I think the core issue here is not economic, but anthropological. Even in a labor zero world, humans do not suddenly become obsolete artifacts. We remain carriers of meaning. Culture, trust, shared narratives, and cooperation cannot be fully automated without undermining the stability of the system itself.
This is why generative mutualism works not only as a game theoretic outcome, but as a continuation of how life has always scaled. Durable complexity emerges through integration, not exclusion. Not out of moral idealism, but because exclusion ultimately weakens the structure it is meant to protect.
So the real question is not why elites would tolerate the continued existence of “us,” but why a civilisation would choose self amputation at the precise moment it becomes capable of something larger.
You could just make having kids prohibitively expensive if you want to enjoy the lifestyle blasted to your brain every waking hours. No killings needed!
I have a different perspective to offer to you : will post AI economy still be controlled by a human elite, or will a smarter than human AI take control ? I've been exploring this idea and just made 3 posts on the topic. In particular https://bastiani.substack.com/p/the-architects-agenda?r=4irfx7
The conclusion is not very different from the one you are offering. I guess we are both optimists and I hope it's not just a bias.
Hi David — thanks for the thought-provoking piece on Generative Mutualism and why cooperation is the only Nash-optimal strategy for a world where labor’s marginal utility tends toward zero. I especially appreciated the way you framed Mutualism as the synthesis that prevents collapse, rather than letting elites and masses face a Hobbesian deadlock over existential utility.
I share your direction toward Mutualism — not as an abstraction but as the organizing principle for a Post-Labor political economy that is equitable, peaceful, and sustainable. Where your essay asks why elites would “keep useless eaters around,” I think the deeper question is how we re-architect the social contract itself so that humans don’t become commodities of labor — but instead become participants in decentralized abundance.
To that end, I’ve written an essay titled “Solarpunk Governance — How DAOs Can Build the Mutualist Post-Labor Future” which explores how Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and programmable governance structures can help transition from the current labor-centric economy to a cooperative, abundance-oriented Mutualist one.
In that piece I argue that:
- The Post-Labor future requires new shared fictions — stories and structures that bind cooperation rather than extraction.
- DAOs are not merely technological artifacts but governance primitives that can encode reciprocity, self-organization, and shared ownership — core Mutualist values — into executable systems.
- We should design political-economic institutions that decentralize governance and value distribution rather than defaulting to dystopian stratification.
If Mutualism is the orientation, then Solarpunk governance frameworks and DAO ecosystems are among the practical ways to design the transition without chaos, violence, or elite domination.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on where our visions overlap — especially on bridging abstract post-labor theory with concrete political-economic architectures that can be built (incrementally and peacefully) in the real world.
When I am working on a solar punk science fiction story, this is the philosophical question that is central to solve. The, “How do we get to mutual care,” scenario. Great piece. Keep going! Philosophy doesn’t solve problems, it helps us with inroads.
A really thought-provoking article. I agree it seems unlikely there would be an overt cleansing of the precariat by those with more power.
That said, I do think the masses are vulnerable to a “stealth” form of slavery. You could argue it’s already happening through consumerism — what I see as Slavery 2.0: we have “freedom of choice” through what we buy, yet people can still face serious consequences (even legal ones) for social media posts that challenge the prevailing narrative.
In my view, Slavery 3.0 begins when people can no longer earn enough to remain “consumers.” In that scenario, the state steps in with surveillance based UBI, and corporations offer a trade: your data, biometrics, and attention in exchange for goods and services.
It would be poetic if it weren’t so damning — an existence where we are both the consumers and the consumed
I agree with your thoughts. Consumerism can be misguided and it is definitely weaponized by some companies.
But labeling it “slavery” makes it feel 100% negative. To me there is more “opportunity” available to more people than ever before in history. AI will supercharge that.
And if I don’t have to work for money then I would consider doing something for purely community benefit
Totally hear you on the word “slavery” — I’m not trying to equate this with chattel slavery. I’m using it as a shorthand for coercive dependency: when basic access to life starts being traded for compliance + data + attention, “choice” gets a bit theatrical.
I agree there’s more opportunity than ever, and AI could amplify that , my worry is it also amplifies leverage for whoever controls the rails (ID, payments, platforms, models).
Also, I love your point about doing work for community benefit if money stops being the constraint — that’s the best-case version. I’m mostly thinking about the failure mode where UBI (or access) becomes conditional and surveilled.
And genuinely thank you. Your work has been really helpful in sharpening how I’m thinking about where this goes :)
Yes, as you astutely pointed out, the organism keeps growing.
I do wonder whether there’s some rough heuristic where, the larger it gets, the narrower our real freedom range becomes, and the more coercive the system feels by default.
I agree completely that it’s possible to live a life within this system that our ancestors could only have dreamed of. The tension, I think, is that there will always be a small but significant minority of humans for whom that trade-off never quite lands, where that pesky “ghost in the machine” refuses to fully accept it.
I like the essay but what if the elite can continue the population without the common people. There are already advancements in external placentas. You can imagine a declining world where either embryo can be made with whatever genetic material is already on hand or women selling their eggs to elites as a near last resort. I think after bunkers you also need to account for ai robots/security because if the elite want a small group to exist and they get to share the resources having a robot security force gives them a lot more leverage then the common people. Again just thought experiments
I think the core issue here is not economic, but anthropological. Even in a labor zero world, humans do not suddenly become obsolete artifacts. We remain carriers of meaning. Culture, trust, shared narratives, and cooperation cannot be fully automated without undermining the stability of the system itself.
