50, 100 & 150 Years Ago: Automation Phobia, Horseless Hearse and Clean Weeds

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


MAY 1957
MACHINE BRAWN--"The word 'automation,' a journalistic coinage, has undeservedly become 'a source of fear,' according to the Earl of Halsbury, an English authority on industrial technology. In the British journal Impact he attempts to correct the impression created by journalists that automatic processes in industry 'will cause widespread unemployment.' Machines require trained men to maintain them. Displacements occur mainly in the ranks of the unskilled, who have a high rate of turnover anyway. Lord Halsbury is concerned for the man who is not going to be affected by automation--the coal miner, the stevedore and others 'who do the heavy laboring work for a society which does not know how to lighten their task.'"

MAY 1907
TURN FOR THE WORSE--"The Scientific American recently discussed the gyroscopic action of steam turbines in increasing the stresses in the frail hull structure of torpedo boats. An English naval architect proved that in the case of the British torpedo boat whose back was broken when she was plunging heavily into a head sea, the gyroscopic resistance to a change of plane of the revolving parts of the turbine may have amounted to several tons, and that these stresses, being unrecognized at the time the boat was designed, may have carried the total bending and wrenching stress beyond the limit of strength of the hull."

Scientific American Magazine Vol 296 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Automation Phobia--Horseless Hearse--Clean Weeds” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 296 No. 5 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican052007-2WN8SToipF6u9ph7TSXiDJ

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe