5 College Degrees That Will Be Extinct In 20 Years


Do you remember when futuristic movies would show a future full of robots? Well, that future isn’t so far away. The robots are coming, and they will take our jobs. The technological revolution we are in is not stopping anytime soon, and automation is a huge part of its growth. We have witnessed this change before, and that was the Industrial Revolution. The solution was creating a more educated workforce to handle more complex issues, and again our solution to this issue lies in education. When choosing a college degree, it is important to be cognizant of the changing world and its changing demands. And so, I have found 5 college degrees that will be sure to be obsolete with the advent of technology.  

Keep reading on the next page to find out which jobs are nearly gone!

You may also like...

270 Responses

  1. jan oskar hansen says:

    you still need a college degree

    • Pat Robins says:


    • Chrissums says:

      Depends on the degree. Medical, Chemistry or STEM degree, yes. Pretty much everything else is garbage. Especially Sociology, Liberal Arts, English, History, etc. Also, it depends on where you receive the degree. Too many for-profit colleges with poor standards. Especially when targeted in low income areas. Student loan profit mills. I hire in Tech, and I throw these types of resume’s in the trash.

      • StarLightPL says:

        If you hire in tech and trash people’s resumes based on college degree, then you’re doing your job poorly. During my 15 years working in IT I have met absolutely stunning talents who didn’t have a degree, yet they were brilliant specialists.

        • BigT Swim Guru says:

          Agreed 200% with Chrissums and StarLightPL.
          I have hired over 500 directly in tech and several hundred more for other companies and have found the degree only means “possible discipline” but no specific or natural aptitudes in that talent area.

          I look for after work or out of school interests, idiot savant type focuses and recommendations from classmates on who actually led the workgroups during college/uni.

          Then to top it off, there is now so much emphasis placed on degrees that often contain less than 20% focuses on the engineering aspect of the STEM degree. This is why waterloo university in Ontario, Canada outshines many others with much bigger budgets — they have an incredibly strong practical technology focus.

        • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

          There are always some exceptionally bright people in any subject,
          who may not need a college education but not in the numbers of people needed by a modern technological state.

      • ian shaw says:

        You forgot to mention “political science”.

      • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

        Chrissums, this is entirely true. However, you forgot to include the different disciplines of Engineering, Physiology, Biochemistry , Molecular Genetics and Medicine.

  2. Adrian Knott says:

    Half of these “degrees” are pathetic and only found in USA. “Paralegal” & “tourism”? Mickey Mouse degrees. But graduating with a decent qualification proves to a prospective employer that you have the intelligence and diligence to learn anything.

    • Axel Cortez says:

      paralegal is legal studies, which is a bachelor degree (4 years) as you “must know” to study law and be layer in U.S. you need a bachelor degree and then do a Doctorate (3 years) to become a Lawyer.

      Tourism and Hospitality has from bachelor degrees all the way up to PHD and most countries where is heavy tourism have this career for study. Even Ivy league universities have this degree.

      So as you see these “Mickey Mouse degrees” are more common that you might think and not bound to US

      • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

        I happened to have studied for a PhD which used to have the criterion that something entirely new had to be created and written up in a dissertation before this degree could be granted. I wonder how to assess a PhD in Tourism and Hospitality.

        • Axel Cortez says:

          You studied for a PhD so you did research for your thesis and dissertation, I believe you are able and capable of investigating the matter.

          For someone with such degree is hard to believe you could be dissing the importance of other careers.

          For the rest that might read this:

          Tourism and Hospitality is heavily influenced by Administration, finance and other careers. Students of a PhD in Tourism and Hospitality have to do a Thesis and dissertation as any PhD candidate. The examples I have found of research made by PhD of Tourism and Hospitality is for example an interactive demand forecasting tool for tourism related organisations in Asia.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            No, Axel, my PhDs were done in engineering science and biology.
            After all, basketweaving can also be researched and it may contribute to anthropology and history, but not at the same level as hard sciences..
            After all, basketweaving can also be researched and it may contribute to anthropology and history, but not at the same level as hard sciences..

          • Sel Ker says:

            I acknowledge your depth of knowledge. One of the primary purposes of Science should be to arrive at the truth. Then further research must be carried out to discover whether that is the truth. I refer to your statement “After all, basketweaving can also be researched and it may contribute to anthropology and history, but not at the same level as hard sciences”
            Did animals teach us one of the oldest forms of human technology? Example the weaver birds. Did this technology contribute to our ability to count ? “Without basketry there would be no civilisations. You can’t bring thousands of people together unless you can supply them, you can’t bring in supplies to feed populations without containers. In the early days of civilisations these containers were basketry. The aim of such research will be to identify the mechanical traditions of making and the ways in which basketry is implicated in wider patterns of understanding, for example the order of society or the design of the universe – example is string theory similar to weaving ? How was the Universe weaved together.Research – It will also show the impact of woven forms on other media, such as pottery, painting, and stone sculpture and architecture, and look at the future of basketry and the solutions it could offer to current issues, whether technical or social.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            I absolutely agree. Note that I did not discount the knowledge gleaned from simple-sounding research about basketweaving,
            I maintain however, that although his kind of knowledge does contribute to the general database of human knowledge, it did not
            have the same decisive effect on our lives as mathematics, physics, engineering, chemistry and the life sciences.
            As an interesting aside, I might mention, that studies in nuclear physics and quantum theory showed that science can no longer assert to search for “truth” because this truth is too far removed from out sensory experience. Instead, according to the Copenhagen decision science searches for the “truth” that is compatible with our sensory experience, hence it is only a relative truth confined to our experiential world.

    • ian shaw says:

      Yes, this is why employers hire graduates, even if their speciality does not fall into the ambit of their company. Getting through a difficult course leading to a decent
      qualification shows tenacity and diligence and it gives a good indication of the applicant’s true potential.

  3. Adrian Knott says:

    Tourism degree includes difficult topics such as “Europe is not in America” lol

  4. WeCanDoBetter says:

    What this article doesn’t address is that getting a college degree has never been necessary for any if those professions and acquiring knowledge, but a screening tool and a method of discrimination. Requiring college degrees erroneously allowed companies to discontinue in-house training programs so they buy rather than build employees. Who typically cannot afford college degrees? Single mothers who had babies instead of completing an education and low-income people who are overwhelmingly black, brown and tan. In fact, in the past 30 years the numbers of women and people of color with college degrees have climbed, BUT, no where near the amount of white males with college degrees in the US. You never needed a degree to be a paralegal, accountant, run a hotel, or run the news desk, those were just late 20th century “poll taxes” to keep people out–and it worked! Thanks for saving millions of women and people of color from going into needless debt by formally recognizing that just learning to use the technology is all that’s necessary. Maybe companies will surrender to the changing hues in America and stop the racism and sexism that is requiring college degrees.

    • Pete says:

      I challenge you to find any employer needing a pharmacist to get hired without a degree. A licensed pharmacist is the only one the DEA will allow to keep control of restricted and narcotic medicines.

      • WeCanDoBetter says:

        Do you NEED a degree to become a licensed pharmacist, or can you apprentice and take an exam? I defy you to find a licensed pharmacist over 50 with a masters degree–earned BEFORE he/she became a licensed pharmacist.

        • gabriel akwaja says:

          You cannot by apprenticing become expert in pharmacy to be so licensed. You have to study and qualify as a pharmacist. Masters degree is not required to practice pharmacy or medicine but professional degree of B.Pharm or Pharm D. Prescription dispensing is more than robotic dissemination of doses to patients. Clinical drug counselling requires the proficiency of a pharmacist. Drug interactions and pharmacokinetics are not over the counter subjects.

          • I’m still waiting for someone to tell me that a person NEEDS a $100k college education to become a licensed pharmacist. Years ago, young, white males could apprentice for a number of years under pharmacists, dentists, lawyers, and etc. then that person sponsored you for certification in that field. Tests and licensing came about to assure that people knew what they were doing, because someone probably dispensed something that killed someone very wealthy. When anti-discrimination laws against women and minorities were passed, a college education became required, right about the 1970’s. Then SAT’s and other testing to enter college became prevalent, then post college testing started charging fees to take those certification and licensing exams. All to limit who can become those professions. So yes, NOW you “need” a college degree to become a pharmacist but you did not always. For the vast majority of professions a college degree in NOT necessary, but that hasn’t stopped employers for requiring them.

          • R B says:

            Yes but in the past medicines were also made up of just alcohol.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            In my early child hood, besides aspirin there was a cold compress for your headaches, iodine tincture for small scratches and some herbal concoctions, and later sulfa drugs for fever and infections. The big push started after WWII when drugs started to be manufactured on a mass basis.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

          • Rob says:

            Don’t forget the fruits of the coca leaf & the poppy. They were the real kickers in those century and longer ago concoctions/elixirs. Heck, Coca-Cola’s name wasn’t accidental; t’was initially marketed as a medicinal beverage @ soda fountains.

          • Feeni Tnarg says:

            Obviously, you do not know what a pharmacist really does or what the profession entails. Being a pharmacist is nothing about counting pills, which is pretty much what the robot does. What if there is a deadly error but the dose is accurate just an issue of drug-drug interaction; drug-disease interaction; drug condition interaction; drug-food interaction; overdose (especially in instances where the dose is okay for the age but entirely wrong because of the person’s disease or condition); subtherapeutic dose (because of the same reasons or because the doctor just has it wrong); missing drug (some drugs have to be prescribed to counteract the potential side effects of some essential drugs- for example certain antipsychotics have to be prescribed with antiparkinsons agents of NSAIDs being prescribed with PPIs or H-2 Blockers or other drugs to protect the stomach); Drug that is prescribed that needs to removed (for example a prescription that has both Hydrochlorothiazide and Indapamide); I’m missing one.