This is why generative mutualism works not only as a game theoretic outcome, but as a continuation of how life has always scaled. Durable complexity emerges through integration, not exclusion. Not out of moral idealism, but because exclusion ultimately weakens the structure it is meant to protect.
So the real question is not why elites would tolerate the continued existence of “us,” but why a civilisation would choose self amputation at the precise moment it becomes capable of something larger.
You could just make having kids prohibitively expensive if you want to enjoy the lifestyle blasted to your brain every waking hours. No killings needed!
Hey, wait a moment ...
I have a different perspective to offer to you : will post AI economy still be controlled by a human elite, or will a smarter than human AI take control ? I've been exploring this idea and just made 3 posts on the topic. In particular https://bastiani.substack.com/p/the-architects-agenda?r=4irfx7
The conclusion is not very different from the one you are offering. I guess we are both optimists and I hope it's not just a bias.
Hi David — thanks for the thought-provoking piece on Generative Mutualism and why cooperation is the only Nash-optimal strategy for a world where labor’s marginal utility tends toward zero. I especially appreciated the way you framed Mutualism as the synthesis that prevents collapse, rather than letting elites and masses face a Hobbesian deadlock over existential utility.
I share your direction toward Mutualism — not as an abstraction but as the organizing principle for a Post-Labor political economy that is equitable, peaceful, and sustainable. Where your essay asks why elites would “keep useless eaters around,” I think the deeper question is how we re-architect the social contract itself so that humans don’t become commodities of labor — but instead become participants in decentralized abundance.
To that end, I’ve written an essay titled “Solarpunk Governance — How DAOs Can Build the Mutualist Post-Labor Future” which explores how Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and programmable governance structures can help transition from the current labor-centric economy to a cooperative, abundance-oriented Mutualist one.
In that piece I argue that:
- The Post-Labor future requires new shared fictions — stories and structures that bind cooperation rather than extraction.
- DAOs are not merely technological artifacts but governance primitives that can encode reciprocity, self-organization, and shared ownership — core Mutualist values — into executable systems.
- We should design political-economic institutions that decentralize governance and value distribution rather than defaulting to dystopian stratification.
If Mutualism is the orientation, then Solarpunk governance frameworks and DAO ecosystems are among the practical ways to design the transition without chaos, violence, or elite domination.
Here’s the link to that essay:
👉https://khenofek.substack.com/p/solarpunk-governance-how-daos-can
I’d love to hear your thoughts on where our visions overlap — especially on bridging abstract post-labor theory with concrete political-economic architectures that can be built (incrementally and peacefully) in the real world.
Best,
Khen Ofek
Yes, we do still need a coordinating narrative, however. From wage/labor to, I think, "attention/preference" stay tuned for more on this.
When I am working on a solar punk science fiction story, this is the philosophical question that is central to solve. The, “How do we get to mutual care,” scenario. Great piece. Keep going! Philosophy doesn’t solve problems, it helps us with inroads.
A really thought-provoking article. I agree it seems unlikely there would be an overt cleansing of the precariat by those with more power.
That said, I do think the masses are vulnerable to a “stealth” form of slavery. You could argue it’s already happening through consumerism — what I see as Slavery 2.0: we have “freedom of choice” through what we buy, yet people can still face serious consequences (even legal ones) for social media posts that challenge the prevailing narrative.
In my view, Slavery 3.0 begins when people can no longer earn enough to remain “consumers.” In that scenario, the state steps in with surveillance based UBI, and corporations offer a trade: your data, biometrics, and attention in exchange for goods and services.
It would be poetic if it weren’t so damning — an existence where we are both the consumers and the consumed
I agree with your thoughts. Consumerism can be misguided and it is definitely weaponized by some companies.
But labeling it “slavery” makes it feel 100% negative. To me there is more “opportunity” available to more people than ever before in history. AI will supercharge that.
And if I don’t have to work for money then I would consider doing something for purely community benefit
Totally hear you on the word “slavery” — I’m not trying to equate this with chattel slavery. I’m using it as a shorthand for coercive dependency: when basic access to life starts being traded for compliance + data + attention, “choice” gets a bit theatrical.
I agree there’s more opportunity than ever, and AI could amplify that , my worry is it also amplifies leverage for whoever controls the rails (ID, payments, platforms, models).
Also, I love your point about doing work for community benefit if money stops being the constraint — that’s the best-case version. I’m mostly thinking about the failure mode where UBI (or access) becomes conditional and surveilled.
And genuinely thank you. Your work has been really helpful in sharpening how I’m thinking about where this goes :)
I like coercive dependency 😀
But yes, concentration of power worry me too. It’s human nature right?
Yes, as you astutely pointed out, the organism keeps growing.
I do wonder whether there’s some rough heuristic where, the larger it gets, the narrower our real freedom range becomes, and the more coercive the system feels by default.
I agree completely that it’s possible to live a life within this system that our ancestors could only have dreamed of. The tension, I think, is that there will always be a small but significant minority of humans for whom that trade-off never quite lands, where that pesky “ghost in the machine” refuses to fully accept it.
That’s probably where my interests sit.
I like the essay but what if the elite can continue the population without the common people. There are already advancements in external placentas. You can imagine a declining world where either embryo can be made with whatever genetic material is already on hand or women selling their eggs to elites as a near last resort. I think after bunkers you also need to account for ai robots/security because if the elite want a small group to exist and they get to share the resources having a robot security force gives them a lot more leverage then the common people. Again just thought experiments