However, let us evaluate the validity of this argument by means of a logical economic interpretation.
Consider what would happen if Arendt's view of the future became a reality. For this to actually occur, firms in the marketplace would have to make the choice to replace men with machines. If the contemporary firms were to maximize profits, according to an anti-technology interpretation, they would simply replace the human labor market with machines or robots, as it would significantly lower the costs of production. What then would happen to the human laborers? We can logically induce that most of these people who were replaced would be unemployed because society has reached that point in technological evolution where humans are no longer necessary in the production of the goods or services a typical firm might supply. With no jobs in the marketplace for humans, subsequently, humans will not have an income. How then can humans have the ability to consume a particular good or service a firm might provide? The answer is simply that humans cannot have this ability because they have no income by which they can pay the associated cost. Finally, if nobody has the ability to pay the associated cost, .
then a firm will be unprofitable, and will have no choice other than to shut down. Therefore, if a firm has a choice to replace humans with robots, given the logic that it will lead to a firm's demise in the long run, then it is obviously more beneficial for the firm to keep human laborers employed. Also, it is important for firms to find a role for technology in the work environment other than the one posed by the anti-technological ideology. .
Given that a firm wants to make the best decisions that it can in terms of maximizing profits, the firm must therefore determine a role for technology that is both advantageous for themselves, the suppliers, as well as the consumers, the people who work for the firm and spend or invest the money they earn into the marketplace.