            There are nine errors that pharmacists are trained to automatically assess for whenever they get a prescription to fill, would you trust a robot not to miss something or trust that it won’t miss but will also contact your doctor to give you the correct drug with the right dose etc.?

            What about Pharmacognosy? Will the robot conduct tests on herbs and develop experiments to extra the active ingredients for further testing to develop new drugs or modify old drugs (Medicinal Chemistry). Does the robot know about Biopharmaceutics, Pharmacokinetics, Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics and all the others that I studied in order to earn my BPharm? I could continue for ages.

            In the country where I live, Manufacturers and Distributors of Pharmaceuticals have to be registered as Pharmacies under the supervision of a pharmacist. Drugs cannot be imported or exported without pharmacists (who issue permits and receive drugs). Medications that are imported have to be assessed or inspected by a pharmacist who then determines if the drug will be allowed into the country or seized for destruction or testing. When you think about medications in any form pharmacists are involved. You DEFINITELY NEED TRAINING FOR THIS. 1 or 2 years or on the job training might qualify you to be called something but definitely not PHARMACIST, CHEMIST OR DRUGGIST.

            I’ll stop there.

          • ian shaw says:

            Finally a really qualified man can elaborate on concrete aspects of pharmacy in contrast to the ignorant generalizing of hostile laymen.

          • Wini says:

            That man is technical in details but naive in logic and technical know how. All those tasks he mentioned above were done by man using equipments, the same robots in question.. While man is busy storing all his hard end knowledge in the cloud internet , one day these machines will become self sufficient while our Brains can barely remember anything..we become slaves to the robots.. The new dorminant species… Without biological hassles and shortcomings.. They will travel the whole solar system mining raw materials to produce more robots.. All they need is electricity and nuclear and quantum fusion energy…MAN SHOULD OPEN HIS EYES..THINGS WILL GO WRONG.. TECHNOLOGY WILL BECOME INDEPENDENT ONE DAY.. the CLOUD WILL BECOME THE QUEEN OF THE ROBOTIC HIVE

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Lay off the science fiction, it ruins your mood.

          • Gad Lagatt says:

            I salute you guy, if it was about counting pills, i sure would have done a math major to do so since its more applicable…this just a forum of illiterates trying to make themselves feel better. The day pharmacy will extinct, majority of the world will get cancer and Jesus will come ??

          • Wini says:

            The robots will take minut e blood samples and run a DNA analysis, and other metabolic integrity tests on the patients.. By then the human genome must have been fully mapped and in databases. So the best diagnosis and treatment will be drawn from a computer database Made of mans entire records on medicine.. Such practices will even make most medical lab scientists obsolete too..because all it takes to analyse biological samaples is just a tiny dot of blood and urine in the right equipment..no professors combined in all medical fields can bit a database of all medical experience since time immemorial floating in the cloud somewhere in the INTERNET

          • Wini says:

            A human cannot run quality control on manufactured drugs without using equipments to analyse the drug samples.. The equipments are the robots

          • Lindum says:

            And you think an AI system can’t do that?

          • Junuwasi says:

            If the Pharmacist is supposed to analyse such drug-to-body conditions mismatches, then what is the Doctor’s job?

            It’s the doctor who interpretes lab diagnostic results and writes appropriate medicine and dosage for you.

            Pharmacists just read the prescription (which uses neutral names not commercial ones) and hands out the appropriate medicine.

            Much of what Pharmacists learn in college collects dust in their brain shelves.

          • Yatogami says:

            i know this is 5 months old but im extremely pissed reading this as i have a pharmacology exam tomorrow. Since you think all pharmacist do is read prescription, next time you get a doctors prescription enter the store and pick up the drugs yourself. Pharmacy isn’t just dispensing, its a branched field which the drug industry needs for development. A doctor doesn’t do a drug drug interaction in a research lab,WE DO. A doctor diagnoses you and prescribe a wrong dose, we don’t correct that? guess who loses their licence,WE DO. Much of what we learn in college we have to keep relearning every time to keep people who don’t appreciate us safe. Oooh the drug development section would be full of poisonous drug without a pharmacist assessing and determining all interactions to do with it. Because we don’t open skulls and and body parts dont make us less significant in the medical field.

          • taylormade1 says:

            A druggist or apothecary did not need extensive education like persons do nowadays to know how one drug may interact with another or how different persons with different biological make ups may react to certain medicines. In any case persons were not expected to live very long back in the days of the apothecaries – medicines were certain concoctions of natural products that were intended to make you feel better, not necessarily live better the way these chemically based medicines are produced nowadays and can be dangerous for you

          • ian shaw says:

            Are you going to openly and without shame imply that professional qualifications for pharmacy or “the vast number of professions” are required only to exclude women and blacks from this profession?
            I doubt it that your have ever succeeded in getting a proper high level education, because I know the types, who have never qualified for anything but hate and disparage those who did.

          • Mistergilgamesh says:

            So…I suppose brain surgeons should only need an apprenticeship to start hacking at skulls if they are “young white males”. What a dumb argument. Qualifications and training and education are needed in order to do the job, not as a means to exclude races or women. Check yourself.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            You are probably too young to remember the times when pharmacists were actually mixing the compounds from original raw materials on the premises and you had to come back later to fetch them. This was the time before pharmaceutical companies were preparing and selling ready-made pills, capsules and ointments.

          • DT says:

            The author of this article has demonstrated a lack of in depth knowledge of what a pharmacist does. Instead of researching the numerous roles a person with a pharmacy degree can enter into, the author simply focuses on what he has seen by walking into a drug store; one of only many dozens of roles you will find a person in with a pharmacy degree. I’m the first to admit, many functions related to what the ‘traditional’ retail based pharmacist performs, could be and have been replaced by either technology or less educated individuals, but until IBM’s big blue can ‘think’ on its own, replacement of the human is far from certain at your local drugstore. As far as rendering the degree useless over the next 20 years…not even close to being likely, especially as more and more states are passing legislation to give pharmacists provider status. I haven’t even begun to list the numerous other roles pharmacists hold in industry, hospitals, government, research, managed care companies, etc, etc. At least do a little homework before you write your next article. No skin off my back if you’re wrong or right with your opinions, I just prefer to read well thought out arguments for your opinions if you choose to write them in a public forum

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            You are making the assumption that most people know pharmacists from a drugstore. In the future,. pharmacists will be able to conduct in the drugstore some new genetic tests that reveal the highly customized needs of a patient instead of just a doctor’s prescription.
            Besides, even today pharmacy is an “integrating science” because it integrates physiology and biochemistry. Of course many pharmacists today who hand out drugs in a dispensary are functioning way under their level of knowledge and this is why some people think that they can be replaced by machines.

          • Wini says:

            The robots will take minut e blood samples and run a DNA analysis, and other metabolic integrity tests on the patients.. By then the human genome must have been fully mapped and in databases. So the best diagnosis and treatment will be drawn from a computer database Made of mans entire records on medicine.. Such practices will even make most medical lab scientists obsolete too..because all it takes to analyse biological samaples is just a tiny dot of blood and urine in the right equipment..no professors combined in all medical fields can bit a database of all medical experience since time immemorial floating in the cloud somewhere in the INTERNET

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Wini, you are right.

        • LeaveItToBeaver says:

          To be a licensed pharmacist, you need to be able to read, and count to 10. (Of course, reading a Dr’s handwriting can be difficult, I admit).

          If the RX is for 50 pills-Count to10, 5 times-It’s not Rocket Science.

          • King Rocker says:

            Leaveit, don’t be an idiot. It’s a 6 year university study almost as difficult as medicine (in Europe at least). Pharmacists should REALLY know what they are doing.

          • Rob says:

            That must be why they’re allowed to countermand a Dr.’s rx (by refusing to fill) at their discretion. I see how this could be helpful. But I’ve only SEEN it as enforcing a given rx chain’s illogical policies. E.g., CVS wouldn’t fill a very small pain reliever script after still-bloody dental surgery because I was receiving a related pain reliever for migraines (much less than I’d needed in the past). Thanks for the agony, CVS … unable to distinguish very short term post-surgical treatment from acute migraine management. I mean, a computer could enforce that policy. *epiphany!* Oops! I didn’t set out to take that side of the debate!

          • Lindum says:

            The prize for the most foolish and ill informed comment of 2016.

        • Lindum says:

          Over 50? Or over 90?

    • Veni Vidi Vici says:

      Taking personal responsibility is a good start and stop blaming YT for your poor genetics or lifestyle choices.
      1. A higher % of college grads are women or course most prefer easier majors.
      2. Stop telling low IQ minorities that their failures are the white mans fault, if your IQ is under 100 consider other career options aside from occupation that require degrees.

      • Veni, what the hell are you talking about?! Nobody’s blaming anyone for anything, apparently you didn’t read my reply. My point is that very few professions require a college. If someone chooses to get a degree, it should be for personal reasons, because it’s not proven that 99% of people with degrees are better performers or smarter, just good at getting degrees.

        • Veni Vidi Vici says:

          You said “Single mothers and minorities and stop the racism and sexism of requiring college degrees.”
          1. The Goverment provide grants and subsidized loans ( majority of which go to minorities and women.)are two reasons why college is so expansive.
          2. Women are close to 60% of college grads now. If anything the degree requirements hurt Working close white males who lack an affirmative action safety net.
          3. Often single moms created their own problems due to poor lifestyle choices.
          4. I do agree that most Jobs only require at most an associate degree.

