I notice that the optimistic future visionary types tend to imagine a world where AI and machines do all the work for us and we having nothing but time and resources to “enjoy” a life of leisure on the backs of their labour. Does anyone else see a problem with these visions. To me they mostly describe a saccharin dystopia devoid of meaning or purpose. No one seems to pick up on the simple reality that humans are lost without meaningful work. We fall into an abyss of self doubt and self and other abuse very quickly when idle for long or when we don’t feel we are contributing. Our behaviour becomes profoundly self destructive and social order crumbles. Meaningful work can be simple manual labour or require deeply complex thought but doing it is essential to our well being. Work should have important purpose and give people a sense that they are contributing something to their own welfare and that of their community. It is something to be sought out and embraced not shunned. We are transforming our world and adapting ourselves for the benefit of machines on the notion that we will be happier or generally better off doing less work. I am not a Luddite but I I think that is deeply misguided.
A resource-based economy wouldn’t eliminate meaningful work—it would eliminate meaningless toil. With basic needs met through sustainable automation, people could engage in work that truly matters: innovation, environmental restoration, education, and community building. Purpose isn’t found in servitude but in contribution. We should design society for human fulfillment, not endless labor for survival. www.resourceism.com
I think you're absolutely right! The utopian version of the future has been promised since The Jetsons, but our current reality seems to be about exploiting machines, AI, and other tech to make the rich richer and everyone else dependent on oligarchs for food, money, and housing.
A friend of mine, back in the 1970s when some of us lived off-grid before PVs in small DIY cabins, said, "when I was growing up I thought I'd be living like the Jetsons, instead I'm living more like the Flintstones.'
Spot on, Lloyd! Another other point that could be made is that countries in Africa and other part of the (tiny-carbon-footprint) Global South that are all too often labeled as 'disadvantaged' because they don't have Global North lifestyles usually come right up the top of global happiness and mental health tables. Joie de vivre seems to be very much easier to find when you have less 'stuff', and more community...! We need to stop trying to export our GN problems to the GS, and start listening to them for the solutions.
Happiness is what we need, not 'abundance'. And that means 'just enough' - not too little, certainly; but certainly not too much either. In my own experience, it's the latter that seems to be the most dangerous...
There have been several excellent critiques of this book this week, but this was probably the simplest, most straightforward, and most optimistic to the opportunity to think differently and design a future that support humans flourishing ecologically through resource sufficiency. Much appreciated. I was most struck by how state investment in these technologies of abundance was not once discussed. Sure. Somehow we need to protect billionaires even in a utopian vision?
Those of us with degrees in architecture, even theorists, already know better than to listen to Utopians.
We have abundance right now. We just don’t share it. You really can’t talk about abundance if you don’t talk about restraint.
I haven’t read it yet, but it sounds like this book falls into the category of well meaning people who can’t face the reality of the wealthy needing to be reasonably restrained by a well functioning society for the sake of everyone. I honestly struggle with the ability of humans to handle abundance. That said, we honestly need the state capacity and ability to build out a renewable energy infrastructure right now and fast.
What I haven't figured out about the AI/robot revolution (which I believe is definitely coming, the tech is there) is once we are all reduced to jobless peasants, who will actually buy stuff on Amazon, buy Teslas, etc.? The US economy is built on consumer spending, how do the oligarchs keep making more money when the vast majority of us have no money?
His post sketches out some numerical estimates on robots and AI. It makes for interesting reading far beyond the typical "Robots will take over by 20XX". While he is a fan of Tesla and SpaceX, and AI in general, at least he's willing to put down some markers.
BTW, FSD licenses (full self-driving), even if limited for now, for Waymo and Tesla are already being granted - far faster than the commenting done here a while ago. Those two are hooking up their cars to their prospective AI platforms and the safety metrics are going up logarithmically.
Sorrowfully, we're not there yet with the Jetson car...
"A 17% annual global growth rate is unprecedented—modern economies rarely exceed 5-10% even during rapid development. Sustaining this for 16 years assumes no major constraints (e.g., resources, environmental limits, social disruption from automation). "
I think those constraints are pretty considerable, especially the social disruption.
