One topic that keeps coming up in a business environment is that concerning to what extent computers will take the place of the human person at work. There are already a number of tasks that used to be done by humans and which are now being done by a computer. It makes one wonder whether any job is truly safe from the onslaught of digital technology, both from a technical perspective and from an economic perspective.

Some economists claim that technological progress benefits everyone. They cite as an example that of the US where, in spite of technological development, throughout the 20th century, employment at end of each decade was higher than ten years previously. They also refer to the increase in the gross domestic product.

However we know averages hide a lot of things. Technological progress is not a rising tide that automatically raises all incomes. Even as overall wealth increases, there can be, and usually will be, winners and losers. And the losers are not necessarily some small segment of the labour force.

At this point the discussion takes us in two directions. What could be the social and economic impact as a result of technological development whereby computers continue to replace the human person at work? The second direction is whether computers or some form of digital device will really take the place of the human person at work.

It is on this second aspect that I wish to focus. We need to place this point into  perspective. There is an increasing need of businesses to reduce costs. So if a machine can deliver the same result as a person at a lower cost and at the same time, there will be a constant drive to replace the person with a computer.

Moreover, in a situation where the supply of skills may not be adequate, investing in digital technology takes on a strategic dimension as it could be seen as a way of making up for the lack of adequate skills.

However, the question still remains: to what extent will some form of digital device take the place of the human person at work? Let’s face it: being replaced by a robot is every worker’s worst nightmare. On the other hand, once the initial outrage at being replaced by a machine subsides, one starts to recognise the short sightedness of such a decision.

Something without a brain, a heart and a sense of humour can never really take the place of a human worker. A machine can be pre-programmed to tackle issues that can be anticipated but it cannot be pre-programmed for something that has not been anticipated. That is where the brain and the heart come in – the mix of rational and emotional thinking. The importance of intuition and creativity here takes over.

There is a Michelangelo and a Leonardo in each and every one of us, and the machine can never replace that. Maybe it is worth remembering what two scientists have said. Albert Einstein claimed that he never invented anything with his rational mind. Blaise Pascal had said that the heart has its reason for which the mind has no reason.

Algorithms may be able to unravel complex situations in a short time, while a human person would need days or weeks or months to understand them and unravel them, but it needs to be understood that it was a human person that created that algorithm.

Another consideration to make is how we relate to another person and how that differs from the way we relate to a digital device. If another person makes a mistake, we are able to empathise with that person, unless we note an element of carelessness. However, we refuse to empathise with a computer that has made a mistake (because they sometimes do make mistakes).

I believe that machines may be developed to take over some jobs that are done by humans – this has happened in the past and will continue to happen in future. However, as long as emotions and unpredictability continue to be part of human nature, and therefore also work, machines cannot really take my job.