          • taylormade1 says:

            I think you should learn proper grammar and spelling before you criticize anyone of Low IQ

          • ian shaw says:

            Discrimination on the basis of the “colour of skins” is the greatest neoliberal fallacy. There are numerous other characteristics which separate the races. I am not going to elaborate because it will surely be labelled as racism.
            By the way, the “weakness and mediocrity” of white men have built countries and cultures which have no equal in Africa. Your racist views are not supported by facts, only hatred. According to you, whites have “stolen everything:” and have never created anything.
            This kind of dogmatic drivel very much contributes to the total lack of credibility of their authors. At least this one did not pontificate about “the decolonization of science”,because it is science that is beyond the comprehension of people like this author, and thus they must somehow deprive it form its “white” pedestal. So the general backwardness of these poor nations is due the “colonialists” who purposely keep them poor so that they do not threaten the ignorant and mediocre whites with competition.
            Does the author really believe this absolute nonsense?

          • Lindum says:

            The Chinese have managed it, so has Korea, Japan, Singapore. Many others have failed.

      • @_______@ says:

        Oy bigot!
        The reason why white countries are developed is because they colonized much of the world. Are you now going to defend the colonization and slavery of millions of people and all the wealth drained from sovereign nations as a positive. Don’t argue over racial superiority the Nazis had the same idea.

        • Veni Vidi Vici says:

          Really? Forced colonization ended the in 1975 and longer for most former colonies and these countries had 40+ years without European rule.
          I don’t millions of people trying to Immigrant to Africa.

          • @_______@ says:

            Oh wow 40+ years! The British ruled India for 200+ years and were involved in drain of wealth from India to Britain during centuries of oppressive loot and plunder. With simple interests even at very low rates, the amount works out to around GBP 600 Trillion. Incidentally the economy of UK was worth GBP 8.8 trillion at the end of 2015.
            The Dutch ruled Indonesia for 347 years. During that time they took spices, slaves, artefacts and anything else they fancied.
            The British Gold Coast colonies were formed in 1821 and Ghana only became an independent state in 1957. The Slave Coast is a historical name formerly used for parts of coastal West Africa along the Bight of Benin Current estimates are that about 12 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic from West Africa, although the number purchased by the traders is considerably higher.
            Countries were left with no wealth, uneducated people kept in abject poverty without any concern for native populations. Make no mistake colonisation was not a benevolent force it was brutal and parasitic.
            Saying they had 40+ years to sort it out is quite patronizing.

          • Eduard Heindl says:

            Germany lost WWII, was destroyed, plundered, many man were invalide, citys were destroyed, country divided, no natural resources, and 50 years later?
            Leading export nation.

          • Ilddi says:

            Only that Germany didn’t recover all by itself.
            «”intellectual reparations” taken by the U.S. and the UK [for Germany] amounted to close to 10 billion dollars, equivalent to around 100 billion dollars in 2006.»
            Also, have you ever heard of the Marshall Plan? [West] Germany was one of the largest recipients of The Marshall Plan money, receiving about 11%.

          • XPlaneUser says:

            Cool, you know the truth!! And, thanks for speaking it out!!

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            XPlane user: The Marshall plan threw money at Germany, but it also required the diligence and know-how of Germans to lift up their country from wartime ruins. The Americans who came up with the money knew the Germans enough that this was to be a good investment. Who would invest such a sum of money in a country, without any proven record of diligence and know-how? It is always the people who use that money rather than the money itself which is just a token of exchange. Yes, this is the truth indeed.

          • Lindum says:

            so how do you account for Nigeria – how much oil wealth has been pumped in there? Or Saudi Arabia?

          • Veni Vidi Vici says:

            Germany was left in ruins with a ruinous war debt in 1918 yet recovered in 15 years. Why can’t Zaire with trillions of $ of natural resources do the same?

          • Efrhen Gallego says:

            Corrupt politicians and extremely Lazy,rotten stupid citizens

          • @_______@ says:

            Zaire with trillions of $ worth of natural resources doesn’t have the same trade concessions at the WTO as Germany. Yes inept governance and corruption has a huge part to play but the skew of trade deals in favor of developed economies is undeniable. Moreover Europe has been experiencing negative growth rates in many of its countries. Amongst the worst 10 avg GDP performers are San Marino, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Croatia and Portugal. That’s six out of the ten worst performances, not an overly encouraging statistic.

          • taylormade1 says:

            Elaine did not have the benefit of the Marshall Plan and the Bretton Woods monetary system. They were still under colonial rule in 1945

          • Akintunde Oluwafemi Disu says:

            Please I really do not know where you are commenting from but it’s ignorant of you to compare Germany to any African country (by the way it’s not called Zaire anymore). Africa was plundered of natural, human resources for 351 years. Approximately12.5 million slaves, excluding the natural resources were plundered, these people were not forced to work in neighboring African towns they were taken away, never to be seen again, they were not maimed and returned home, to develop their land, they were lost forever. Those years were filled with the deceit and treachery of another race interested in only personal gain at whatever cost and it caused a backwardness like no other in the history of the human race. What Africa lost cannot be quantified. You cannot compare what happened for a few years in Germany to what the Caucasian race did to Africa.
            Germany started to suffer towards the tail end of the second world war, but for your own benefit let’s say they suffered for the entire duration of the war,4 years and they recovered in fifteen years. By your glorious German example of 15 years recovery after every 4 years of destruction , all things being equal (which they are not), Africa should be back on it’s feet in approximately 1316 years after the abolishment of the slave trade which according to history occurred in 1853. Doing the math that would be in the year 3169. I can assure you that we are developing faster than your glorious Germany, going by things on ground here.
            You can continue ranting and whatever else you are doing there but leave Africa out of it but if you want to include us in your argument please state the facts right.
            Shame on you.

          • ian shaw says:

            European s have not taken African slaves. This is another false propaganda by these “wise men”.

          • Caia says:

            You forgot to say the tens of millions killed by colonialism like in Congo by Belgian Leopold or the natural resources still in white international hands that are taking them out of Africa, and the corruption colonialism left behind.

          • Lindum says:

            I can see you have never set foot in any developing country let alone Africa, have you?

          • Akintunde Oluwafemi Disu says:

            I reside in Nigeria,I grew up here.
            So your point is?

          • Lindum says:

            Ok. Do you reckon the problems of your country are caused by all those evil white people? How long have you been independent? Now go to China. They were destroyed by the evil white person, and then by the stupidity of the Cultural Revolution. They don’t have vast resources of oil like Nigeria. A black white yellow or green person can walk safely down the street anywhere in China. China was much much poorer than Nigeria on independence. So what is the difference?

            I won’t banter with you. Look at the research on Chinese IQs.

          • Lindum says:

            Further to my reply – just one project the Chinese are building for you:

            And what are you building in China?

          • Akintunde Oluwafemi Disu says:

            Can I ask what your last comment has to do with anything if you actually read what I wrote you would realise it’s not related neither is it related to the article.
            You want to draw me into an argument by writing inciting comments or you want to try to lower my self esteem by making derogatory remarks, I can assure neither would work.
            If you cannot contribute to the discuss it’s ok, don’t pick on others.

          • Lindum says:

            It seems irrelevant but it was an add on comment. The original has been removed.
            I will therefore make the point more obliquely.
            Nigeria suffered and benefitted under colonial rule e.g. Education system, a useful language. But the Chinese suffered at least as much under foreign occupations by western poets and Japanese, as well as a long civil war. They were then destroyed by Mao and the madness of the Cultural Revolution.
            In 1980 China was certainly much poorer than Nigeria and most of Africa. China didn’t have the benefit billions of dollars of oil revenue.

            Yet look where they are today, in 35 years, a position Nigeria may not achieve in another 100, if ever. Why is Africa like that? Why is much of Asia not like that?

          • Akintunde Oluwafemi Disu says:

            First of all I hope you aren’t referring to English as a useful language. No language is more useful than another. Secondly societies that have kept their indigenous languages as official languages actually do better, go check that out.How many Chinese or Asians went into slavery?
            When my very great grand parents were alive there were certain days called market days (which still exist) the trader uses certain items to indicate the cost of the wares on sale. The trader most times would not be in the market all day, customers pick what want, and pay the exact amount for the item bought. The trader goes back at the end of the day to clear up. Theft was rare then, things have changed. There was trust, law and order. That’s just a very simple insight of what life was like then. (I am sure you didn’t know that). Slavery and colonization broke down the very fabric of our society, robbed us of our identity and threw us way back as far as civilization was concerned. Trust, law and order, all that disappeared with the duo of colonization and slavery. The colonizing powers did all they could to ensure their divide and rule tactics worked,, smiling to the banks while we were at each other’s necks(in Nigeria the more educated southerners were ruled by the North, something the British ensured. The root cause of the civil war and the deep distrust we still have as a nation today).Then now you turn round a few generations down the line and point absurd fingers at us wondering in unbelievable awe at why we are where we are today.
            Wow it’s really true that the victor writes history.
            The answer to your question by the way is greed and corruption the things that replaced our moral values when the Caucasians felt they’d had their fill.
            There are values the Asians still have because their very essence of living, their culture and societal structures were not taken from them.
            I am going to end this thread, there is nothing I will say that will change your view and opinion.

          • Lindum says:

            Clue: Chinese IQ is the highest in the world.

          • XPlaneUser says:

            because for 1. there were/are no gorillas and baboons in Germany and 2. the Renaissance never went south.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Sarcasm is a literary style but has nothing to do with historical facts.

          • Akintunde Oluwafemi Disu says:

            I have to apologise for my words. I used some words that I really should not have in my reply. I am sorry

          • taylormade1 says:

            Thank you. I also replied like this before even seeing your comment! This person is so ignorant of history the history of the brutality of the Europeans towards all other peoples. Even if Europeans were enslaved or dominated at one time of their history it was not the same type of slavery and colonialism that they practised towards others. They took millions of youth from their villages and cities and expected the countries to function without their most critical resource – humans resource. Then they expected them to “flourish” under slavery or after slavery when they made all the rules and had all the weapons at their disposal to blaze dissenters into oblivion. The history of the Nazi “Aryans” towards others is testimony to the brutality and extreme barbaric wickedness of these people who claim to be civilized.

          • ian shaw says:

            I agree. So throw away all vestiges of European civilization, which was based on such “ill-gotten gains”. Throw out your cellphone, TV, expensive automobiles, burn the schools, libraries and courthouses down, abandon law, economics and science, tear down paved roads, electrical substations, throw out all electric or gas-operated appliances, you also have no need for trains and airplanes (can you drive them?) destroy computers and printers,
            keyboards, tablets, tear apart books. After all, you did not have wheels and writing before the evil whites arrived. Tear down all
            large scale farms and convert them into subsistence plots.
            The message is that go back to pre-colonial life which was more noble and more satisfying. Because whether you admit it or not,
            all of this was invented by the evil whites and their evil colonizing countries, because according to you, without colonies the “incompetent and mediocre whites” could never create these things.
            This is what you can and will never answer because it really hurts your ego, that you have never created anything, only tore down things that others created out of sheer jealousy.

          • XPlaneUser says:

            you’re too smug about whiteness and its genius, aren’t you? your hubris will be your undoing …

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            XPLaneUser: Sorry, this is not hubris. The evil whites did not get all this for free. The genius was to recover from world wars,
            Nazism, Communism and still keep on creating new and practical science. Now that you want to “decolonize” science, you wish to destroy the only real subject that you have never mastered.
            The “undoing” will just be another desperate effort to get rid of
            “white science” (if something like this has ever existed) and revert back to the Stone Age. I am sure that some of smart
            Africans would rather take over and keep on building what exists instead of tearing it down, because they see how it would also better their lives. Just like the Japanese, South Koreans,
            and Chinese chose to adopt rather than demolish science,
            smart Africans will do the same regardless of the loud illiterate

          • Lindum says:

            So explain to me how China, which suffered equally as these countries you quote, is about to be the richest country in the world?

          • Lindum says:

            So how do you account for the wealth of all the European countries without colonies, Denmark Norway Sweden (please don’t tell me they got today’s wealth off the back of Greenland), Iceland and the economies of Japan Singapore and Korea? Or come to that the rise of China, moving more people out of poverty in 30 years than Africa has managed in 60 years of independence?

          • KenyaYetu says:

            You reason like someone whose head is filled with maggots. Many Africans or Asians are wsy better than the moron that you are. If only you took time at school and gained some knowledge. Bitter empty-head.

          • Efrhen Gallego says:

            for example nearly all Latinamerican countries are free of A Colonial Power Spain,England or France for over 150 years and yet all those countries are poorer than European countries . Why? Corrupt politicians and lazy,evil citizens

        • pitikuss . says:

          Oy foool!
          Read some real history book for change (holywood flicks do not count) and study economics you neo-socialist scum! Nazis are your ideology family members. btw.. 😉

          • @_______@ says:

            Haha Nazis are my ideology family members! Do you even know who I am and what ideology I represent. Don’t be a troll for the sake of trolling. I have a masters in economics thank you. And please look up neo socialism before you go and shoot your mouth off. Stop embarrassing yourself.

        • ian shaw says:

          No whites are not racially superior, only a lot more advanced in their development. The usual excuse is that “their countries are not developed, because they colonized the world”. The decisive advantage was innovation, hard work, the concept of technology, mechanization, development of mathematics and scientific research, and social development. According to some new-fangled PhDs, who got their qualifications for racist and politically correct statements like whites stole mathematics and physics, and even architecture from other nations, These are the same types who pocket enormous salaries from companies where they are “in charge of transformation”. Obviously, their audience will applaud them in
          spite of them contributing nothing to their welfare, except their words of pseudo-religious intensity.

        • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

          No, my friend. White countries were not developed because of colonization. If you’d just take your blinkers off, you’d realize, that even if they stole raw materials from Africa and elsewhere (which I am ready to acknowledge), raw materials, wealth and money do not build world-class industries, do not invent new technologies or medicine do not create great cities and artworks. ONLY PEOPLE DO. Racial superiority is a myth, even if you call me a Nazi..

        • Lindum says:

          So what is the reason that Japan is developed?
          Or Korea?

      • I do honestly Care says:

        It is a shame that the old racists have passed on such foolishness to their children instead of letting them grow up to use their own minds. The truth is that people (unless they have a mental handicap-which all races have) can learn most anything that they have an interest in and are committed to, providing that they do not have other issues that they allow to sidetrack that focus. To declare oneself superior (because “I’m white”) would be convenient as it would if any other race did that. However, every person in the world was created. We didn’t create ourselves. To be clear, I am not referring to an ideology, but to our physical bodies. I hope you hear me. I’m not responding for a debate session as much as I want our people (Americans) to stop fueling hatred for each other. Yes we’re from different races cultures and the list goes on. But there is one truth that we all share (whether we all believe it or not), and this is international; not one person of any race or ethnicity has created themselves. God created everyone. If one race is superior, then all are superior. And…if one race is inferior, then all are inferior. If that makes sense, it shouldn’t. It makes about as much sense as a white man telling another white man that he is inferior simply because he has freckles and “I don’t.” While neither of them chose their place of birth or their parents, either of them have the choice of being constructive or destructive to their fellow created citizens in this world. Spreading one’s idea of superiority over another verses seeing each other as equals is (you be the judge) destructive verses constructive. In closing, it has been my experience that you can tell those who are truly listening from those who are not. Ask yourself, “While I was reading this, was I really listening or just waiting my turn?”. No response is necessary. I only responded because I care, not for a debate. Just take it or reject it for what it’s worth to you.

        • Veni Vidi Vici says:

          Except whites most see difference between Racial Identity and Supremacy and Black Supremacy is tolerated it is about time Whites supported there own interests as we are playing by rules that no other racial group follows. Depends on how you define Superior some “Races” just seem better at creating better societies as few have any desire to immigrant to Sub Sahara Africa.

        • Lindum says:

          Chinese have higher IQs than whites.
          Is that racist?

  5. Dr Lee says:

    This article is click bait crap. Let’s see a robot read a sloppily written prescription or determine if a dose or medication is appropriate for the patient. Prescribing errors happen more often than the author if this “article” may think. Technology can not replace the critical thinking and decision making of a skilled professional that may save someone’s life. I don’t think R2D2 will call your insurance company to get a vacation override.

  6. kim stip says:

    Bah! I don’t believe any of it. There is no substitute for enthusiasm or passion, no matter what vocation. Also remember, a degree doesn’t merely dump a whole lot of knowledge on you; the important part is teaching you how to ask questions…

    • Mistergilgamesh says:

      The article only scratched the surface of a universal revolution that will make many issues obsolete. Study the “technology singularity” on Google and then come back and tell us you don’t believe any of it.

      • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

        I have my doubts for in my long life I have seen too many “universal revolutions” all of which fizzled out.

        • Lindum says:

          Yeah, like the computer revolution, the AI revolution, the telecoms revolution, the Internet revolution, plastics revolution, new materials revolution, genetics revolution.
          So which ones do you recall that havent happened yet?

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Lindum, you are right, for all of these revolutions did occur. However, I was referring to this so-called universal revolution, called “technological singularity” which is based on the fantasy of so-called futurologist who have never really defined what they mean. There is some talk about machines suddenly take over all task from humans who will thereby be obsolete and even extinct. In my professional research about the very subject of making the communication between humans and computers easier.
            Intelligence is often defined by the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. On this basis, numerically controlled tool machines, microwave ovens, telephone swictyhing networks and computers are “intelligent” in as much as they continually acq

          • Lindum says:

            I am afraid you are really out of touch with AI research – I only know about it because I have several friends who work in the field. What you are describing is traditional computing. I suggest you listen to Dr Sam Harris on the subject. But driving cars autonomously or instant face recognition from any angle, driving vehicles across a wilderness on its own, recognising a human voice among dozens of others, seamlessly understanding human speech, systems which give advice for doctors and hundreds of other applications are not working in the way you think. The machines now learn; they are not simply programmed.
            As for your romantic idea that humans are something special – unless you are religious, you are too ethnocentric.
            The idea of the technological singularity is not just science fiction, and there are even theories of what one would expect to see as it happens. I would say that we are in the process of it happening.
            Just one banal example – the machine in my hand costs a few hundred pounds, and is the equivalent of a Cray super computer in our life time which cost tens of millions in the 80s. Yet I am using it less than 50 years later, typing this for you, sat in an aircraft being flown largely by itself, while on the other side of the world over the Pacific. That is progress.

          • Falkon Nightsdale says:

            Actually, “driving cars autonomously or instant face recognition from any angle, driving vehicles across a wilderness on its own, recognising a human voice among dozens of others, seamlessly understanding human speech, systems which give advice for doctors” are all results of what you call “traditional computing” – just on highly complicated level, allowed only thanks to massive and powerfull hardware, possibly diluted by using “swarm” architecture (Tesla).

            Thing called “technological singularity” doesn’t exist. It’s only a buzzword for fans of Kurzweil, Daniken and similar authors with great fantasy, but lack of real knowledge.

            Also, fact you have mentioned – miniaturization of HW – is just thing, that allowed for more complex processes you call “traditional computing”, which (for now) ended with apps giving advice to doctors. However it’s still based on database with standartised informations which is in contrast with variability of human biology and psychology – including dealing with placebo situations.

            However, in some third world countries, I have no doubt it would provide better healthcare.

          • Lindum says:

            You assert that there’s nothing fundamentally different about modern systems which learn rather than being programmed… I suspect because you have no perspective on this… I coded 40 years ago on the largest machines IBM ever made and it’s nothing like it was. I don’t know as I’m not in the field, but friends who are on the leading edge of AI tell me that there are huge leaps in what these systems are doing compared to the computer which we are all used to.

