Long-Haul Revolution of 2025 (Part II)
A story about the effect of autonomous trucking on unemployment and economic structure
This is Part II of “The Long-Haul Revolution”, read Part I here.
III. The Case
“The RS-23 assembly line drone is my father. It birthed who I am today, the automation-obsessed machinist. The first time I saw the RS-23, it bolted together the chassis of a Chevy Silverado, the vehicle I worked on, with more efficiency and dexterity than any human. And at that moment I knew my place in the world, and knew myself.”
“Mrs. Jones, how far would you go with automation in the workforce? Would you replace lawyers, doctors, even CEOs?” the lawyer for ATA, Leona Veltman, requested.
“I believe in a future where the entire economy is automated. Machines will till our fields, operate our factories, and distribute the fruits of their labor across the globe. Manual labor is just the beginning. Next intelligent machines will climb the corporate ladder to replace management, strategists, and human leadership. Machines are outperforming humans in positions once believed to be reliant on human ingenuity and problem solving. Cars are driven without faulty human reactions, medical diagnosis done without bias, and legal disputes settled without distortion. Do not assume that the trend of human displacement by machine will ever stop.”
“What you’re saying is that our fine Judge Ley will be replaced by a machine?”
“Yes. Absolutely. We’ll design machines to hold all legal precedent, gather evidence, and issue a ruling. Since it all starts with human-driven legal precedent, the rulings will follow human intuition. Intelligent machines, today, can predict the outcome of a court case with 70% accuracy. And who knows, maybe the 30% is from error-prone, biased human judges.”
“How can a machine go out and gather evidence? Wouldn’t that require human support?”
“Sure, maybe at first. But you’ve seen the trend towards the ever-watchful eye of the state. Most of our actions are already recorded. As for evidence that might not be captured on tape, we’ll have drones go to the crime scene and collect the relevant information — photographs, genetic samples, environmental materials.”
“Alright, I think those examples might be a bit far-fetched but sure. Who do we trust with designing the software which powers these machines?”
“Today humans are designing the software. Engineers are writing the algorithms. But in time the software itself will write the algorithms, just as machines create more powerful machines today. We see this already with manufacturing assembly lines — assembly line drones build cars, appliances, computer chips — simple machines can produce complex machines. The same will be true with software. This is the premise behind machine learning, software that can learn and improve itself. Eventually the software will improve itself at such a rate that the intelligence will be unfathomable. It will coordinate the hardware necessary to feed its advancement. Think of it like pouring water into a cup — when the cup runs out of volume, you get a jug. Just pour the contents of the cup into the jug and keep pouring water into the larger vessel. The same machine mind can continue to develop regardless of its physical form.”
“Thanks Mrs. Jones, I think you’ve established how you feel about the future. I’d like the jury to keep this in mind as we explore how to treat unemployed workers as automation saturates the market economy, as Mrs. Jones predicts. I’d like to call next Dr. Andrew Heath, economics professor at University of Chicago.”
As Professor Heath walked to the stand, Veltman introduced the expert. “Professor Heath was a candidate for the Nobel Prize in 2020 for his work on income inequality and its effects on individuals’ marketplace access. I’d like to start off the testimony with a direct question — do you think the current government can support the displaced freight workers?”
“No. Based on the last year, it’s fairly clear that the government doesn’t have the funds to support four million more unemployed workers. The structural changes in the economy increased the number of unemployed by 50% — the government isn’t designed to deal with such radical changes in the market. They can handle slight growth or decline, not outright shifts in such a short period of time. The decision to reduce unemployment benefits by half clearly shows the government’s inability to support these freight workers.”
“But surely the government can find $40 billion to support these individuals? The United States spent $800 billion on military expenditures in 2020.”
“Yes, the United States could find the budget, but politically it is impossible given the controversy around social support. It will take months, even years to get the funds allocated. Even if the money exists, it won’t get to the displaced in time.”
“So what you’re saying is that the government cannot provide for these workers?”
“In its present form, correct, the government cannot provide.”
“Do you think it’s the government’s responsibility to support the displaced?”
“Well let’s take a step back. It’s clear that the economy can’t simply envelop these unemployed back into the workforce within a year. We don’t know how long it will take. In the meantime I don’t think it’s moral to let fellow Americans, who were active contributors to our economic growth, starve. And that’s the situation that we’re in right now. These families are starving. As economists and law-makers it’s too easy to abstract the human element from these problems. We say that ‘the jobs will come back eventually, unemployment is a natural outcome of market progress,’ but we never put human faces to the macroeconomic issue. Let me be clear in this case — millions of Americans are starving. We can’t let them continue without a safety net.”
