The end of work poses an ethical dilemma
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the end of work is inevitable.
This will allow us to set aside debates about economic feasibility and focus on the ethical issue, which I will explain.
To be clear, what we mean by “the end of work” is a future where humans no longer need to engage in labor for the purpose of earning money to pay for basic survival needs.
We are not saying that humans will no longer do work of any kind. “Work” is a broad term.
Often, when we say “work,” we’re talking about working to earn money.
But we also say that taking care of your kids is work. Exercising at the gym is work. In the broadest sense, being alive is work.
Humans have always worked and probably always will.
But we may not always exchange our physical and mental labor for wages and profits that we then trade for necessities such as food and shelter.
When this time comes, as it already has for some, we will have to decide how to spend our newfound free time, which is the premise of the ethical problem.
If you didn’t have to work, what would you do instead?
Maybe you’d still choose to work anyway. You enjoy work. You’re used to it. It gives you a sense of importance and belonging. Makes you feel like you’re part of something, contributing to society.
But let’s imagine working a job for money is no longer an option. You’re forced to do something else.
What would you choose to do instead?
Moreover, how would you make that choice?
Imagine you’ve been informed on a Sunday that you can’t work anymore. You wake up on Monday at 7 a.m., which is the time you normally get up and go to work. Then you remember you can’t go to work.
What do you do?
Go back to sleep? Lie there and stare at the ceiling?
Eventually, you get up. Then what?
You normally skip breakfast, but now you have time to cook eggs.
After eating your eggs, you have a whole day left.
Eventually, you’re made to contemplate a question: What should I do?
The post-work ethical dilemma: how should you spend your time?
Ethics is the branch of philosophy that aims to answer questions about what people ought to do in a given situation.
The most fundamental ethical question is: What should you do?
In the context of the end of work, the question is: What should you do when you no longer need to work to survive?
There are lots of things you could do.
But what should you do?
For a long time, our purpose was simple: survive
For most of human history, we were like any other animal, looking for food and shelter, struggling to survive.
There’s no time for philosophical contemplation when you’re about to starve or get eaten.
The question of “What should I do?” doesn’t even cross your mind.
It’s obvious: you have to do whatever it takes to survive.
How we achieved economic abundance: a condensed overview of human history
From primitive life form to hunter-gatherer to farmer to industrial worker to software engineer, here’s a simplified outline of how we’ve arrived at this point where the end of work is a real, near-term possibility:
Hunter-Gatherer Societies (Prehistoric Era): Early humans lived in small, nomadic groups, relying on hunting and gathering for food. Their economic systems were simple, based on the immediate availability of resources in their environment.
Agricultural Revolution (10,000 BCE): There was a shift from nomadic lifestyles to settled agricultural communities. The cultivation of crops and domestication of animals allowed for more reliable food production, leading to larger and more stable populations.
Formation of Civilizations (3000 BCE - 600 BCE): As agriculture thrived, civilizations emerged along river valleys like the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Indus, and Yellow River. These civilizations developed more complex economic structures, including trade, specialization of labor, and the use of currency.
Classical Antiquity (600 BCE - 476 CE): Greek and Roman civilizations contributed to economic thought and practices. Concepts of democracy, private property, and market exchange started to take shape. Trade routes like the Silk Road facilitated the exchange of goods and ideas across vast regions.
Medieval Period (476 CE - 1453 CE): Feudalism dominated Europe, with agricultural economies centered around manors. The rise of medieval trade routes, such as the Hanseatic League in Northern Europe, stimulated economic growth.
Renaissance and Age of Exploration (14th - 17th centuries): The Renaissance sparked cultural and intellectual advancements, while the Age of Exploration opened up new trade routes and markets. The emergence of capitalism and banking institutions laid the groundwork for modern economic systems.
Industrial Revolution (18th - 19th centuries): The mechanization of production, fueled by technological innovations like the steam engine, led to a profound shift from agrarian economies to industrial ones. Mass production, increased efficiency, and urbanization contributed to significant economic growth.
Modern Era (20th century - present): The 20th century witnessed rapid technological advancements, globalization, and the rise of information technology. The development of financial markets, increased international trade, and the expansion of consumer economies contributed to unprecedented economic abundance in many parts of the world.
I present this outline to illustrate this point: we’ve been working for a long time.
With this view, we can understand why the end of work is significant, as it is the end of a throughline that has been woven through human history for tens of thousands of years, arguably much longer.
Now, we are faced with our permanent problem: how to occupy the leisure
“The economic problem may be solved, or be at least within sight of solution, within a hundred years. This means that the economic problem is not—if we look into the future—the permanent problem of the human race … Thus for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem—how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.”
— John Maynard Keynes, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren,” 1930
How do you occupy the leisure?
This is the question.
How do you decide what to do with your time?
It’s an ethical question.
What should you do?
How should you spend your time?
For your own pleasure?
For the good of others?
According to your religion?
According to your philosophy?
To solve society’s problems?
To explore the unknown?
To create beauty?
To have fun?
The dawning post-work era presents a blank canvas to each individual. For some, it’s too blank. It’s so blank that it’s existentially terrifying.
It’s a startling change
“Why, you may ask, is this so startling? It is startling because—if, instead of looking into the future, we look into the past—we find that the economic problem, the struggle for subsistence, always has been hitherto the primary, most pressing problem of the human race—not only of the human race, but of the whole of the biological kingdom from the beginnings of life in its most primitive forms. Thus we have been expressly evolved by nature—with all our impulses and deepest instincts—for the purpose of solving the economic problem. If the economic problem is solved, mankind will be deprived of its traditional purpose.”
— John Maynard Keynes, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren,” 1930
It’s a sea change.
A complete paradigm shift.
Like transporting an organism that has evolved in one environment to a completely different environment, with very little time for adaptation.
Like taking a fish out of the water and trying to teach it to walk.
Humans have evolved to solve our economic problem. It has been the primary problem of our entire existence up to this point.
We have natural impulses to continue solving our economic problem. And society is organized in support of these natural impulses.
In many ways, the change will be in opposition to our instincts and societal structure.
But perhaps we can guide the change to be more of a gradual, rounding turn than a hard, 90-degree veer.
The end of work could cause chaos
Player Piano, a novel by Kurt Vonnegut, is set in a dystopian future where almost all human laborers have been replaced by machines.
In the end, there is a working-class revolution across the U.S. The people rise up and destroy all the machines.
You’ve probably heard this before: “Idle hands are the devil’s playground.”
Keeping everyone busy with work is a convenient way to maintain a stable society.
If most of the human population all of a sudden has nothing to do all day, there’s potential for chaos.
Other issues with possible negative consequences that will result from the end of work:
Increased dependence on social welfare programs
Changes to macroeconomic theory and policy
Disruption of work-based social norms and relationships
Political instability
Loss of purpose and identity
On the other hand, there’s also potential for a big step forward in human evolution.
To increase our chances of a smooth transition, we can prepare in advance and take it slow.
One thing we can do to prepare is come up with and discuss the validity of answers to the aforementioned ethical question.
This may seem like armchair philosophizing without any applied value.
However, I would disagree, as I foresee that the widespread loss of purpose and meaning may be the most destructive consequence of the end of work, if left unaddressed.
Work often provides people with a sense of purpose, structure, and identity. The end of work could result in a lack of direction for individuals, impacting mental health and overall well-being.
What could replace this sense of purpose?
Conclusion
The fundamental question that arises in a post-work future is: How do we decide what to do with our newfound free time?
The end of work not only poses economic and political challenges but thrusts humanity into a profound ethical dilemma.
The void left by the absence of survival-driven labor requires us to grapple with questions of purpose, ethics, and how to live a meaningful life in a world where the pursuit of survival is no longer the driving force behind our actions.
This reminds me of Simon Sinek’s “Golden Circle.”
The innermost circle is “Why.” Then “How” and then “What.”
If you haven’t figured out your why, it’s difficult to proceed to how and then what.
Work was an easy why.
I need food and shelter, otherwise I’m dead. That made it easy to decide what we should do. Why? To survive.
Now our why is less obvious.
In the post-work world, we’re not quite sure what to do with ourselves.
It’s not like math and science. There is not necessarily a right answer.
Perhaps each individual will have to answer the question for themselves.
What should you do with your free time when you no longer need to work to survive?