            You state as a fact “the technological singularity doesn’t exist.” Unless you are god you cannot know. You should learn a bit of humility and know your limitations; in your opinion it does t exist, in mine, and that of others we believe it is happening. Again it may be you haven’t enough persepectivr to see it, or we may be wrong.

          • Falkon Nightsdale says:

            Well, apparently you lack a deeper understanding.

            Of course, even so called “learning” is based on scripted process. Definitely, there are big differences in capabilities of technology now and then, however it’s still about how complicated code could be created and how much “fluid” it can be without collapsing.

            After all, Google’s neural network Deepmind ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepMind ) is nice example, as it was programmed as learning machine, which is refining it abilities and knowledge based on non-stop testing and evaluating it’s actions and creating a routines for future situations.

            I AM the god – and as far as I know, the only one in wide radius, that clearly really exist… 😀 😀

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Lindum I am disappointed in you,. Everything you say proves that you “only hear from friends” but have never done any scientific research yourself. After more than twenty years in artificial intelligence, you say that “I am out of touch” , how come that you see yourself as an authority to judge me?
            If after you read my “treatise” above, you think that I “only have a romantic notion of the superiority of humans”, that shows the typical inability of reading and interpreting a set of (for you) difficult concepts. You ramble about “progress” which is another irrelevance.
            By the way, I used to fly those 747-400s that “fly largely by itself”,
            (autopilot) and can land itself automatically. But you interpret this as a sign that humans are dispensable? What do you really know about automation?
            I can no longer debate with a layman.

          • Lindum says:

            There is a YouTube video which Elon Musk Sam Harris and a dozen or so of the leading experts discuss how close AI is to achieve human level and super human level AI. All agree that we are close to human level AI – as for automation – this isn’t about automation but far beyond it.

            As for being a layman – I admit it – but you have admitted that you are too. A pilot is as far removed from the leading edge of AI as I am.


          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Lindum, I suggest that you read my previous comments that tells you exactly and at your own intellectual level the difference between programmed and autonomous or self-learning systems.
            This has nothing to do with autopilots in aircraft. In my younger years I was an established cutting edge contributor to artificial intelligence, specifically fuzzy logic, neural networks and genetic algorithms with a fair number of research publications in accredited international journals. So I do not need to compete with you, your alleged expert friends or Mr Kurzweil about this subject.

          • Lindum says:

            Explain how you had the time to fly 747s and do I assume post doctoral research in AI?
            My suspicion is that you are long out of the field. My information as I said is from alleged friends who are in the field now. They are much more optimistic than you in computer learning.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Lindum, why do you keep responding to me? Stay “optimistic” about computer learning, of which you don’t have the slightest idea. Listen to your “optimistic: friends, if they make you happy.
            There are certain basics in every field that can never be circumvented even by your “up-to-date friends, but someone like you without any high-level technical education is liable to believe in “miracles”. As I’ve said, you have the right to do that and I wish you good luck.

          • Lindum says:

            You never explained how you had the time to fly 747s and have any more idea than me about leading edge AI. When was the last time you published a peer reviewed paper? I suspect that you haven’t published anything in over a generation. Technology moves on.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Lindum, we are not talking about me or you. It is your choice to pretend the authority to delve into subjects you are not qualified to handle.
            I realized a long time ago, that there are a myriad of subjects that I am not qualified to discuss, hence I do not attempt to pass judgements over them.
            As to technology moving on, no matter what kind of university-based science or engineering curriculum one follows, the first two years are spent with the basics, like math, physics, chemistry, mechanics, Maxwell’s equations and all that is derivable from them (like electrostatics, electromagnetism, electric motors and generators, communications theory, electrical circuit theory, electricity generation, microwaves and antennas, radio waves) ,etc. However, high you go on the academic rankings, these will not change with advancing technology. In short, advanced technology is always based on the fundamentals which do not change.It might be, that some of them will adopt a more advanced inclusive view, like Newton’s laws vs Einstein’s relativity theory, classical vs fuzzy logic, or laser beams vs the classical theory of light, but the more advanced inclusive form
            does not invalidate its predecessor. Of course, you need a university education to realize this. You seem to have a general interest because you are enthused about advancing technology so would it not be appropriate to take some formal studies?

    • Lindum says:

      Certain legal decisions are already made by AI systems in the U.K. and it’s growing.

      Passion is all very well, and essential no doubt in a poet, but not in an accountant.

      • Junuwasi says:

        Which decisions so far? (Links please)

      • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

        Lindum, do not keep showing that you are just an amateur. What do you know about self-learning systems? It boggles the mind how you
        keep stumbling along with statements of utter ignorance, only referring to “friends who know”‘ You seem to have a “technological singularity” in your mind. “Where angels do not dare to tread, fools rush in.”

  7. Omar D says:

    I rarely comment on articles of this kind, but I thought some of the information here were waaaay too inconsistent and unfair to ignore. I will talk about how it was unfair to accounting since I am an accountant myself.

    1) The word “extinct” means completely wiped out and obsolete, and this article says that the signs of the total obsoleteness of accounting are “More and more companies are coming up with ways to do taxes online – from Turbo Tax to H & R Block. In-house accounting is only truly necessary for larger companies, and tax accounting for most individuals can be done online directly.” (this article has already contradicted itself by saying that accounting will be “extinct” but will still be “needed” by larger companies)

    2) These “signs of extinction” for accounting are already happening in our times, and -guess what- accountants are still needed in many places. this article makes it sound that anyone on the street who knows English can do accounting on QuickBooks, thus eliminates the need for accountants, but of course that is not true at all. by the way, the “signs of extinction” mentioned in this article are -VERY shallowly- judged by how TAX accounting can be done entirely on software these days, but it does not mention anything of the other vast areas/aspects of accounting to justify this claim.

    3) For example, the QuickBooks user has to know accounting well enough to -at least- know when and how he has done a mistake in entering the numbers on QuickBooks (QuickBooks is not going to tell him that “hey, you have entered the information from your bonds issuances incorrectly, correct it!”) so that he fixes it eventually himself. another example, in meetings where the company wants to know how -financially- things went right or wrong, it HAS to have accountants who know their work so that they can give constructive and sound suggestions/judgments on such issues/topics. etcetera…

    4) whoever wrote his article, please go and kick yourself in your rear and never venture to the world of journalism again ever (I am being polite) before making such claims, because your “logic” is so shallow that you actually have contradicted yourself in many of the claims that you made here as I have shown.

  8. Omar D says:

    I rarely comment on articles of this kind, but I thought some of the information here were waaaay too inconsistent and unfair to ignore. I will talk about how it was unfair to accounting since I am an accountant myself.

    1) The word “extinct” means completely wiped out and obsolete, and this article says that the signs of the total obsoleteness of accounting are “More and more companies are coming up with ways to do taxes online – from Turbo Tax to H & R Block. In-house accounting is only truly necessary for larger companies, and tax accounting for most individuals can be done online directly.” (this article has already contradicted itself by saying that accounting will be “extinct” but will still be “needed” by larger companies)

    2) These “signs of extinction” for accounting are already happening in our times, and -guess what- accountants are still needed in many places. this article makes it sound that anyone on the street who knows English can do accounting on QuickBooks, thus eliminates the need for accountants, but of course that is not true at all. by the way, the “signs of extinction” mentioned in this article are -VERY shallowly- judged by how TAX accounting can be done entirely on software these days, but it does not mention anything of the other vast areas/aspects of accounting to justify this claim.

    3) For example, the QuickBooks user has to know -at the VERY least basic- accounting to know when and how he has done a mistake in entering the numbers on QuickBooks (QuickBooks is not going to tell him that “hey, you have entered the information from your bonds issuances incorrectly, correct it!”) so that he fixes it eventually himself. another example, in meetings where the company wants to know how -financially- things went right or wrong, it HAS to have accountants who know their work so that they can give constructive and sound suggestions/judgments on such issues/topics. etcetera…

    4) whoever wrote his article, please go and kick yourself in your rear and never venture to the world of journalism again ever (I am being polite) before making such claims, because your “logic” is so shallow that you actually have contradicted yourself in many of the claims that you made here as I have shown.

    • King Rocker says:

      Omar, you are missing the point but it’s not your fault – the article is badly written. The new tech that’s going to make things obsolete (“extinct” may be too harsh, although it is likely the diploma itself will cease to exist if no one will offer it) is not similar to what QuickBooks offers now. The new tech will actually perform human tasks and employ basic AI. Even companies in the Big 4 are working to automate audit, which will immediately render irrelevant (combined) ~400 000 highly skilled accounting jobs. Do YOU think the rest of the accountants, the kinds slapped on the back of their head by Big4s during audits, would stand any chance then? Neah.

      • omar says:

        dear king rocker,
        thank you for explaining -what this stupid article TRIED to say- to me. but what do you think of the need or necessity to understand accounting firstly to appropriately enter the correct information in the software? can you elaborate on/clarify that for me also please?
        thank you again

        • Mistergilgamesh says:

          What the article does not mention is the “Technology Singularity”. You can only have a cogent discussion of this subject if you understand the singularity. Study that subject first, THEN come back and debate robot accounting.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Mistergilgamesh: I do understand the concept of mathematical singularity, but how do you relate this to “technological singularity?”
            If I’d take the software-copying function that robots would be doing,
            a math function which would have a singularity at one point which would render the function infinite, i.e. useless at that point, that is, it would not render any useful substitute for a human (and not the software) doing it. Is this what you’ve meant?