“You mentioned that structural unemployment is a natural quality of the free market. Why is this time different?”
“We’ve never seen structural unemployment at this scale and time frame. Four million unemployed in less than a year is uncharted territory. Furthermore it’s largely a demographic without advanced degrees, which limits the potential for new job opportunities.”
“However the economy is growing, meaning new jobs will come along. Industries in advanced technology, biology, and chemistry are booming.”
“The assumption that a growing economy creates new jobs is no longer valid. We’re seeing growth through automation in these fields, which doesn’t create new jobs, just more wealth in the hands of less people.”
“But won’t supporting four million Americans send the wrong message, showing our kids that you can not work and still live the American life?”
“I’d take that result over letting Americans starve any day.”
“But what reason do the beneficiaries of free support have for going back to work? Their lifestyle is comfortable and provided without any effort.”
“The fundamental nature of work is different now with automation. Consider the necessities of every day life — food, water, shelter, clothing. Until a few years ago, manual labor was required to provide these goods. Humans worked in the fields, in factories, and in transportation. With this case, we see how transportation has been automated. Maybe farming and manufacturing are next. The result is that the price of essentials will reduce to practically zero and these will be comforts for all. Predicting a utopia is insanity, says history. This time is different because the requirements for a comfortable life will be removed from human hands. Scarcity will not exist. Resources can be harvested, manufactured, and distributed at global scale without daily human interference. We have enough food to nourish the Earth. There are cures for most major diseases. Building shelter is only a logistical problem — we have the designs and resources. We have the ability to purify water. The essentials for comfort are not difficult to gift to all. What once was previously human work is now provided without any effort through automation. The result is that the very nature of work is fundamentally different. The focus of human labor will be the arts, literature, and advanced science.”
“What you’re describing is effectively communism.”
“No because the state has no role in providing these goods — it’s an automated, distributed network existing in perpetuity.”
“Back to the point at hand — who can provide for the unemployed if the government cannot? Money doesn’t simply appear.”
“We have to look at who controls the wealth in the situation, and thus who is able to provide. The government doesn’t have the funds. Private enterprises do by amassing wealth through automation. With its self-driving trucks, Esro dominated the $600 billion trucking industry. Historically the profit margins were 5%, but by removing human salary, roughly $160 billion a year, and human error through automation Esro hit margins of 50% — bringing in $300 billion in profit a year. Following the wealth leads to private enterprise supporting the unemployed. And if you think about it, it already was through corporate taxation. Now we’re just removing the middle man of government when it comes to social security.”
“Can you repeat that a bit more simply?”
“Sure. Private enterprise must support the unemployed. If private enterprise does not provide support, the government does not have the immediate funding to step in. If private enterprise does not provide support, the unemployed will starve.”
“So what do you propose Professor Heath?”
“Well these four million unemployed Americans had an average salary of $40,000 a year, totaling $160 billion a year. Previously unemployment benefits lasted for 26 weeks, but that’s in a different economic situation. The cycles of unemployment are much longer now, potentially up to several years. Given that Esro is making $300 billion in profit per year from freight alone, I believe that Esro should pay one year of salary to the unemployed workers. For subsequent years, half of the salaries must be paid in perpetuity — think of it like an upfront pension fund. For the American workers that they displace, private enterprises are responsible for paying their pension. For Esro the impact of $80 billion in pension payments will be small. It will still make $220 billion in profit a year. If that amount is simply saved, in four years Esro will amass a $880 billion pension fund capable of paying out $80 billion in interest each year.”
“But isn’t this a planned economy?”
“No, it’s an automated economy. Capitalism has been without a true competitor in the modern world. When the Soviet Union imploded and the Berlin Wall fell, we lost the dialogue on capitalism and its disadvantages. The trucking debate has brought back a key question in organizing a society around capitalism — what do we do as a civilization to care for individuals who cannot participate in the marketplace? The infirmed, the elderly, and now the displaced? Pundits love to quote Adam Smith and pray to his Invisible Hand — if actors in the marketplace act in their own best interest, society as a whole will benefit. But what happens when a sizable percentage of the workforce simply cannot act in his or her own best interest? The Invisible Hand assumes equal access to the marketplace, but that’s not true in many cases.”
