31 Comments

How do you reconcile this with the points made here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/rhverrinder/p/wealth-without-work-makes-us-miserable

That the future for us with AI may be one of augmentation rather than replacement. If not for economic reasons then at least for social, psychological, wellbeing reasons.

And even if we do go down the path of full automation (since you argue that that is inevitable, and I tend to agree) how do you envision our world in this state where people cannot seek fulfillment through work/production/creation. I don’t think investing can provide a sufficient enough outlet for this very basic human need.

Expand full comment

You don’t see what you do as meaningful work?

I recently listened to your episode on Living That Post-Labor Lifestyle and it seems you’ve maintained a “work day” of sorts.

I have also managed to create a UBI-like level of passive income, via investing, and I now struggle to find real engagement and satisfaction without actual work.

Having said that I do intend to follow in your footsteps, and find more significant outlets for my creativity. But I do fear what will happen when even this gets taken away from us.

Expand full comment

No, the "wealth without work" article is not worth addressing. It is pure Protestant toxic productivity. I find plenty of meaning and keep myself busy because I have mission and purpose, which is independent of making money.

You aren't finding "real engagement" because you lack the courage of conviction to follow your higher calling. You need a mission. It's that simple.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your perspective.

I actually didn’t realize that article was so anathema to your views 🙈

I’m new here and it was actually surfaced to my feed by following an author that was on your liked list.

Anyway I appreciate the work you’re doing. I found your videos on YouTube fascinating and was delighted to see that you have a substack. Hope to learn more as I dive deeper.

Expand full comment

I don't need to work and I have plenty to do and find plenty of meaning. This not worth addressing.

Expand full comment

great work dude. I've spent a good deal of time & energy thinking through some of these directions, & I'd be happy to give you a few notes and bat some ideas around if u want. I'd love to contribute to moving this stuff forward IRL🤍

Expand full comment

Thanks but I don't work with anons or unsolicited offers

Expand full comment

Reminds me of Binary Economics implementation proposals like Capital Homesteading.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_economics

http://capitalhomestead.org

Expand full comment

I found it very interesting, just one thing that was not clear for me.

What about basic survival goods like food, clothes, basic housing, water and minimum entertainment level?

If the UBI is not extensive enough to cover all the base level of that than people might never have the chance to invest because it never remains any money from it after they cover all their basic needs. Much like it is today with the majority of wages from labor.

I might have missed some key point you made but without this would't be exactly the same system as today but with UBI?

Expand full comment

The prices of basics would be drastically lower. Even housing.

Some even could be produced within the household, with just necessary raw materials for input.

This will hold true over time especially.

Expand full comment

Some services should be universal, namely healthcare

Expand full comment

Dave this is brilliant. I have reservations about its implementation, but know it’s a possibility and that gives me hope. Thank you

Expand full comment

Is there a way to prevent some having access to a better AI than others?

Expand full comment

Ideal! But how to get this started and when? It was uncommonly easy to understand. Ok , I’ll say it…sounds too good to become true after the election results.

Expand full comment

Honestly Trump is far more likely to implement this than Kamala. The DNC has become the party of the status quo and "do as I say, not as I do"

Expand full comment

You’re probably right. Thank you and I hope you’re doing well.

Expand full comment

An excellent and profound piece, David. It’s great to see you back in your element—this is the terrain where your analysis truly shines. Your exploration of each industrial revolution feels both comprehensive and revelatory, with ideas that challenge and illuminate. The clarity and organization of your arguments make this a standout work.

While I can’t say I fully align with your solutions for the so-called “post-labor economics,” I have to admit, they hit the right nerve for sparking meaningful debate. That’s exactly the kind of provocation we need right now.

@David - I’m genuinely impressed. Your work has always been a mix of fascination and critique for me, but this article stands as your magnum opus in my view. And as for your advice on “psychedelics”… let’s just say I’m intrigued but cautious! I can’t promise a similar epiphany, but perhaps a milder, less cosmic route is worth exploring? Either way, keep up the stellar work—you’ve clearly upped the bar.

Expand full comment

Thanks! My wife actually said that this really stands out too... but I was just working to distill and crystallize what I've been working on.

As for psychedelics, caution and curiosity are the appropriate dispositions to take!

Expand full comment

I created a comprehensive overview of human history going back to the hunter-gatherer phase after reading your piece; then I prompted GPT 4o to break down each revolution and their phases of development in terms of positive and negative externalities. Quite insightful to say the least!

Expand full comment

Would you like to share what you have unpacked?

Expand full comment

Thanks for sharing. Interesting to see the progression every 100 years starting from 1524 to 1924.

Expand full comment

My pleasure. I love this topic! I’m working on something similar for my Substack. It’ll be something you can refer to track the evolution of humanity, from the first Homo sapiens to humans in what I coined as “the age of augmented intelligence”.

Expand full comment

This is imaginative and I love the democratic spirit of it.

While I’m on board with the inevitability of a post-labour economy, there’s also a good argument for why it could be sandbagged or otherwise delayed until there’s a UBI - which may seem counterintuitive at first). Or it’ll involve a lot of unnecessary suffering.

Luckily someone has been doing research on it (in particular a calibrated UBI for economic reasons) and I got to interview him - this is Alex Howlett from the Greshm Institute in Boston https://open.substack.com/pub/beyondsurvival/p/the-economics-of-ai-universal-basic?r=40ir&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Expand full comment

The technological component is inevitable. UBI would just be the first step, I think.

Expand full comment

Tis.

Reminds me a lot of Yanis Varioufarkis and his ‘Another Now’ book where he explains a similar concept.

Main thing is economic agency - the lack of which is destroying people’s faith in the system right now.

Bravo

Expand full comment

Yes! That's one of the main points - even if AI doesn't take all our jobs, we real humans still need more economic agency independent of technology (or maybe because of it? in spite of it?)

This is an important signal...

Expand full comment

We all have a human need to be valued and to find connection. That requires agency (Maslow etc)

The neoliberal project has gone on far too long, subjecting that need to commercialism which is degrading to the spirit.

Thanks for being a solutionist. We need more of it.

Expand full comment

Superb. I’m unpacking this and resonating with it. It’s a cogent, crucial and pertinent essay. This rekindles my interest in economics. I’d like to see Joseph Stieglitz’s reaction to this piece, but I suspect his generation of economists are not keeping up with AI— and thus need a crash course on AI plus a big rethink.

Expand full comment

A fascinating proposition. Lots to think about.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Nov 20Edited
Comment removed
Expand full comment

You've made a fundamental mistake. Humans always need goods and services.

Expand full comment