          • Mistergilgamesh says:

            Read up on it please. There are volumes written on this subject.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Mistergilgamesh: You are only playing the super-knowledgable authority. What is you real qualification? You did not understand what I said about a singularity and this is why you were unable to comment. My own scientific qualifications are quite sufficient and I don’t need your snide and condescending remarks which only mask your own ignorance. This catchword of “technological singularity” is a typical concoction of non-scientific minds with a definite singularity in their brains. If you cannot explain something in simple terms, then you don’t really understand it yourself, just regurgitate what you memorized.

          • Mistergilgamesh says:

            I did understand. Just please do your research first. Look up “technology” and “singularity” then read Ray Kurzwells book “”The Singularity is Near”. There is so much written on this that I feel no need to educate you.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Mister: You are just too stupid and condescending and think that YOU can educate me. I have read some stuff from Kurzweil and to me he does not represent any real knowledge (just like you). People who use the highly mathematical expression of “singularity” for pop science don’t deserve any serious attention.
            Besides, you’d have to study for at least an additional 25 years to approximate my educational level.

          • Proudly Aqua says:

            Why are you so angry? As a neutral party, I do not see what’s so upsetting in his asking you to read up.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Check out my answer to Lindum , but I shall reproduce it here for your sake.

            Lindum, you are right, for all of these revolutions did occur. However, I was referring to this so-called universal revolution, called “technological singularity” which is based on the fantasy of so-called futurologist who have never really defined what they mean. There is some talk about machines suddenly take over all tasks from humans who will thereby be obsolete and even extinct. In my professional research about the very subject of making the communication between humans and computers easier, I found the following,
            Intelligence is often defined by the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. On this basis, numerically controlled tool machines, microwave ovens, telephone switching networks and computers are “intelligent” in as much as they continually acquire knowledge (i.e. data) and apply them for various purposes, In fact, following any step-by-step algorithmic procedure can also be considered as intelligent at a certain level. However, humans do a lot more. They also use intuition, past experience, guesses and hunches, rules-of-thumb, as well as recognizing and correlating over-all patterns instantaneously rather than sequentially. Experienced human control operators can translate process uncertainty into effective control action and can also explain their actions in an albeit ill-defined, imprecise, vague, qualitative linguistic manner. Furthermore, they can cope with emergent as opposed to established conditions which is the sign of creativity, i.e. of producing novel solutions to problems not encountered before. It is clear that the subjective intelligence of human operators makes a unique contribution which is not present in the objective quantifiable mathematical modelling intelligence that caters only to the logical mind. The question should arise: how can we include this human contribution expressed in vague, imprecise, qualitative terms in a mathematical model? A mathematical formalism was needed for the integration of qualitative and quantitative information, symbolic and numeric data, computation and human reasoning. This gave an impetus to the study of so-called artificial intelligence and its many disciplines like expert systems, fuzzy logic, neural networks, genetic algorithms and their various combinations,
            Artificial intelligence is a discipline to study how humans solve problems and how machines can emulate intelligent problem-solving human behaviour. In other words, how to make machines smarter by investing them with human intelligence.
            Why did I take the trouble to discuss this subject? Because the futurologists who talk about “technological singularity” have never defined as to which human traits of intelligence, discussed in detail above, they can incorporate into their “universal revolution” of their
            high-sounding “technological singularity” which will empower machines to take over from humans. These people have never done any concrete research into specific traits of human intelligence,. hence their high-fangled buzzwords.
            Lindum, please read the above carefully. This is not Kurzwellian pop science,
            I assure you.

          • Olmy Olm says:

            I agree that Kurzweil is probably wrong but you take this way too far. What is “pseudo-scientific” and “non-scientific” and why should it be “scientific” in the first place? Why not philosophical? I don’t even
            know what people mean anymore when they call something “scientific”. Because if I look at the current state of science, I can see that in many fields, the majority opinion is gradually but surely crumbling, and the minorities are gradually but surely growing. I can see some real paradigm change taking place in several important areas, but I won’t go into them. If you read about these issues, you can even see that
            privately, behind closed doors the majorities are starting to doubt things. What I do think is problematic is that the majority isn’t even willing to debate them in a civilized manner, except for a few enlightened individuals. THEIRS is the truth and anyone else is “anti-science”.

            I know people are going to call me “post-modernist” but I don’t care. I don’t think I am a post-modernist. I don’t think my views fit that description. But they did get a lot of things right. The problem is this:
            When someone says something is a “scientific fact” they are ignoring just how likely it is that this fact may be wrong. As Albert Einstein said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
            experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein

            Yes, Einstein said that. A scientist. And Newton (who, by the way, was a deeply religious person) said: “To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. ‘Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of anything.

            Can you see the modesty here? Now compare it to certain contemporary scientists to see what I’m talking about.

            I think the reason is that these early scientists were still well aware of the philosophical foundations out of which their disciplines arose. Their philosophical training enabled them to be more self-aware. Although at the same time, if you look at contemporary academic philosophy, it’s kind of a dogmatic place with problems of its own. I would mostly say that it’s because they’ve allowed themselves to be put into a subordinate position to “science” (whatever that is: I mean even the meaning of the term has changed: It used to be any kind of study, even philosophy, only to eventually narrow down to a certain specific set of inquiries).

            People just need to chill. Some philosphy may help. Put things in perspective. We can only be “certain” of a very limited number of things. Why can’t we just accept this and welcome different ideas in a more relaxed manner? We can still speculate about things using our reason. If fact, we HAVE to. The human mind was made for it.

            So why have we found ourselves in the current situation? I’ll tell you why. Because people need to believe in something. As Thomas Nagel said, the human will to believe is inexhaustible. People need some kind of certainly, whether it’s “scientific fact” or some other type.

            I don’t know what to do about this. I don’t have a
            solution. Maybe, just maybe people could start taking a deep breath, take a step backwards and learn how easy it is to be wrong.

            I should know. I’ve been wrong about several things in the past. Learned my lesson.

            So, am I “anti-science”? No. But “science” is what scientists do. And scientists do what they do and say what they do based on the preconceptions they have. And often they are so certain of these
            preconceptions and so unwilling to take a look at opposing views. This is not just an individual issue, it’s ideological. It’s structural. So maybe I am “anti-science”. But I’m pro-science at the same time.

          • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

            Olmy Olm: Unfortunately I don’t understand what you are saying.
            I think you veered off the subject matter into areas which were not relevant. You ramble about science and. philosophy, and I don’t think that you have really read my comment. So let me reiterate it.
            In my “treatise” above I tried to delineate the components of human intelligence, which go way beyond algorithmic processes..I also showed that algorithmic processes at a certain level can be considered “intelligent” and this is the part that can easily be used by robotic machines. I also showed several attributes of human intelligence, which are non-quantifiable, vague, uncertain, qualitative and which cannot be adopted as a part of robotic intelligence. So far I have nor uttered the word “science”.
            The subject was to see if on this basis there might be a chance for robots to “take over’ from humanity. Kurzweil and others suddenly talk about “technological singularity” as some point and a part of a “universal revolution” where robotic machines would “take over” from humanity. These are nice catchwords
            and do impress, but I fail to see their relevance to the subject
            matter. I am not against futurology and I always enjoyed its various forms. I still remember the saying that every invention could have been considered pure magic before it was discovered. What I dislike is the “pop” aspect where buzzwords are created but instead of an explanation, statements are made that have no relationship to known facts. Such facts are those I described above about human intelligence as a part of research in artificial intelligence as applicable in industrial control systems which were actually built and function. This is partly philosophical, partly scientific exemplified by such real physical systems. It is not some “orthodox” theorizing, based on “preconceptions” where one can surmise the existence of a “different opinion” of a “majority opinion”.
            As to science that according to you is based on “preconceptions” you are obviously ignorant as to what scientists do. Scientists do not “do science”, they simply think in terms of certain rules, which are not “preconceptions”.
            If you remember your high school geometry, like Euclid’s postulates, which are called “axioms” (not “preconceptions”) considered self-explanatory and accepted by everyone. Euclidan geometry is based upon such axioms, and the rules used are consistent with these axiom. Bolyai and Lobachevsky showed two thousand years later that if we change some of them, an entirely different kind of geometry results.
            The so-called scientific method has similar axioms that result in
            the “rules” used by scientists. This is the philosophical background of science. The only futurologist who bothered to create axioms related to robotics was Asimov, with his three
            rules for robots. Kurzweil and others did not do that,they came up with the wholly unsupportable concept of “technological singularity”. By the way, a “scientific fact” is not a “belief system”, it has to be proven by experiment. Except that in quantum physics, the basic axioms of the scientific method no longer work. But this is another chapter.

          • Paul Butau says:

            I think the writer above is correct. Accountants are in trouble. Finance degrees then come in as suggested. Accounting systems are collet in data from foolproof systems as possible, fixed asset systems, any input data points to produce filings and reports that do not change in principles. As technology changes users to be knowledgeable all components which were half backed to come to the accountant to unravel are coming sorted out in critical type, data sets and then into compilation. There would be nothing anymore the accountant does. Intelligence reporting in dashboards and templates then give the nessary trends and guide lines of KPIs and how business should take a direction. To put it truthful if your job has numbers and clever way of interpretations based on principles it’s gone. We automated the principles and the intelligent to do the accounting.

          • Draco says:

            We are nowhere near the point of a “technology singularity”. You cannot emulate something you barely understand and intelligence IS one of those things that we barely understand.

            If anyone here needs to do their research, it is you, and I don’t mean reading fantasies written by computer scientist who have little to no understanding of the complexities of intelligence.

            We are very, very far from creating an intelligent system.

            When you have you degree in not only computer science, but also in neurobiology, cognitive science AND behavioral science, perhaps then you might be in a position to educate someone. But right now, your knowledge on the subject is akin to someone trying to understand the real world by reading Harry Potter novels.

          • Ryan Spielberg says:

            The singularity featured in The Flash?

