     Change on a large scale is often difficult to manage.  The 
economic development of industrial society caused hard ship and 
suffering for some groups and individuals whose jobs were threatened.  
The storm of rapid change that swept over these people at the 
beginning of the industrial era uprooted their way of life.  The 
Luddites, for example, were such a group of discontented British 
workers in the early nineteenth century.  The introduction of labor-
saving technology in the textile industry had affected their jobs.  
They protested against the lowered wages and unemployment that 
resulted by smashing the new machinery.  Similarly, in the last 
quarter of the twentieth century, electronicing world.  As a result, 
an economic storm is again threatening industrial society.
     In North America, technological change has been an accepted part 
of economic development.  People invent new machines to replace 
workers, and therefore jobs are lost.  However, so far the new 
technology has created enough new jobs for almost everyone.  Like the 
Luddites today suffer, both are forgotten in the general prosperity.  
Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the economies New but 
different jobs have replaced those jobs that machines have taken over.
     According to G. G. Schwartz and W. Neikirk, the fear that factory 
workers would be displaced by machines caused an automation scare in 
the United States in the 1950s and 1960s.  However, those workers who 
were displaced found jobs in the service sector, for example in 
offices, banks or government service.  In Schwartz and Neikirk's view, 
the electronics revolution has now reached sector as well as the 
factory.  Offices using microcomputers, word processors, and 
photocopiers can produce much more with other same number displaced 
factory workers can no longer turn to the service sector for new 
jobs.  Both industries and services can now maintain and even increase 
production without hiring new workers.
     Many observers dispute this pessimistic conclusion.  In their 
opinion, increased production will bring lower prices, which will 
allow people to buy additional items.  This increased buying will then 
stimulate more production, and this in turn will create more jobs.  
However, Schwartz and Neikirk argue that people today might instead 
spend their extra money on services that do not add new jobs, or they 
might buy goods that are made in automated factories.  They conclude 
that the scenario of the Industrial Revolution may no longer be valid 
for today's conditions.
     Let us look more closely at how technological change in indus-
trialized societies can involve both a loss of jobs in some sectors 
and a change in the kinds of jobs available to workers.
     We have already discussed the broad reasons for the loss of jobs.  
It is worthwhile, however, to look at specific examples of the 
process.  Cordell points to two kinds of change in manufacturing that 
affect employment.  The product itself is being simplified, and the 
methods of production are becoming automated.  In either case, fewer 
people are needed to make a product.  As Cordell points out, "the type 
of production that simplified the product makes it less expensive to 
produce and sell.  Industries that fail to adopt the new 
technologies will be greatly affected."  His examples are the Swiss 
watch industry, where employment fell by 46,000 in the mid-1970s, and 
the West German watch industry, where jobs decreased by 40 percent at 
the same time.  An electronic watch requires the assembly of five 
components; a mechanical watch requires one thousand assembly 
operations.  Another example of a simplified product that Cordell 
cites is the staffs by 50 percent.  A second reason for the loss of 
jobs is the use of microelectronics in all phased of industry.  New 
plants are being built that use robots instead of people.  
Cordell's example is the Yamazaki factory at Nagoya, Japan, which would 
have needed 2,500 workers without microelectronics and robots.  With 
this technology, however, it will need only 215 workers.
     While some jobs will disappear as a result of these changes, 
others will change, and still others will be created.  The new jobs, 
however, will not be of the same types as the old ones.  As Cordell 
suggests, machines are becoming "smarter," so workers will not need to 
know as much to do their work.  This is known as de-skilling.  Because 
of automation, more and more jobs will require unskilled labor, and 
jobs for semiskilled workers will disappear.  On the other hand, the 
new technologies may create employment for people who design and 
program machines, or those who perform professional services.  These 
jobs will require a high degree of knowledge and training.  Consequently 
the job market is becoming polarized, for unskilled workers will no 
longer be able to become semiskilled workers by acquiring experience.  
Only training and knowledge will enable a person to perform a skilled 
job.  The will create an unbridgeable gap between the skilled and 
unskilled members of the work force.
     Cordell notes that these changes in the conditions of work in 
industrial societies can lead to important changes in the social 
structures and attitudes in these societies.  He concludes that "the 
future of work and working in the evolving information society is 
subject to much debate.  The new technologies will change the nature 
of work, the place of work, and the importance of work to society."  