The point of the article is that human labor, via humanoid et al automation and AI, is going to soon become irrelevant which often is the bottleneck of almost any endeavor (and yes, I am mindful of SkyNet).
Will it be sufficient for that kind of growth? No, I'm not. ALL I was trying to point out was that new technologies are going to raise Productivity which is ALWAYS the linchpin to higher living standards. Which, I point out, has been lagging over the last couple of decades or so. I think we're about to see that turn around if the advances I've been seeing take root.
Will there be social disruptions? Pretty sure there will be as every major advance in human history (fire, towns/cities, governance, industrial, flight, medicine, information, et al) has caused disruptions of one sort or another.
This vision of the future reflects the inevitable outcome of scarcity-based capitalism—a world where the few hoard resources while the many scrape by. A resource-based economy would eliminate this dystopia by prioritizing equitable distribution and sustainable abundance. Instead of AI and automation replacing human workers for corporate gain, they could be harnessed to ensure everyone’s needs are met. Why limit ourselves to "frugal abundance" when we can have true abundance without waste or exploitation? The challenge isn’t resources—it’s the outdated system hoarding them. The solution is systemic change. See: "Resourceism" https://www.resourceism.com/2022/01/resourceism-what-is-it-and-how-does-it.html
I notice that the optimistic future visionary types tend to imagine a world where AI and machines do all the work for us and we having nothing but time and resources to “enjoy” a life of leisure on the backs of their labour. Does anyone else see a problem with these visions. To me they mostly describe a saccharin dystopia devoid of meaning or purpose. No one seems to pick up on the simple reality that humans are lost without meaningful work. We fall into an abyss of self doubt and self and other abuse very quickly when idle for long or when we don’t feel we are contributing. Our behaviour becomes profoundly self destructive and social order crumbles. Meaningful work can be simple manual labour or require deeply complex thought but doing it is essential to our well being. Work should have important purpose and give people a sense that they are contributing something to their own welfare and that of their community. It is something to be sought out and embraced not shunned. We are transforming our world and adapting ourselves for the benefit of machines on the notion that we will be happier or generally better off doing less work. I am not a Luddite but I I think that is deeply misguided.
A resource-based economy wouldn’t eliminate meaningful work—it would eliminate meaningless toil. With basic needs met through sustainable automation, people could engage in work that truly matters: innovation, environmental restoration, education, and community building. Purpose isn’t found in servitude but in contribution. We should design society for human fulfillment, not endless labor for survival. www.resourceism.com
I think you're absolutely right! The utopian version of the future has been promised since The Jetsons, but our current reality seems to be about exploiting machines, AI, and other tech to make the rich richer and everyone else dependent on oligarchs for food, money, and housing.
A friend of mine, back in the 1970s when some of us lived off-grid before PVs in small DIY cabins, said, "when I was growing up I thought I'd be living like the Jetsons, instead I'm living more like the Flintstones.'
The older I get (and perhaps the more dystopian the world), the more appealing the world of the Flintstones becomes!
Spot on, Lloyd! Another other point that could be made is that countries in Africa and other part of the (tiny-carbon-footprint) Global South that are all too often labeled as 'disadvantaged' because they don't have Global North lifestyles usually come right up the top of global happiness and mental health tables. Joie de vivre seems to be very much easier to find when you have less 'stuff', and more community...! We need to stop trying to export our GN problems to the GS, and start listening to them for the solutions.
Happiness is what we need, not 'abundance'. And that means 'just enough' - not too little, certainly; but certainly not too much either. In my own experience, it's the latter that seems to be the most dangerous...
There have been several excellent critiques of this book this week, but this was probably the simplest, most straightforward, and most optimistic to the opportunity to think differently and design a future that support humans flourishing ecologically through resource sufficiency. Much appreciated. I was most struck by how state investment in these technologies of abundance was not once discussed. Sure. Somehow we need to protect billionaires even in a utopian vision?
