况 is where technological invention meets expected levels, but inaccurate market insight leads to failure. For instance, Panasonic developed a cleaning robot as early as the 1990s but delayed commercialization due to concerns among Japanese enterprises about safety issues like “what if the cleaning robot knocks over candles on household Buddhist altars and causes fire, who is responsible?” Thus, they never commercialized cleaning robots or developed “perfect” cleaning robots that “knock over nothing,” so日本人至今仍 use imported cleaning robots from the U.S. (iRobot’s “home cleaning robot,” developed from mine-clearing robot technology with DARPA support, sold since 2002,累计 over 8 million units in 40+ countries). This example reflects that技术开发者没必要使 product performance and reliability exceed actual needs, as this大大增加 costs and affects commercialization进程; it also体现 Japanese manufacturing’s “technical culture” of pursuing “极限性能” and过剩 quality (必然导致过高 prices).
In June 2014, SoftBank announced Pepper, a humanoid robot developed with France’s Aldebaran Robotics and manufactured by Taiwan’s Foxconn. Pepper配备语音识别技术, can “read” human emotions by analyzing expressions and tone, interacting with humans, hence called an “emotional robot.” In December 2014, Pepper作为免费雇员, began selling coffee machines in Japanese electronics stores, helping manufacturers understand customer needs through conversations. In February 2015, the first batch for developers sold out within one minute; products for general consumers sold out seven times within one minute each from June to December 2015 at 198,000 yen each. Later, production increased significantly; from January 2016, customers could regularly purchase at SoftBank stores. In mid-June 2016, Pepper robots began assisting with patient pre-diagnosis in two Belgian hospitals. In late July 2016, Pepper officially debuted in Taiwan, already “employed” by多家业者 like First Bank, Carrefour, Cathay Life, Taishin Bank, Asia Pacific Telecom, and Pingtung County Government for greeting. Pepper expected to launch in September, with monthly租金 26,888新台币, higher than average graduate salary (22,000新台币). Pepper’s success reflects this product indeed developed at the “intersection of insight and technological invention.”
Robots and Talent
“Revolutionary technological breakthroughs require talent not in thousands or tens of thousands, but in hundreds of thousands or even millions.” To seize opportunities from the robot and AI revolution, we must not only focus on cultivating科技人才 in robotics and related fields but also on nurturing下一代 that respects technology and loves labor. We need to expand enrollment in robotics programs at higher education institutions,培养 technical talent in robot R&D, manufacturing, system integration, software intelligence, perception and recognition, drive and control, etc.,培养 talent related to core technologies like robot heads, eyes, fingers, joints, and key talent engaged in “next-generation robot technology development.” Additionally, vocational education systems should add programs for robot programming, software development, maintenance, etc., and培养 technical talent in wide-ranging fields关联 with robotics, including energy, materials, communications, security, big data, human-machine接口, etc.
As an extension of vocational education, continuing or在职 education for employees with some work experience有望成为快速培养高素质科技人才 and skilled craftsmen的捷径. Adopting various new methods of contemporary科研活动,大力激励 enterprise and individual innovation,激发 Chinese people’s creativity, such as挖掘创新人才 through “科研众包” and “公民科学.” Promote科研众包 (Crowdsourcing), gathering researchers globally online to exchange学术成果, conduct科研协作,共同与市场建立更紧密联系; promote “公民科学” (Citizen science), enabling大量没受过专业训练的业余科学爱好者 to participate in科研任务 through网络组织号召, especially suitable for robotics, as in today’s科技革命时代, society has many amateur科技活动爱好者, with机器人技术爱好者 across age groups particularly numerous.
Prevent技术人才 “流失” through various channels, prevent专业人才 “流失” to非专业领域, especially prevent专业技术人员 from becoming “无能的经营者” through “promotion” to management, wasting technical talent and causing enterprise failure. Utilize退休专业人士 “余热,” help退休科研人员 with健康身心,扎实专业基础,丰富技术经验 escape繁重家务 like “caring for grandchildren” after 60 or 65,参与 “大众创业、万众创新” high-tech R&D activities. Enhance新时期产业工人 social status, strengthen产业工人光荣感和责任感, help农民工 still with “agricultural diligence” habits cultivate “industrial diligence” habits.
Robot technology R&D is a collective endeavor; thus, to “poach”科技人才 from other enterprises or countries, an effective method is focusing on “taking the whole pot” rather than “poaching” individuals. For example, since 2004, DARPA has hosted international robot competitions (“Robot Olympics”) to吸收优秀机器人研究成果,人才, and risk enterprises from worldwide. In DARPA’s 2013 competition, a robot by a Japanese venture founded just a year earlier by a University of Tokyo assistant professor won first place, scoring far above second. By early 2014, this Japanese venture and seven others were acquired “连锅端” by Google.
