Hi, I'm Jeong Suyeon.

In dangerous situations such as the Corona virus, I admit that replacement of robots is safe and can minimize economic damage. I also concede that robots can do what humans can't do and have the ability to handle accurately, which helps economic development. But I don't agree with the last of your arguments about job growth. First, according to the World Economic Forum's Future Employment Report, robots and artificial intelligence are expected to eliminate 7.1 million jobs in 15 countries and create 2 million new jobs over the next five years. The number of jobs disappearing is already three times higher than the number of new jobs being created. And even if the number of jobs involved increases more as the development of robots is activated, I think the field of jobs being developed is limited. Also, most people who are currently working in factories and shops that require human resources would think that the purpose of labor is to maintain their livelihood. However, the robot's overall number of employees will decrease, and if this leads to massive unemployment, the immediate means of maintaining their livelihood will disappear for these people. Proponents of replacing robots say they can support the unemployed based on basic income. But I think this is to ensure a minimum human life and it cannot be a rational distribution of wealth. Even if the government supports robot technology education, I think it will take a long time to fully acquire it and then there will be an economic downturn during that time.