GENERATION Z AT CROSSROADS: IS AI THE VILLAIN?

DR. ASOKE K. LAHA
Chairman-Emeritus and Founder, InterraIT

A subtle yet significant conversation  is  quietly  unfolding across global media platforms, centering on the role and unrest of Generation Z. Far from being a series of isolated incidents, these youth-driven protests reflect a larger, systemic frustration that has reached multiple corners of the world. Initially observed in Sri Lanka a few years ago, the movement has since spread through the power of shared sentiment and modern communication — to countries across continents, such as Kenya, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nepal, and more recently, as far-flung as Madagascar and Morocco. The movement is now drawing increasing international attention and scrutiny.

At the heart of this unrest lies a deep concern among governments and societies about the growing instability among youth. While some are quick to attribute the protests to widespread unemployment and the rapid replacement of human labor by Artificial Intelligence and automation, this view is overly simplistic and lacks a nuanced understanding of the broader socio-economic context. Indeed, technology is advancing at a fast pace, often reducing the demand for human labor, especially in industries like manufacturing where automation brings efficiency and cost savings. However, to suggest that human workers will be entirely replaced is an exaggeration. Empirical evidence indicates that the absolute number of jobs added to the existing workforce is getting reduced. In some countries, the fall is sharp. Most of these countries are in the developing bloc.

There are certain sectors, like mining, where automation is not just an option but a necessity due to the high risks involved. Even in technologically advanced countries, mining remains a dangerous occupation, and replacing human workers with machines in this field is largely supported. However, this logic doesn’t apply universally. Sectors such as agriculture, construction, and textiles, which rely heavily on unskilled or semi-skilled labor, should not be rushed into automation. These industries provide livelihoods for millions. Excessive haste to automate in the name of competitiveness risks causing massive social disruption.

Policymakers and industry leaders are largely focused on cost- cutting as the ultimate path is to global competitiveness. But cost isn’t only a matter of money—it has a social dimension too. Focusing solely on monetary costs, while ignoring the social implications such as job losses, economic inequality, and youth disillusionment, is a recipe for long-term instability. This dilemma suggests the classic “guns vs. butter” debate in economic policy—how governments must balance between defense (or non-essential spending) and essential public services. Investing heavily in infrastructure or global prestige projects at the expense of food security, education, or healthcare can have serious consequences.

Take Morocco, for example, which is not a least developed country and compared to many of the African countries, the standard of living is far better. The government is investing billions in preparation for the 2030 FIFA World Cup, which the country is co-hosting with Spain and Portugal. Protesters are questioning the rationale behind such expenditure when the nation faces immediate challenges such as high unemployment, poor healthcare, and inadequate education infrastructure. Similarly, in Nepal, anger among young people stems from rampant corruption and social inequality. News of such inequalities now spreads at lightning speed through digital and social media, making it impossible to isolate local discontent from global awareness. Unlike the slow communication of past centuries—when news of major wars took months to reach foreign lands—today’s information flows in real-time, making discontent more contagious and solidarity movements easier to spark.

This raises an important question: Is social media the root cause of youth-led unrest? The answer is more complex. While social media plays a role in amplifying messages, the real driver is the accumulation of grievances—inequality, lack of opportunity, and perceived injustice. Suppressing these frustrations only worsens the situation. Societies should instead allow open channels for expression, dialogue, and dissent. However, this does not mean social media platforms should operate without regulation. They must be held accountable for curbing misinformation, fake content, and protecting user privacy.

One cannot ignore the elephant in the room—global unemployment, especially among the youth. The fear that machines will render humans obsolete is growing stronger. While it's true that unchecked technological adoption can displace workers, this risk must be addressed proactively. The problem becomes even more urgent in countries lacking social safety nets. In developed nations, unemployed individuals may rely on state support in times of need. In contrast, in developing countries, job loss can be catastrophic resulting in homelessness, hunger, and severe psychological distress. They add to discontentment and frustration and act as a spark for triggering agitations.

The recent trend of layoffs in global tech companies is a case in point. In many cases, these companies are trimming their workforce not because of financial distress but to streamline operations and maintain competitive advantage. However, mass layoffs—especially of middle-aged employees—can cause immense hardship. These are people with families, mortgages, school fees, and medical expenses. In such cases, the human cost must be considered alongside profit margins. Corporations across the world advocate corporate social responsibility. But such lofty ideas are flung to the air when it comes to the question of retrenchment.

It is  imperative  that  we  take  responsibility  for  upskilling and reskilling affected workers, especially in technology-driven sectors. The question is: who pays for this transition? A joint fund contributed by both governments and corporations could serve this purpose, ensuring that retrenched workers are not left stranded. Moreover, such a model could be expanded beyond the tech industry to manufacturing and other labor-intensive sectors. In the future, it will be essential for employees—especially technical workers—to have foundational knowledge in AI and digital technologies. Massive skill development initiatives may be necessary to keep the workforce relevant and employable.

Equally important is the need to rethink traditional employment structures. The rigid 9-to-5 job model no longer suits the dynamic needs of modern economies. Companies could consider a more flexible, contract-based approach for certain types of work. This model would allow teams or individuals to complete projects with clear deadlines and deliverables, while also promoting efficiency and accountability. Essentially, this is outsourcing within outsourcing and could be mutually beneficial for both employers and workers.

As we navigate through this period of economic uncertainty, social discontent, and technological disruption, one thing is clear: the old ways of thinking and governing no longer suffice. We must be open to bold, innovative approaches that address the root causes of unrest—not merely the symptoms. A shift in mindset, policy, and practice is necessary to ensure social stability, economic resilience, and a better future for the younger generations.