        • King Rocker says:

          Dear Omar,
          I cannot technically explain how it could be done. The problem is not even cracked yet, so how could I? Thing is, besides the usual copy/paste software robots that follow standard processes, there is a new generation rising that uses AI and machine learning to do more complex tasks. The way it does this, basically, is by learning from a large dataset. Check out how Google’s GO robot works for somewhat of a reference (although that is a board game). Companies are starting to try this, e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/05/japanese-company-replaces-workers-artificial-intelligence/

          • Balu Muthu says:

            The accountants o(and possibly other professiinals affected) of the future could feel obliged to upgrade their skills which are not amenable to AI — for example, managerial accounting demands skills of judgment and alternative propisals for decision making to be placed before top management.

      • Mudassar Muhammad Khan says:

        I really wonder how all of us have made this poor written article a success by commenting so much that the goal of this article is achieved I guess. 🙂

        • Naija_Soul says:

          As a communication and language scholar, I want to say that any writing that generates controversy is a good one. Any work every Tom, Dick and Harry agrees with may not necessarily be an interesting one

      • tvstreamjm says:

        Anybody who wrote this article knows nothing about accounting. I remember when they came with daceasy they said you don’t need an accountant let daceasy do it for you. That’s when accountants got the most work because people who are entering the data don’t have a clue about accounting. With these dumb people the tax man laugh. QuickBooks have a lot of short comings it takes a good accountant to produce a proper set of accounts for the tax department and the banks.

        • soy says:

          Anybody who wrote this article knows everything about getting page clicks and comments. It wasn’t written to won pulitzer. It was written to get u all commenting here.

          it’s a clickbait article, and it works.

          • Brandon A Shand says:

            right I can’t believe how long this comment thread is. Baited- bate bite
            I liked the comment about AI being implemeted to do human tasks though that wont happen for a long time we likely Won’t need accountants till the end of time, aside from some to help develop the AI and that’s a complete assumtion they still may not be neccesary then.

          • Hikmah says:

            Ha ha, very true

        • Bernardo Martins says:

          Good professionals yake advantage of new tools and create new functions. Bad ones are substituted by these tools. Obviously, there are some atthe end of career that might prefer retiring earlier.

        • Oluwa tosin Sunmola says:

          The most annoying part is when he mentioned law. How will technology drive the meeting in court away??? Is he trying to tell me that computer understand feeling and how to tamper justice with Mercy??? What about the witness….. Is it computer that will interrogate him or her?????

    • Gukash Kukash says:

      You’re intelligent my friend,well written

    • Al Marenco Saenz says:

      Why are you fighting click-bate, written by a professional troll on some fake news site? Don’t feed the trolls. Journalist? You are giving this (likely) foreign teenager way too much credit. Calling an uneducated moron a bad journalist is flattery, not insulting. So, for future reference, any site that has a 5 paragraph article divided in 6 pages is garbage clickbait. If it’s riddled with adware, specially for horrible pop-up/spyware intrusive things like Mac-Keeper and suggests you read non-sense about celebrities at the end of the article, then it’s a 100% piece of crap fake news clickbait site of the worst kind, and trying to intelligently debate it’s worth in the comment section, even if to criticize, only legitimizes it… so please… again, avoid feeding the clickbait trolls. Instead, help people realize what this is, something so laughably stupid and empty, it’s not worth spilling 2 consonants over.

      • Matias Shapopi says:

        But how did you come to the point of seeing this ? Irony in your comment

        • Al Marenco Saenz says:

          If you read my coment trying to understand it instead of looking for an ‘in’ to critizise, you’ll see I’m not debating the worth of the comment, just trying to convince people to stop doing so, and asking others to spread the word. This kind of non-sense needs to dissappear if real journalism is to stand a fighting chance. But whatever, hey, instead of taking in my valid points, go ahead and police the irony why dont you?

          • Omar D says:

            @ Al Marenco Saenz,
            Thank you for your advice, you are right. I will heed your comments.
            Regards, Omar

          • SurfinUSA says:

            It grinds my gears to see this type of clickbait. I understand Omar’s desire to “correct the record.” The reason that this type of misinformation needs to be countered with the real world is that there are too many inexperienced and gullible people that believe it as the gospel, because, after all, it’s on the internet so it must be true.

            Anyone who has balanced a set of books understands that accounting is not a single entry format where you just enter the information and the computer does its programming magic. That is an naive and absurd notion.

            By “fighting back” knowledgeable people attempt to battle the Propaganda War that is driven by attitudes of restriction, hopelessness and futility. The next generation will need skilled people who can manage what will be even more complex transactions and problems. This type of clickbait b.s. discourages initiative and drive to meet the challenges of a disciplined scholarship.

            Presenting a “real” financial picture on an income statement, balance sheet and supporting schedules is an art as well as a science. Robots will never foster the ability to make accounting decisions that fall outside the program “box.” Many geniuses that make the type of conclusions found in this clickbait are responsible for the FUBAR situation we face today. They must be exposed and squashed if businesses are to remain on course.

        • Margaret Mbogoh says:

          Lol.. wasn’t reading, just heard. Anyway we are gonna need accountants in any form till the end of times.

      • DrVikTroll says:

        -bate +bait

      • Mercedes Schrödinger says:

        It’s funny that your reply to a comment is longer than the actual article…

    • Ælfrēd The Great says:

      In order to do accounting for taxation purposes one needs to know about tax regulation as I found out when doing my own tax return. Tax regulations keep changing, no machine would do it without having to be reprogrammed & this would require accountancy skills.

    • Lita Michelle says:

      Yep. I did my taxes using turbo tax but I benefitted far greater using a tax accountant. I answered some questions incorrectly – like it asked if I had any depreciating property. I said no but apparently my rental home was depreciating property. Less headaches and leave less money on the table using a tax accountant.

    • Tristan Lau says:

      If this poorly written article is what you are taught to write in your journalism studies, I’m pretty sure journalism degrees will be extinct.

    • SPQR_US "The Deplorable" says:

      WTF were the degrees even? The article is incomplete I can’t find more than the click bait intro. I can infer that one of them is accounting based upon the comments…what are the other 4, wet niece, buggy whip maker, cod piece polisher, phrenologist…Jeb! Bush…?

    • Okwuagbala Humphrey says:

      Do you really need to worry or reply? I’m a Pharmacist: Haven’t you heard that Computer will replace dispensing role of Pharmacists?

    • Dovenpeis says:

      Revenge of the accountants!

    • Peter Lim says:

      Well said, sad to observes Yahoo’s publishing daily garbage’s articles from such poor journalism.

    • Sandra Lee says:

      This article is really really useful to read. Especially my husband haha. Anyway thank you very much for sharing:
      foods that are surprisingly good for you

    • Jose Ramon Cabello says:

      Well the title of this article is suppose to make you click on the link to sell advertisement not to inform

  9. My two cents says:

    Finance as a degree are the run of the mill diplomas that were being phased out in countries like the Philippines and guess what Accountancy are being laderized that it evolved now into hybrid courses like Accounting Technology. The writer seems to be uninformed and a bigot.

  10. Amit Bhattacharjie says:

    Anything is possible in the future.

  11. DS2 says:

    Ok but you forget that even if a user might not fully know when He made an error, technology improves faster than anything on the market and becomes more sophisticated and easier for the user to understand where the error is and correct it.

  12. Alberto Lopes says:

    The author of this article is just making a fool of themselves. It shows shallow and uninformed knowledge about the extension and depth of concepts and procedures related to those fields.

    A profession does not become obsolete because an instrumental technology improves. Accounting evolved from mechanicals to computers some 50 years ago. The accountant is not essentially the person who inputs data into the software, but the person who models the information structures and the ledger related processes to make it possible to obtain the reports and demontrations required not only by tax authorities, but for many more stakeholders. “Accounting” is not a synonym to “tax reporting”.

    The same mistake was made for the other career. A pharmacist is not just a “prescription filler”, an tourism professional is not a booking agent.

    Please, in the future, do a little more research, and consult people from the field before publishing such a huge pile of cr*p.

    • austino77 says:

      Just pile of rubbish really.

    • ian shaw says:

      But it sounds genuine to other politically correct fools.

    • Mistergilgamesh says:

      The article only scratched the surface of a universal revolution that will make many issues obsolete. Study the “technology singularity” on Google and then come back and tell us you don’t believe any of it. As humans, where you look determines what you see. Look further.

    • Samuel says:

      Brilliant comment. Now I will speculate on what could happen in the midd future: with the new tech those fields may actually become even more specialized, and that could affect the profession in positive ways. Even if automated tools can replace or reduce the need of human labour in some aspects of a profession’s practice, people with in-depth knowwledge of a particular field of knowledge will still be needed to help create new systems for that field of knowledge.

      I wouldn’t dare venture when and if the ai field will be advanced enough to completely take over any of these professions.

  13. Atahualpa says:

    Stupid article

  14. Raveesh Agarwal (rishu) says:

    Please reduce the amount of adverts you place here, this is not intuitive and makes for a pathetic experience.

  15. Sebastián Corral says:

    Such a disrespectful and ignorant article.

  16. Albert Lumbantoruan says:

    “Law itself can be replaced by technology”
    But how?

  17. Herojig says:

    They forgot JOURNALISM DEGREES, as any BOT could produce what you see on this website TODAY. The need for commentors will also go away, as these can be automatically generated by TROLL BOTs.

  18. Jude C Mgbeze says:

    “Law itself can be replaced by technology…”. How? Without throwing light into how this can come about means it’s just a statement that can be made by just anyone; it is weightless and not meaningful.

