As excitement around artificial intelligence grows, influential figures like Elon Musk are revisiting the concept of universal basic income (UBI). This idea seems to attract support from various groups, including progressive politicians such as Andrew Yang and thinkers like Charles Murray.
Advocates of UBI view it as a straightforward solution to a future where machines may replace human jobs. Yet, beneath the appealing rhetoric of innovation lies a familiar promise of the welfare state: security in exchange for reliance. Some proponents argue that UBI is naturally aligned with progress, but it could very well undermine the jobs, structures, and sense of purpose that give life meaning.
Different supporters of UBI hold diverse motivations. For instance, Andrew Yang and his allies see it as a means to alleviate poverty through guaranteed cash payments. Conversely, Charles Murray favors it as a simplified alternative to the complex welfare system. Then there’s Elon Musk, who believes UBI addresses the plight of individuals with less cognitive capacity in an increasingly competitive economy. Despite these varying motivations, they seem to agree that UBI is an inevitable result of progress, rather than a political choice with deep moral and social implications. This perspective tends to reduce individuals to mere economic objects rather than recognizing them as citizens with aspirations and responsibilities.
welfare for all
Interestingly, a form of UBI already exists in the U.S. thanks to the numerous welfare programs offering support for disability, poverty, child care, and more. Many people can secure food and housing assistance, though this support doesn’t necessarily lead to a fulfilling life. For those who prefer not to work, there are often alternatives to survival.
What’s concerning is that the state has evolved into a long-term provider rather than a temporary source of support. While this allows certain households to make ends meet, it hasn’t created a robust class of independent, engaged citizens. Instead, it often cultivates dependency and passivity, overseen by bureaucratic systems.
The argument for UBI, especially from AI advocates, mirrors an old socialist dream. The notion is that while human labor may become less necessary, machines would enrich our lives. Freed from mundane responsibilities, people would engage in art, philosophy, travel, and personal development. It’s a captivating vision—yet, it rests on the flawed belief that material wealth can truly address the more challenging aspects of human nature.
Expecting AI to generate the predicted levels of abundance involves a significant leap of faith.
humans are not machines
AI can handle administrative tasks and repetitive interactions quite well. However, it struggles in situations that demand judgment, responsibility, dexterity, trust, and adaptability to chaos. Even if the technology works well, it necessitates costly hardware and significant energy, along with a robust support framework. Countries that can barely maintain basic services should be cautious about relying on an envisioned future devoid of human labor, especially when the feasibility of such a technological system is still questionable.
Even if one accepts the idea that AI may replace much of the workforce and generate enough wealth to fulfill basic needs, UBI still clashes with some fundamental truths about human nature. Work isn’t just about earning a paycheck. It structures our days, fosters discipline, and shapes our identities. People on welfare today aren’t necessarily known for their masterpieces. Often, individuals receiving assistance spend their free time watching television, playing video games, or engaging in other pursuits that may not tap into their creative potential. Removing the need to work can result in a kind of laziness, stifling any inherent creativity.
Sure, talented individuals trapped in unsatisfying jobs might find relief in UBI, but for the average person, it could be quite different. Even less-than-ideal work can provide essential aspects like routine and a sense of belonging.
Slaves on a high-tech plantation
Should humanity no longer need to work, the Pareto principle could intensify, benefiting only a small number of driven individuals while the rest languish in idleness. It’s been observed that men often face a spike in mortality rates after retirement, partly because they lose the structure and meaning that work once offered.
Furthermore, UBI advocates often overlook the significance of status in economic behavior. Status hierarchies play a critical role in how we organize society, and we continually engage in status games to ascertain our positions within those hierarchies.
Some jobs may offer more than financial rewards; they also provide social recognition. For instance, plumbing often pays better than teaching, yet many still find the academic status appealing. Once basic affluence is achieved through AI, people may start competing for status differently—perhaps valuing handmade items over mass-produced goods. These behaviors are deeply ingrained in human nature and aren’t likely to vanish just because some material needs are met.
Advocates of AI rarely ponder the fallout of a production process divorced from human involvement. Currently, markets strive to balance human production with consumption. Although there are various distortions, systems still retain human-centric elements. If deployed with UBI, this could lead to a closed technological loop, sidelining human interests altogether. In such a framework, the public transforms from participants to passive dependents. This shift wouldn’t merely alter the economy; it would redefine social existence.
This potential outcome becomes more concerning when considering how UBI could centralize power politically. For instance, the U.S. government already selectively allocates opportunities, which may lead to abuses. Each dependency could become a tool for compliance.
In summary, the state risks becoming increasingly authoritarian if it takes over all economic distribution. It’s striking how socialists, liberals, and techno-capitalists can all err, yet their common flaw lies in perceiving humans solely as material entities. Human beings are not just machines but complex creatures in need of meaning and purpose—something that a universal basic income cannot provide.
