Unfolding the Future
I spend a LOT of time on Twitter discussing the things that interest me, not least of which is AI and how it (and other advanced technologies) will reshape civilization. I could talk about this sort of stuff for months on end, but I’ll keep this one short :)
As I discuss these topics, I often hear people say things like:
The rich won’t allow this technology to benefit everyone
What will people do if they don’t have to work?
Won’t immortality lead to overcrowding?
Who are you to play god?
You get the gist.
It’s all fear-based. I’ve spent a lifetime thinking about these things, and find the answers pretty straightforward. But since Twitter isn’t really the medium of nuance, I thought it would be beneficial to answer these questions in more detail.
Here goes…
The Rich Won’t Share
First, I’d point out that historically this has not been the case. Bit by bit, the things and experiences that once necessitated being rich have become democratized to an absurd degree.
Private drivers on demand, cleaning staff, a private chef (what you want to eat when you want it), massive TVs, incredible vacations, etc. etc.
Things often start out exclusive and become democratized over time if the demand is there and the supply is available.
Second, with AI and robotics in particular (the future means of production), here’s how I see this gamed out:
Leveraging AI and robots in business will decrease costs and improve the bottom line. The rich can’t help but adopt this sort of advantage.
As jobs are lost to automation, buying power and demand decreases.
As buying power and demand decreases, costs have to come down to stay competitive. AI and automation enable this, even though it eventually boomerangs around to shrinking margins.
In order to remain competitive, everyone will do the same things, lowering costs as the means of production get cheaper and cheaper, until the cost of basically everything is close to zero.
At this point, robots and AI are doing all the previous “for money” work, and all the basic needs of humanity are essentially free, and humans are free to spend time doing what they love, instead of what they must to pay the bills.
This isn’t a complete list by any means, more broad strokes than fine grained detail, but you get the idea, and can hopefully see how this plays out.
The rich won’t be able to resist #1, and that first domino will start a chain reaction that isn’t likely to stop. It won’t all be smooth sailing, but it should be a pretty quick sequence thanks to the pace of advancement. Wheeee!
Based on where I see technology going, and what I know of history, this particular path feels pretty inevitable.
Separating Meaning and Work
When people wonder what they will do if they don’t have to work, I think this is more of a reflexive response than a real concern. If you reframe it as “what would you do if money was no object?” then it becomes easier to answer.
That said, there are probably people out there who have no identity beyond what they do. They ARE their work, and derive all sense of purpose and fulfillment from it. So, in a world where nobody has to work, what will they do?
Whatever the fuck they want, within reason.
Nobody is saying they can’t still do what they’re doing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Surely everyone, with a little introspection, can come up with things to occupy their time. Past hobbies, dreamed of hobbies, things they’ve always wanted to try or places they’ve wanted to go.
Add to that the new options that these technological advancements will enable, and the potential choices expand even further.
For me, I have never found any sort of deep meaning in what I’ve done for work. I’ve found work that can be fun and at times engaging, but at the end of the day I work to pay bills and provide a good quality of life, and I have a HUGE list of things I’d rather be doing if I didn’t have to work.
Lifetimes worth of things to occupy me if money were no object.
What I’ve noticed though is that those who are winning at the current game configuration don’t usually want that game to change.
C’est la vie, change is inevitable.
And thankfully, if any two words describe humanity, it’s Creative and Adaptable.
Sure, we get stuck in ruts, but we do amazingly well adapting to change once change is forced upon us, and in many cases we’re much happier on the other side of change.
I think this will be that.
Some will have an easier time adapting than others, but it’ll shake out net-positive in the long run.
Immortality ≠ Overcrowding
This line of thought actually bugs me, because again, we don’t see this play out historically.
As people become better off, the tend to have FEWER kids, not more. And, as technology advances, we are able to support more people with the same or fewer resources. And that doesn’t even take into account that immortality does not have to mean *biological* immortality only.
Whole Brain Emulation. Digital mind uploads. Personal universes.
These meat suits are absolutely not our final form, and there is room for FAR more minds digitally than our planet could ever support biologically.
And that doesn’t even account for expansion beyond our planet, much less our solar system.
We’ll be fine.
Playing God
Out of all of the questions, this one irritates me the most.
For starters, who are you to determine what does and doesn’t qualify as “playing god?” Who are you to speak for this god that you think exists? If such a god is indeed all knowing and all powerful, I’d say he or she can damn well speak for and take care of things themselves, wouldn’t you?
If this majestic being doesn’t like something, or if something is somehow not allowed, then said being can step in and put a stop to it.
Last I checked, your place is to deal with pulling the beam from your own eye, turning the other cheek, and “judge not lest ye be judged.”
So perhaps stop being a hypocrite, and let your all powerful sky fairy handle things.
Unless of course you don’t actually believe what you say you believe??
And this doesn’t even account for the religious folk that believe we’re all god, all one universal consciousness, all one in some way, in which case “who are you to play god” becomes a very silly question indeed.
Actual evidence shows that the scientific process, an error-correcting feedback loop, has done more to alleviate suffering, save lives, and improve the overall lifespan and quality of life for humanity than ANY religious text or belief (in fact, religious twaddle has led to an absurd loss of life throughout history, has caused immense harm to innocents, and in many ways has slowed both the pace and the level of human advancement).
If it doesn’t violate the laws of the universe, and if neither deities nor time travelers are appearing to put a stop to it, I say we just keep letting the scientific feedback loop do its thing, m’kay?
—
Those four questions, and the other similar ones you’ve likely encountered, are all rooted in fear, especially fear of the unknown.
As adaptable as humanity is capable of being, we also really like digging a comfy little burrow and hibernating whenever we get the chance, and heaven help whomever tries to drag us from the burrow 😂
But comfort and complacency are the enemies of better. The grass IS greener, but it requires courage to get to it.
Sure, all technology comes with some measure of risk, but the greatest risks come from trying to make things perfectly safe, resisting change, and putting on blinders.
Technology is a tool, leverage that we can apply to greatly expand our capabilities, and the key is to embrace it rather than resisting it.
I can imagine a future where nobody has to die, where everyone is free to live as their most authentic selves without consequence, and where everyone can do what they want when they want without harm to others or fear of reprisal.
This and more is on the other side of the technological wave we’re now riding, and if we can just remain steady and see it through, without all the typical human thrashing and whining and resistance, there are AMAZING things to come.
Onward :)
—
If you enjoyed this, then you’ll love my (free, short) book The Grand Redesign!
Also, I recorded some thoughts stemming in part from this article here: