Rejecting the Tradition of Human Labor

In Chapter 10, Sen briefly touches on the threats of globalization when considering the preservation of cultures and tradition. He mentions that short-run safety nets have to be included in any economic adjustment to ensure that "the form of globalization is less destructive of employment and traditional livelihood, and to achieve gradual transition... there also have to be opportunities for retraining and acquiring of new skills, in addition to providing social safety nets for those whose interests are harmed..." (240). He then goes on to describe how this process can be applied when lost traditions also become a part of the mix, and how societies often need to make a choice between tradition and economic prosperity.

Sen's argument categorizes the replacement of labor and the loss of tradition as two fundamentally different phenomenons. Thinking much further ahead, I began to consider the decision-making process that would have to take place when the two become much more closely related. It is irrational to think that the Sen's theme of retraining employees whose livelihoods are at risk will always be feasible. Technology will soon reach a point when even "safe" white-collar professions can be replicated by machines. Keep in mind that technology for advanced processes driving automobiles don't need to be perfect - they just need to be better than humans (who are incredibly awful at driving). To further provide support for this argument, I encourage all of you to watch this thought-provoking Youtube video by CGPGrey:

In it, Grey explains that the current pace of technological advancement will force us as a human race to ask a critical question - what are we going to do when a large section of the population is simply unemployable?  Or, following Sen's argument, what are we going to do when we have to make the choice between the convenience of economic adjustment or the tradition of human labor?