“Thank you for your opinion Professor Heath. As you can see, the nature of our economy is trending towards automation. This will continue to push more and more Americans into unemployment. Occupations that we once believed dependent on human ingenuity will be performed with greater accuracy and efficiency by machines. What do we do with these displaced workers? The government can’t support them. The resources remain in the hands of private enterprise, the only option for support. If the jury does not rule in favor of the ATA and demand that Esro pay $160 billion in damages in the first year and $80 billion in subsequent years, you will be sentencing four million of your fellow Americans to death.”
With that closing statement, the jury was backed into a life-or-death decision. Of course, it was easier for them to commiserate with four million unemployed Americans than a faceless corporation. Esro was forced to pay out the settlement, and with that society entered into the next evolution of social structure.
In the years after the Esro ruling several more industries faced similar upheaval. Three million unemployed fast-food workers won their settlement, four million retail workers, one million nurses, and three million more workers across the restaurant, retail, and maintenance industries. Of the 11 million recently unemployed, only three million found replacement work. By 2030 there were 20 million unemployed Americans and no expectations for future job growth. Private enterprises supported the displaced, who could live without fear of hunger and poverty. Many spent time on advanced education, artistic endeavors, and creative exploration. Others just lived off the privatized support and maintained a comfortable quality of life.
Author’s Note
I wrote this story to understand how automation could change social and economic structures. The hypothetical scenario of self-driving trucks is powerful because of the scale and immediacy of the impact. Automation could move our social and economic structures beyond capitalism, socialism, and communism.
Automatism would be the next evolution of social structure, creating a perpetual system that amasses vast quantities of wealth for the automaters at the top and redistributes support to the displaced at the bottom.
Designer’s Note
My role was to support the author’s story by designing the artifacts and world of Esro. Beginning with the design of the main feature of the story — the Esro autonomous truck. The truck needed to reflect the fears of those it would replace while on the surface fit the criteria that any autonomous truck would necessarily have: Practicality and functionality create a believable story about the impact of this innovation on our economic structure.
This dual-purpose intent translated an aerodynamic, long sloping hull into a domineering and imposing façade. Like a mysteriously powerful mask used to inspire awe or fear, this entity embodies some deeper fear. With no necessity for an occupied cabin, the traditional windshield was displaced by an “eyeless” surface.
As a kid, the worst nightmares I had involved monsters with no identifiable face, no eyes, no weakness or way to render them blind — they did not need eyes. In this way, the truck does not need traditional vision when it has arrays of sensors that no-one can identify. In lieu of the complication of a modern engine a refined electric engine sits behind a translucent engine bay cage — wheels pulled in, like an oddity fit into a preserving jar. Making it clear that not only does no human operate this machine, but that no human is welcome.
Though the main goal was to reflect the fear of the displaced workers — in all of these features can be found something impressive and respectable in the logic of Esro’s founder. Good nor evil, the truck is a product of innovation — and despite the policies or economic models that form around it, it is also a symbol of progress.
In addition to considering the details of the vehicle design I explored the identity of Esro. The brand should primarily reinforce the idea that the Esro vehicle is cold and powerful — logic without emotion — while alluding to its autonomous nature, a nod to it’s Artificial Intelligence nature. The missing elements you see in the typography represent the displaced truckers that are no longer needed.
I also explored a more direct relationship of the logo to the origin of our author’s fictional company — which is “horse,” without the “h,” backwards. Appreciating Kevin’s choice to associate the company with an animal essential to shipments throughout history I explored abstracting the architecture of a horse’s skull into a company emblem. The resulting shapes, though interesting, were absorbed into the truck design and the Esro brand remained a wordmark.
With Esro’s autonomous truck and branding clarified, it was time to put our designs into context. Our process included discussing key story points that ensured the moments our author cared about most were represented visually. We created low-fidelity sketch studies of potential shots. Some of which didn’t make the cut!
A part of me truly believes that automation can free humans to focus on the incredible potential we have for creativity and higher reasoning. However, I can’t help but sense that if we aren’t careful with an autonomous economy, each of us could ironically become less autonomous. We risk relying on company payouts and idly letting corporatism flourish and compound its power over democracy. We also risk skewing incentives, potentially hindering the development of technologies that would disrupt the status quo. In any scenario, I believe we must start talking about these issues now and my hope is that these designs help stoke the fire of discussion.