  19. Joao says:

    Honestly, based on what arguments you can state such serious matters as which Degrees will be extinct in 10/20 years? I don’t read anything here, but a paragraph with a few lines of supposing ideologies. How do you expect people to follow or believe on cheap and short paragraphs as these? Do you really think Accounting degrees will be extinct in 20 years? Do you really think all hotel staff will be not needed anymore? You will have new hotel concepts will less Front Desk Staff, but you will need people there. The way you put things AI and robotics will replace every thing that human beings do, including IT and Engineering degrees itself because we won’t need to memorise anything else, computers will do it for us. Also, do you really think that the answer for all human questions is on a machine? I tell you what will disapear in less than a yearar, it’s your “womensarticle.com” because what you wrote here is unfundamentad. Investigate, analyse, and think before you write something.

    • disqus_8JVZTtNOj3 says:

      I am just wondering, how did we get from pharmacy degrees allegedly becoming obsolete to some peoples’ favourite idea of racism? Just about any subject eventually degenerates into racism, sexism, racial superiority. Some people just love to convert any discussions into these subjects, as if this were the only really important one.

  20. Terry Jones says:

    What a bullshit article. No computer can give legal advice for indeterminate human issues. Pharmacy Dispensing robots have been around for years but are not widely adopted. and the author doesn’t know shit about pharmacy.. compounding is RARELY used…it’s a dying art.

  21. Juancho Ignacio says:

    Yes, ordinary bookkeeping can be done thru QB or other off-the-shelf accounting software.

    For most businesses, especially publicly-held corporations , financial filings required by the government also requires the signature of a licensed certified accountant.

    Audit reports need the signature of a licensed certified accountant.

    Would a degree program in Accountancy become obsolete? I don’t think so.

    The author doesn’t know what he or she is talking about.

    We just wasted time reading this foolish article.

  22. marsmars says:

    In future technology may do most but not all accounting tasks. A few human accountants will still be necessary.

  23. Nana Kim says:

    None of the jobs mentioned will become “extinct” in any of our lifetimes, unless the human race becomes extinct or we nuke ourselves back to the stone age.

    The professions will incorporate the new technologies as they come on line, workers will become more efficient, each one able to do more work, and there may be a reduction in total employment in one or more of these fields – but each will continue.

    As long as AI is only AI, machines will not actually be intelligent and humans will still be essential in the process.

    When machines actually become self-aware and able to think, grow, learn and reproduce, then the kinds of changes needlessly worried over here will become manifest.

  24. Yuri Kiarie Ndekei says:

    the only career to become obsolete is blogging, since google will come up with a auto correct version of writing articles, thus coming up with dumb articles like this twart

  25. Bert says:

    A few words of advice to young people reading this article: ignore it, it is one of the dumbest, most poorly written articles I’ve seen in a long time. Give the quality of the article, the author should have include ‘internet journalist’ in the doomed group. Thinking accounting as a profession will vanish because software crunches numbers is like saying engineering will vanish as a degree because we have cad-cam software.

  26. tora says:

    According to this article, hospitality management is going to ‘cease to exist’ somewhat 20yrs later as it would be ‘replaced by technology’. Do you even know what the term ‘hospitality’ means? It means to welcome and serve and play the host such that, the guests feel comfortable which is extremely necessary in hotels, airlines, cruises etc. Such tasks can only be performed by humans. Not emotionless robots!

  27. Junuwasi says:

    Relax people. This article was written by AI. That’s why it doesn’t reflect RI (Real Intelligence).

  28. Ioana Bacea says:

    This article is stupid…Pharmacists dont just sell drugs …

  29. Francis Karani says:

    I hate such articles that don’t go straight to the point. An not interested in reading next pages. Nkt

  30. antalyatransfer says:

    Requiring college degrees erroneously allowed companies to discontinue in-house training programs so they buy rather than build employees. Who typically cannot afford college degrees? Single mothers who had babies instead of completing an education and low-income people who are overwhelmingly black, brown and tan. In fact, in the past 30 years the numbers of women and people of color with college degrees have climbed, BUT , no where near the amount of white males with college degrees in the US.

  31. Stephen says:

    The author didn’t tell us how machines can invent drugs to battle disease in the future. Pharmacy is not only about dispensing/ prescribing drugs.
    You need to check your sources well. Technology will assist but can’t replace human judgment in anything.

  32. Richard Diamond says:

    This entire article makes some good points however, it is a little overboard, some professions will always be there such as CPA’s and Pharmacists. I do some part time paralegal work, and no they cannot be replaced by a computer, although computers make the job easier. So all in all, entertaining but; not very realistic.

  33. CYNTHIA says:

    Being a pharmacist doesn’t necessarily mean one would only dispense drugs. There are different aspects such as drug design, technology, pharmaceutical chemistry,research, drug surveillance… the list is long. So the writer is quite narrow minded and should have explained further. Being a doctor is not an *elevation* neither is being a pharmacist a *demotion* . pls be careful what you put out there for people to read.

    I will avoid this page moving forward and advice everyone I know to do same.Thanks.

  34. Ositadinma Egeonu says:

    There’re so many contrary comments about this article, but I can’t determine if it’s because the writer or the write-up is biased ——- probably lacks sufficient evidence – info; or partly because the responses are from persons holding degrees and diplomas in the said likely extinct human jobs…..Whichever way. Industrial Revolution might be an example, doesn’t mean factories are ‘Labor’ vacant. However, humans have been known to adapt and revolutionize. So, if the future holds that these machines will oversee these jobs, people will adjust. What be the fate, human labor is inevitable.

  35. Rajendra Ishi says:


  36. Fil-lemon says:

    And the rubbish written in this article doesn’t apply to all countries. Some of this job demand will definitely decrease or “extinct ” but in some areas they will still be on high demands even after 2000 years

  37. Sr. Saltland says:

    ¡ Hagan una version en español para el publico latino !

  38. Max Sommers says:

    With regards to the “hospitality” degree, all I can say is that as a very frequent business traveller I would NEVER choose to stay in a hotel without human management and staff and I can’t imagine anyone else choosing to do so either. And in the rare event of me calling a company and getting an actual human receptionist rather than a recording telling me “for this option, press one, for that option, press 2……… etc.” when none of the options on offer have anything to do with my reason for calling, I would give that company my custom at once! What is the reason for this dreadful trend to replace people with machines at the customer /service interface? Do we actually NEED fewer jobs FFS?

  39. Adebayor Cole michael says:

    HERE ARE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOU. It doesn’t Matter How Many Times You have been Denied at any Embassy. Here’s another great opportunity for you.
    Our offer Packages are as follows:
    1: USA 2yrs VISA (Single Adults= N550,000, while Married couples with family N75000,000)
    2: UK 6Months Visa (Single Adults= N400,000,
    while Married couples with family N700, 000)
    3:Getting a 5years Canada working visa, 6 Months Visa (Single Adults= N500,000, while Married couples with Family N650,000)
    5: We also offer study packages to study in UK,CANADA AND NETHERLAND either B.SC , MASTERS, or CERTIFICATE short courses of your choice. (Tuition fees are very low!!! And you can be working while studying).
    Please note that in all the ABOVE packages…
    THE ABOVE PAYMENT is to be paid after confirmation of your visa.
    Please only seriously minded persons should contact us with below contacts info. HURRY NOW!!!!
    Name: Adebayo Michael
    Tel: +2349068909970209920475

  40. Frank says:

    Got news for you: after WW3, EVERYTHING will be extinct.

  41. ThePragmatist says:

    “Law can be replaced by technology”? Bull. Law, politics, and creative arts are three things that require human judgement and cannot be replaced by technology. They may use increasing amounts of technology to serve their purpose, but never to the point of replacement.

  42. Draco says:

    Interesting bit of fantasy..but that’s all it really is.

  43. PaulusKeg says:

    Sorry but this kind of rubbish was said in the 1960’s they thought noone. Would be working by now as computers would do the work. It just wont happen although we really could get rid of most jobs.

  44. Paul Rice says:

    Automation wil take over many jobs , but there will be even more jobs for those programming , debugging and repairing the automats , they do not design and repair themselves , and the hardware technology is always changing .
    People will just have to be more adaptable , and probably education less specialised . The biggest problem will be in legislation and governments keeping up with the times and management being much more flexible and knowledgeable .

  45. Kram Nworb says:

    This is what an article should do. Stimulate discussion. Articles may be poorly written so theres a difference between critiquing the mechanics and the point being made.

    Technology takes some time to trend worlwide. Even the public internet took more than a decade after initial introduction to cement its place. Robots and automated systems will also take a while to become commonplace but I sense the emotional response in some comments.

    Depending on our location(first world country/third world) some persons may not feel the effects of these changes anytime soon but it is good to be aware of these developments and how they could impact our lives.

    It is even more important for college applicants to be informed so as not to invest in dying industries eg. Someone I know who got a degree in HR/jobless 6 years now(lives with Mom). Today, HR is heavily outsourced by companies.

    Robots will definitely have an effect on jobs especially labor intensive tasks but it will still be a while before any wholesale impact. However, the beginning is close.


    Ooh my good

  47. Lion Heart says:

    Why are you guys arguing? This “article” and “website’s” sole purpose is to get you to keep clicking to the next page so they and get ad loads ($) for Google adsense and the like. LOL, i’m surprised Google this allows this exploit to continue.

  48. Jobing Ordonez says:

    For your information, pharmaceutical companies are required by law dispensing pharmacists and regulatory pharmacists, and pharmacists that specialize in industry. And hey there are a new kind of pharmacists today callee clinical pharmacist that specializes on specific theraputicsof medicine. And hey there are also pharmaceutical scientist that are pharmacists. And by the way automation is also required to be suprvised by a pharmacist

  49. FrancisChalk says:

    College degrees that should be extinct right now: anything with the word “studies” in the name–Women’s, Black, Race, Gender, etc.

  50. Mate397 says:

    I can mention some that would go “extinct” as well, any and all Social Justice related “degree”.