Cultivating科技人才 for robotics and new technologies needs to “start from childhood,” from kindergarten to elementary to secondary school,注意培养 children and adolescents’动手能力和劳动习惯, encourage more youth to pursue skill成才之路,让更多青少年传承工匠精神,专心专注钻研技能,努力创造 “崇尚一技之长、不唯学历凭能力” social atmosphere, making China a技能人才强国. Transform China’s school education structure; at transition points from elementary to middle school, middle to high school, high school to university,注意及早 “分流” some children to初级,中级,高级 vocational schools, not as现在 where vocational school is a无奈出路 for “college entrance exam failures.” Current social风气: parents tell children at vocational school gates: “If you don’t study hard and fail college entrance, you’ll end up here.” We must坚决克服和改变鄙视劳动,轻视工匠,轻视职业学校的社会风气,政策导向,舆论倾向! Include课文描述杰出能工巧匠人生故事 in中小学语文课本, add video教材以青少年喜闻乐见艺术形式介绍数十年如一日钻研一技之长为国家做贡献的,堪称 “人生教科书”的能工巧匠事迹, as必修课 for students to watch and write观后感.
Note robot development is not only natural science and technology achievement but also closely related to social science; particularly关注 robot普及与社会变革之间的联系, thus需培养跨学科研究人才 combining natural and social sciences on economic, cultural, legal, ethical issues related to robots.
For科技人才, not only cultivate but also激励. Government宜设 national “Robot Award,” holding annual颁奖仪式 with national leaders awarding top winners. Additionally, suggest提升与技能相关各种奖项知名度和影响力, establish national-level “Top Ten New Products Award,” “Top Ten Outstanding Craftsmen Award,” “Top Ten Service Model Award,” with corresponding awards in各省市 or各产业领域.
Suggest定期举办新科技革命时代技能大赛 nationally and in各省市 or各产业领域, with competition项目清单加入新技术新技能内容. Finally,再次提议 China bid for the 45th or 46th Skills Olympics (之所以说 “再次提议” because the author提议过 after 2008 Olympics), the WorldSkills competition held every two years since 1950, hosted by over 40 countries, with Japan and South Korea hosting twice. South Korean Skills Olympics gold medalists have been received by the president, with large portraits on streets, seen as productivity heroes, more重视 than China’s Olympic gold medalists—a practice值得我们重视.
“Re-industrialization” and “De-industrialization”
According to recent reports, Adidas, a renowned German sports用品制造商 producing over 300 million shoes annually, plans to use robot manufacturing and 3D printing as primary production methods for Adidas shoes. CEO Herbert Hainer emphasized: “Facing growing market demand, we will use robots for production, bringing production lines back to消费地 like Europe and America.” Shoes, like clothing, symbolize labor-intensive industries. Previously, shoe factories left Europe for亚洲国家 with low labor costs like South Korea, China, and Vietnam.然而 “currently, even in Germany with high labor costs, fewer personnel can achieve 24/7 robot production. Asia’s production advantages are gradually weakening.” Adidas’ plan is just a latest example of how automation like robots促使发达国家从 “de-industrialization”转向 “re-industrialization.”
As known, from the 1980s, developed countries saw a “de-industrialization” wave, characterized by: (1) rapid labor shift from primary and secondary to tertiary sectors, weakening manufacturing优势 in automobiles, steel, consumer electronics, with manufacturing share of GDP持续降低, services dominating; (2) to utilize相对低廉 labor and资源成本 in developing countries,大批制造企业 transferred production bases to developing countries, promoting rapid manufacturing崛起 in developing countries, especially China; (3) with overseas production转移, developed-country制造企业既 lowered costs, enhanced product competitiveness,又 expanded markets, increased profits, but at national level, experienced manufacturing “空洞化,” rising unemployment, widening wealth gaps.
Since 2010, with advances in automation like robots and rising average wages in developing countries like China, for developed-country制造企业,马克思所说的 “difference between machine value and replaced labor value” (automation cheaper than labor) emerged, enabling 24/7 robot production with fewer personnel even in high-cost developed countries, reducing吸引力 of developing countries’廉价的 or now not廉价的 labor. Increasingly, developed-country制造企业 with overseas direct investment began “returning home,”推动发达国家在国家层次上开展 “re-industrialization” centered on revitalizing manufacturing, especially in the U.S. with “shale gas revolution,” using shale gas for large-scale pollution-free power plants, making cheap electricity another key吸引力 for returning enterprises.当然, developed countries’ “re-industrialization” strategies neither repeat past “industrialization” nor merely attract domestic manufacturing back, but upgrade industrial structure, seize high ground in new technological revolution,拉大差距 between advanced countries’ manufacturing and emerging工业国家 like China.
While developed countries advance “re-industrialization,” China, still industrializing, has shown “de-industrialization” tendencies amid recent economic slowdown. “De-industrialization” refers to gradual萎缩和衰落 of established manufacturing优势,表现为 manufacturing share in三次产业迅速下降,同时服务业比重显著升高. From 2012 to 2015, China’s service sector繁荣 contributed to keeping unemployment controllable but shifted millions of migrant workers from higher-productivity manufacturing to lower-productivity services (currently overall service productivity only 80% of industry), leading to整个产业 productivity decline. More problematic, with大幅减少 in manufacturing migrant workers, falling investment growth, and some developed countries relocating Chinese production bases back home, likely widening China’s manufacturing gap with developed countries,形成强者更强,弱者更弱的 “Matthew Effect,” enabling the U.S. to use high-tech优势 as powerful means to maintain global霸权 and遏制 China’s崛起—a动向我们必须高度关注.