As we stand on the precipice of a new technological epoch, the influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on our future remains a subject of fervent debate.
Techno-optimists, envisaging a world of abundance, assert that this transformational technology will considerably enhance our lives, paving the way for affluence and prosperity.
However, such outcomes are fraught with uncertainties. Even if AI fulfills its remarkable potential—resolving previously insurmountable challenges—the critical question remains: how will this newfound wealth be allocated?
This dilemma is already manifest in Australia’s food system, where the government’s estimates indicate a staggering 7.6 million tonnes of food waste annually, roughly translating to 312 kilograms per individual.
Simultaneously, approximately one in eight Australians experiences food insecurity, primarily due to inadequate financial resources to procure vital sustenance.
This stark disparity raises profound questions about our capacity to equitably distribute the abundance that AI could usher in.
AI’s Challenge to Economic Paradigms
Economist Lionel Robbins previously articulated the tenets of modern market economics, delineating it as an exploration of the interplay between desires (what we seek) and limited resources (what is available), which possess alternative applications.
Markets inherently function by rationing scarce resources, aiming to satisfy unlimited desires. Scarcity directly influences pricing, dictating what consumers are willing to pay for goods and services, thereby necessitating labor to earn money and produce more.
This article features in The Conversation’s series on employment in the AI era, where leading voices dissect AI’s ramifications for various career stages, the economic transformations it instigates, and strategies for adaptation.
The promise of AI—to generate abundance and tackle multifaceted challenges in health, engineering, and social domains—stands at odds with this established market rationale.
Moreover, it intertwines with apprehensions regarding potential job displacement across myriad sectors. In a climate devoid of wage-generating employment, one must ponder: how can individuals earn money and ensure market functionality?
Balancing Desires and Necessities
Unemployment is not merely a byproduct of advancing technology; it also stems from the intrinsic structure of market economies, which can generate rampant demand even amidst surplus, as evidenced by high unemployment or stagnating wages.
Economist John Maynard Keynes opined that market dynamics can precipitate recessions and depressions, perpetuating poverty even while resources, factories, and labor stand unutilized.
Australia’s recent economic turbulence, sourced from a public health crisis rather than market failure, nevertheless illuminated a potential remedy to the complications engendered by technology-driven abundance.
Amendments to governmental benefits—through increased financial support, the abolition of activity checks, and relaxed means-testing—significantly alleviated poverty and food insecurity during a period of economic contraction.
Global counterparts mirrored these policies, instituting cash payments across over 200 nations—an experience that bolstered calls for a synthesis of technological progress and “universal basic income.”
This research initiative is spearheaded by the Australian Basic Income Lab, a cooperative effort involving Macquarie University, the University of Sydney, and the Australian National University.
If citizens were assured an income sufficient to cover essential expenses, market economies might navigate this transition successfully, allowing the benefits of technological advancements to be equitably distributed. Why do food shortages persist amidst Australia’s existing bounty?
Jools Magools/Pexels
Welfare or an Equitable Share?
Discussions surrounding universal basic income necessitate clarity on intent. Some iterations of the concept risk perpetuating vast wealth disparities.
Colleagues from the Australian Basic Income Lab, including Elise Klein, alongside Stanford’s James Ferguson, advocate for a universal basic income conceived not merely as welfare, but as a “rightful share.”
They contend that the wealth generated through technological progress and collaborative efforts is a collective heritage of humanity, deserving equitable enjoyment as a fundamental human right—akin to how natural resources are perceived as common property.
The discourse on universal basic income exists in a lineage long antecedent to contemporary AI dilemmas. Early 20th-century Britain witnessed a surge of interest as industrialization and automation enhanced productivity without eradicating poverty, exacerbating job insecurities.
Historically, the Luddite movement sought to dismantle machinery they perceived as a threat to wages and livelihoods. Market-driven competition can incentivize innovation but simultaneously disperses risks and rewards in a disproportionately unequal manner.
Universal Basic Services
An alternative to resisting AI involves reforming the socio-economic frameworks that govern its benefits. UK author Aaron Bastani proposes a radical vision termed “fully automated luxury communism.”
Bastani embraces technological advancements, positing that they should facilitate an increase in leisure alongside improving living standards. This perspective aligns with the more tempered aspirations delineated in the Labor government’s recent reference—Abundance.
Notably, his approach diverges from advocating for a universal basic income; rather, he champions universal basic services. Under a model of universal basic services, public transport would be freely accessible.
Ersin Basturk/Pexels
Instead of providing financial aid for individuals to procure necessities, why not furnish these essentials directly—offering health, education, transportation, and energy at no cost?
This shift would necessitate reimagining how AI and related technologies are deployed—effectively socializing their implementation to fulfill communal requirements.
Uncertain Path to Utopia
Proposals concerning universal basic income or services illuminate the reality that, regardless of optimistic projections, AI alone is unlikely to yield an idyllic future.
As Peter Frase cautions, the interplay of technological advancement and ecological degradation could engender vastly divergent realities—not exclusively in terms of production capacity, but also in determining political frameworks that dictate resource allocation and conditions.
The formidable influence of tech conglomerates, many helmed by billionaires, raises the specter of a paradigm resembling what former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis terms “technofeudalism,” a scenario where the supremacy of technology and digital platforms supplant democratic governance with a new form of authoritarianism.
Anticipating a technological “utopia” distracts from the tangible solutions within our reach. We already possess the means to eradicate hunger and poverty; we don’t require AI’s guidance to realize these goals.
Ben Spies-Butcher serves as co-director of the Australian Basic Income Lab, a collaborative research effort comprising Macquarie University, the University of Sydney, and the Australian National University.
Source link: Miragenews.com.