In his view, workers will have to share jobs and income, for there 
will not be enough jobs for everyone.  To maintain an economy, 
members of an society must have the income to be consumers.  However, 
Cordell points out that economic changes might be easier to achieve 
than other changes.  Instead of learning how to make a living, people 
will need education in how to live.  People will have to change their 
attitudes about work.  They will have to learn not to see value in the 
idea of work itself.  And they will have to learn not to regard paid 
work as more important than voluntary work.
     Industrial nations seem to be in transition from societies based 
on work to societies in which the meaning of with a minimum of 
disruption to the individuals who need society's protection.
     Genetic engineering is such a new field that its potential is 
only beginning to be understood.  Ever since the first product of 
genetic engineering-human insulin-was tested in 1988, the new 
technology has reached into many diverse fields.  Many companies that 
have used genetic engineering have begun to make significant profits.  
In fact, genetic engineering is rapidly becoming the most important 
form of engineering.  Great advances are already being made in such 
fields as food production, industry, and medicine.
     The use of biogenetic technology in food production can be 
divided roughly into two main categories:  genetic agriculture and 
genetic food processing.  The application of genetic engineering to 
agriculture can be further subdivided into land-based techniques and 
techniques of aquaculture and mariculture.  Many of the most recent 
techniques of land-based agriculture are important in animal farming, 
but some apply mainly to vegetable farming.  A few techniques are 
useful to both.  Animal farming already uses the process of in vitro 
fertilization to increase the number of offspring.  In this process, 
scientists remove the egg from the female's body and fertilize it with 
sperm from the male.  After a few days, the egg is placed in the 
uterus grows to term and has a normal birth.  Another process that 
farmers and scientists may eventually use to produce offspring is 
cloning.  In cloning, offspring develop from the cells of one parent 
only and become physically identical to that parent.  Although it may 
be many years before it become some simpler creatures such as frogs.  
Farther into the future, researchers hope to use a process called cell 
fusion, or selfing, to produce offspring in a way that rapidly then be 
corrected by genetic engineering.  And research is already producing 
new or improved species of cattle and other farm animals.
     Genetically engineered species will also benefit fruit and 
vegetable farming, which has made use of cloning and species mixing 
for many years.  The relatively simple process of grafting enables 
farmers to clone plants or to produce hybrids that are ideally suited 
to local conditions.  This technique brought about the so-called Green 
Revolution, which greatly increased the food production of many Third 
World countries.  The next major genetic breakthrough in cereal crop 
production will perhaps be a new species of wheat that does not 
require expensive fertilizer.
     Unlike genetic agriculture, genetic food processing has used 
biotechnology for centuries.  People have used yeasts to ferment foods 
for at least six thousand years.  Today genetic food technology has 
two main purposes; to create the modern sweeteners, flavors, and 
fragrances of mass-produced convenience foods; and to develop new 
kinds of foods.  Scientists have found ways not only to improve the 
user of yeasts but also to create new sources of nutrition.  In the 
near future, scientists expect to use the new technology to create 
completely new kinds of food.  Already they have created a nutritional 
substance called single-cell protein, which is commonly added to 
animal feeds.
     Genetic techniques have found applications in at least two other 
important fields; the mining industry and pollution control.  Miners 
could use genetically produced bacteria with appetites for heavy 
metals and oil to extract these minerals from mines and wells.
     However important genetic engineering may be for industry, its 
effects are likely to be still greater in the field of medicine.  
Medical biotechnology is providing both new medical substances and 
new medical techniques.  Among the substances, the most important 
have been drugs, enzymes, and hormones.  Human insulin, a hormone 
produced by genetically engineered bacteria, became, in 1988, the 
first genetically engineered product to be licensed for human use.  The 
included the human growth hormone, which is helpful in treat in certain 
kinds of growth defects in children, and an improved version of the 
antibiotic penicillin.  Eventually, new antibiotics have learned how to 
use biotechnology to produce cortisone cheaply and in large quantities.  
Doctors use this substance to treat arthritis and several other 
disorders.  To control pain, genetic engineering has yielded a group 
of chemicals called endorphins.  These are twelve hundred morphine, 
they are very safe to use, improved version of the enzyme L-asparaginase, 
a chemical used to treat leukemia.
     As the advances in biotechnology occur at an ever increasing 
rate, public attitudes toward recombinant DNA technology will have 
trouble keeping up with the latest knowledge.  Polls indicate that a 
significant number of people have little understanding of current 
biotechnology.  And the breakthroughs are coming with such speed that 
education and the media will have difficulty keeping the public 
informed.  A widening gap between scientific knowledge and public 
understanding could, at the very least, have serious ethical and legal 
consequences.