Let's agree to disagree.
I don't think there is any denying, that Elon Musk is a very smart man. Yet, at the same time, he comes up with some pretty outlandish comments, which are designed to create headlines.
Like this one:
The claim from Musk is that everyone will be on a "Universal High Income", as advances in technology and robotics will increase productivity so much without humans, that abundance will flow and everyone will have more than enough to have whatever they want. And as such, there will be no reason to save money at all, because there will be no need for it and likely no way to earn it anyway, since "your job won't matter". Granted, he said the transition would be bumpy, but he also said that we'd have all of this within five years or so.
I agree with him.
In an alternate universe, this could actually be the scenario, for as I see it, most of our jobs already don't matter. They are busy work created to take up our time to jump imaginary hurdles to do what doesn't actually have valuable impact for humanity. Most of the jobs we have now are tied to the supply chain for passive entertainment, rather than anything that makes society better. It doesn't even matter what industry you are in, nearly all of it is unnecessary busywork that is created by our desire for convenience and pleasure.
But to be work-free and living in abundance in that alternate universe, there has to be some fundamental differences from the universe we actually live in. The number one being that we are greedy and competitive by nature, making us resource collectors and hoarders, who will naturally look to have more than we need at the expense of others not having enough. Elon Musk himself is a large part of this, as the richest person on earth with a fortune nearing a trillion dollars.
And if he believes that this is the future, why was he trying to save on government spending, as saving, especially at the government level, would be highly irrelevant. If abundance in five to ten years is going to be the reality, the best thing a government could do and what it should do, is ready itself for a future of work-free leisure, where the biggest individual problem is finding meaning outside of being productive at something. Yet, this is not what is happening and instead, the US government focus is on exactly the opposite, resource hoarding.
Of course, all of what he says should be taken with a grain of salt anyway, but it is interesting to consider that there are people who are shifting their lifestyle toward this outcome, living hand to mouth by choice, extending their debt obligations, renting instead of owning, and becoming increasingly reliant on handouts.
You'll own nothing and you'll be happy
In an alternate universe.
Elon Musk is a visionary and he has accomplished one of the goals he had set way back in the 90s or so, saying that he wanted to make electric cars ubiquitous. That has been achieved and the development is still ongoing and could make an impact on the environment if living in that alternate universe. Because in that alternate universe, they would also be delivering clean and free electricity to charge clean and cheap batteries, not burning fossil fuels to create the electricity needed, using problem materials. The development in the alternative universe would be exponentially faster, because instead of alternate universe people doing busywork, they would be doing valuable work in a movement toward what makes humanity better off. Clean, free electricity and electricity storage is vital for abundance of goods and service availability.
But unfortunately for Elon (and us all), we do not live in that alternate universe, which is why instead of humanity living in abundance, we are far, far more likely to live in increasing scarcity. As Automation takes over all of the work we do, job losses will become extreme, profits for corporations will increase, and the distribution of wealth and resources decreases. We will be living in a world where the majority are fighting for scraps, just like all of the sci-fi dystopias are depicted.
This is because in all of the dystopias there is one thing still in common, resources are valuable. Value comes from scarcity, not abundance. So the only way that a system of abundance can work, even when there is enough of everything to go around, is by having some mechanism to differentiate who is able to get what. In the current system, money is the main mechanism for this, which buys privilege. If there was a future without the equivalent of money, the differentiator would be something else, because the thing with "have what you want" is that everything is still constrained, nothing is limitless, and with our nature of greed and wanting more than we need, we need mechanisms to cap our consumption.
What would that be?
In today's world, while imperfect, it is based on the ability to generate wealth, which often comes through trading scarce skills in one way or another to earn, and then investing earnings into more wealth generation. In the alternative universe, unless things all things are truly limitless, they might use some other mechanism, like looks, or strength, or skill at balancing a broomstick on the end of the finger.
As we don't live in an alternate universe where people are inherently altruistic and not greedy, it is pretty dangerous to put too much stock in the "don't save for the future" mentality, unless also willing to accept the consequences of not having saved, but being in need. There are alternatives of course, and I think we are starting to see more of this come into the mainstream, where in places like Canada and the Netherlands, Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) is already making up almost 5% of all deaths. In the Netherlands, depression is now a valid reason, and those valid reasons are going to keep increasing.
Run out of financial options, kill yourself.
Debt is often a precursor to suicide, and in a world where people are becoming more depressive through the changing world, the coming disruption is going to put increasing pressure on people who are already at the end of their tether. we are disconnecting from each other rapidly, which is counter to what would be the state in that alternate universe, where improved humanity would need to be at the top of activity.
Where I do agree with Musk is that "loss of purpose" is going to be a problem in a world of abundance, because it is already a problem in a world of scarcity. So many people are "looking for themselves" in the current state of disruption, even though they are in work. This is perhaps because the work we largely do is fundamentally meaningless, so finding meaning in it means living a fantasy, but it is also because we have degraded purpose found in community. We have degraded families, friends, neighbourhoods, cities and countries down to a series of micro transactions through screens - all in the name of wealth generation for the few.
Now, just to finish up, Elon Musk also mostly believes we are in a simulation, which makes sense. Believing that we are in a simulation also means that there is a high incentive to try to do things without a social conscience, because it doesn't really matter what happens - It is just a simulation. It also means there is no point in having shame, or feeling empathy also, other than the personal meaning it might provide. It is the ultimate disconnection from reality, because that is what it is by definition.
Maybe it is possible to live in abundance.
But if we look at the predictions from visionaries a hundred or even fifty years ago, flying cars are not ubiquitous yet. They are very, very late. So, assuming that any predictions now are also going to be on an overly optimistic timeline, but they are also going to get the benefits of latest technology like AI, we can expect the potential for abundance to be maybe thirty years away. However, that is potential only, because the biggest factor holding us back is us as humans.
And we evolve incredibly slowly.
I hope Elon Musk is correct though, because I can't save enough as it is.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
