Krrish, the movie with an extra r. And this extra r, rooted from the numerology factor(or whatever factor), must have been one of the reasons for the movie's success.Released as a sequel to the movie Koi Mil Gaya, which itself was a big mix of all the E.T. related movies, this one has gone to the next level. The protagonist is a gifted dude having all the powers of Batman, Superman, Spiderman and our very own Shaktimaan too ;), not to forget the Indian dance factor, he excels at this too. But the picturesque landscapes and the action sequences are no less than the best. The movie gets a big thumbs-up for these. And Hrithik is, without any doubt, the unanimous pick for the role.
I am no big movie reviewer and I am not suggesting you guys to go and watch this one. The point is something else. This movie was the first movie to be screened directly from a satellite, getting away with the reels and boxes, which have shown us movies since ages. Well the satellite thing may not be new to many of you, but it was, for me.And the place where I saw the movie was no big technology hub of South India. It was just an average town where people have hard time trying to figure out what a call center is. That's the reason for my surprise.
I was just astonished with the ease with which these boxes, from which the term 'box office' was derived (I guess), were so easily given up for good and replaced with a signal receiver uprooting the livelihood of so many "behind-the-projector" employees. I believe this is a straight hit on their pockets, for soon, more theatres will adopt to this new technology and more of these people will be jobless. Finding a replacement job would be tougher, since their skill-set is now totally a waste. The arms behind the rotating projector will be denied the work they are best at doing.
Its not just this one case, the rise of technology has resulted in the regression of so many such jobs. And this is the 'double r' I started off with. "Rise and Regression". Rise of technology and regression of unsophisticated manual jobs. And the world needs skilled labour able to operate this new technological innovations and not the plain old manual operators. What about them? Does this mean that a person who knows nothing but digging wells with a crowbar for his living, will now have to learn operating a bull-dozer?
Is this possible?
2 comments:
reminds of what my fantastic boss tells us all the time:
"there's no such thing as no work due to technological advancements. what the world needs to do is to create a list of jobs in an order based on some criteria (say the skill-level required to do it). then every man can start at the top of this list and keep going down till he finds something that he can do. pick that job and do it. period."
the list will never extinguish - that's for sure. however, a person might find that he is capable of doing jobs that are way at the bottom of the list, which would automatically mean lesser compensation. he has the following options - live with it, pick another job that he is capable of and do two jobs, improve himself so that he gets the capacity to do a job that is listed higher than his current job.
but a majority of the people happen to be lazy bummers. they want easy jobs. they want to be paid a lot of money for these easy jobs. (think about asking a random person 'do you think you're being overpaid or underpaid for what you're doing?' will you ever get to hear 'overpaid'??) and when technology automates these jobs, because these are the jobs that are 'automatable' as they are 'easy', they cry foul.
and of course, one may argue as to how we can expect old people to learn new skills. the answer is - they don't have to. it's the government's job to take care of old people.
conclusion: a gradual revolution (an oxymoron??) should take place. as technology deprives jobs for these people, they will eventually learn the hard way that they need to equip themselves with better skills.
>> the list will never extinguish.
The right word I guess would be 'may', not 'will'. Because, the list MAY extinguish, say, for an uneducated-person. With technology introducing more sophisticated ways of doing things, the basic skill the new technologies would need is education. What if a person is not even educated, does not even know how to note down the calibrations of an xyz-meter ( which I suppose is the least one down the ladder )?
>> but a majority of the people happen to be lazy bummers.
Yes, but the minority is still there, who would definitely require attention. :)
>> it's the government's job to take care of old people.
Not only about old people. The government can do so many things, but is it? Starting from the example given in my first para in this comment, i.e., providing education to everyone. How many people working at the "manual" ladder of work are educated? How many children we see working on the roads, deprived of basic education, work to feed themselves at least once per day. Should the child work and feed himself now, thus killing his future employment opportunities, or go to school starving himself and learn things which might fetch employment to him in the future?
Not one but two revolutions should take place. One for the replacement of old/unsophisticated ways of doing things with the latest/better technologies. The other for the upliftment of these people I am talking about so that they are equipped to deal with the advancements. Both are needed for the welfare of a country.
But I am afraid which one should come first, what about the transition. And this transition is the topic. Twenty years down the lane, people will be educated and equipped to deal with all kinds of new technologies. Twenty years ago, people were happy with the unsophisticated ways. But the present years (of the transition period) are the real challenge.
And coming to oxymorons, isn't a revolution always gradual, atleast in its passive form till the threshold of tolerance is crossed?
PS : arey, ur comment size is exceeding the size of my post :(
Post a Comment