Those of us with degrees in architecture, even theorists, already know better than to listen to Utopians.
Thanks Lloyd.
I was also completely blown away by how misguided the introduction was!
We have abundance right now. We just don’t share it. You really can’t talk about abundance if you don’t talk about restraint.
I haven’t read it yet, but it sounds like this book falls into the category of well meaning people who can’t face the reality of the wealthy needing to be reasonably restrained by a well functioning society for the sake of everyone. I honestly struggle with the ability of humans to handle abundance. That said, we honestly need the state capacity and ability to build out a renewable energy infrastructure right now and fast.
What I haven't figured out about the AI/robot revolution (which I believe is definitely coming, the tech is there) is once we are all reduced to jobless peasants, who will actually buy stuff on Amazon, buy Teslas, etc.? The US economy is built on consumer spending, how do the oligarchs keep making more money when the vast majority of us have no money?
"most people can complete what used to be a full week of work in a few days, which has expanded the number of holidays, long weekends, and vacations"
I was promised that in the 1970's just as I was joining the workforce, my job would only need 20 hours a week because computers would make it easy.
It never happened.
I was promissed it again in the 1980's when the Interwebs started to arrive - it never happened
I think I was promised in the 2000's again but I was working too many hours to really pay attention.
And now I am being promissed it again - sorry but no - this will not happen.
A tipping point is coming, at least Brain Wang thinks so: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/03/billions-of-humanoid-bots-and-robotaxis-could-enable-a-quadrillion-dollar-economy-by-the-2040s.html
His post sketches out some numerical estimates on robots and AI. It makes for interesting reading far beyond the typical "Robots will take over by 20XX". While he is a fan of Tesla and SpaceX, and AI in general, at least he's willing to put down some markers.
BTW, FSD licenses (full self-driving), even if limited for now, for Waymo and Tesla are already being granted - far faster than the commenting done here a while ago. Those two are hooking up their cars to their prospective AI platforms and the safety metrics are going up logarithmically.
Sorrowfully, we're not there yet with the Jetson car...
"A 17% annual global growth rate is unprecedented—modern economies rarely exceed 5-10% even during rapid development. Sustaining this for 16 years assumes no major constraints (e.g., resources, environmental limits, social disruption from automation). "
I think those constraints are pretty considerable, especially the social disruption.
The point of the article is that human labor, via humanoid et al automation and AI, is going to soon become irrelevant which often is the bottleneck of almost any endeavor (and yes, I am mindful of SkyNet).
Will it be sufficient for that kind of growth? No, I'm not. ALL I was trying to point out was that new technologies are going to raise Productivity which is ALWAYS the linchpin to higher living standards. Which, I point out, has been lagging over the last couple of decades or so. I think we're about to see that turn around if the advances I've been seeing take root.
Will there be social disruptions? Pretty sure there will be as every major advance in human history (fire, towns/cities, governance, industrial, flight, medicine, information, et al) has caused disruptions of one sort or another.
Look at the (guesstimated) Productivity chart: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/03/huge-humanoid-bot-news-china-versus-us-bot-makers.html
Thank you for that Lloyd.
I have the same reaction. I naively thought that everyone knew there was no technical fix for what we have done.
This vision of the future reflects the inevitable outcome of scarcity-based capitalism—a world where the few hoard resources while the many scrape by. A resource-based economy would eliminate this dystopia by prioritizing equitable distribution and sustainable abundance. Instead of AI and automation replacing human workers for corporate gain, they could be harnessed to ensure everyone’s needs are met. Why limit ourselves to "frugal abundance" when we can have true abundance without waste or exploitation? The challenge isn’t resources—it’s the outdated system hoarding them. The solution is systemic change. See: "Resourceism" https://www.resourceism.com/2022/01/resourceism-what-is-it-and-how-does-it.html
Allwood agrees:
https://youtu.be/xAdJRU2IDeY
Also, that lecture was given at Purdue University, in Indiana, so there are open minds everywhere.