In a recent talk about natural and synthetic dyes, an interesting point was made which sparked a few arguments. Is manual labour better or worse than using machines which can do all the work? On the one hand manual labour can be badly exploited with bad hours, bad pay and even using children in some countries. As well as this the work can be difficult and straining for the body, but then if the workers are receiving fair pay and decent hours is this such a bad thing if there is no better alternative?
When comparing this with machines initially it seems like there is no contest, they can do the work quicker, they are easier to manage and the individuals who operate them barely have to lift a thing as it is mostly automated. But then these machines are putting people out of a job, can break and lead to bigger costs for the company and consume a huge amount of energy just to power them. So which is the better option?
Overall it is very much dependent on the situation, but an ultimate solution would be to find a balance between man and machine maybe even use man powered machines instead of electric. Therefore companies can remain sustainable and ethical for the foreseeable future.
Comments
Post a Comment