How AI, Robotics, and Clean Energy Will End Labor and Money – A Future Where Everything Is Free

[Belinda]

I want to push the conversation a little further—not into sci-fi speculation, but into the hard logic of cause and effect.

Let’s say you’re skeptical. That’s fair. But ask yourself: What exactly are jobs? They're not inherently meaningful activities. They're tasks people do because other people won’t—or can’t—do them for free. The only reason you’re paid is because your labor fills a need that isn’t yet automated or fulfilled by nature. So if machines can do the work, and energy costs vanish, and goods become abundant... what’s left to pay for?

Money doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s a rationing tool—a workaround for scarcity. But if scarcity ends, money doesn’t just become unnecessary; it becomes an obstacle. You can’t charge rent if no one needs shelter built by humans. You can’t sell food if vertical farms run by AI feed everyone. You can’t “own” labor if there’s no laborer.

People will say: “But someone still owns the machines!” Sure—for a while. But think about what ownership even means when maintenance, distribution, and production are handled by self-replicating systems. When enforcement becomes ethically and economically unjustifiable, what does “ownership” even look like? It collapses under its own absurdity.

The deeper issue here—the one that keeps me up—is how long we try to prop up outdated systems just to avoid the inevitable. Do we let automation enrich only the few? Or do we finally admit that the end of work means the end of transactional society?

Because if we don't need to work to live, then the logic of markets, wages, and wealth hoarding falls apart. And if we cling to it anyway, we’re not preserving civilization—we’re preventing its evolution.

So again, I ask: What replaces it?
And what does it mean to be human when survival is no longer a job?

If economic survival is not a problem we would nevertheless like to answer the remaining problem of promoting beauty and goodness. Economic survival is not enough for adult humans who want more than the basics of survival.

[BigMike]

If economic survival is not a problem we would nevertheless like to answer the remaining problem of promoting beauty and goodness. Economic survival is not enough for adult humans who want more than the basics of survival.

Exactly, Belinda — you’re absolutely right.
Even if basic survival becomes automatic — even if no one has to worry about food, water, shelter, healthcare — the deep needs mapped out in Maslow’s pyramid still stand.

We still need to attract a mate.
We still need community, purpose, recognition, belonging, self-esteem, creative outlets, and ultimately, meaning.
Automation doesn’t erase those needs — it just clears the old obstacles that used to define them.

And the real question — the one that’s staring us in the face — isn’t whether those needs will vanish.
It’s whether we’ll still have to earn money to access them, or whether we can imagine a society that provides the scaffolding for those needs differently.

I don’t claim to have all the answers — no one does.
But I can propose a few possibilities, just to crack the door open:

Maybe education becomes lifelong and free, not something rationed out by tuition fees.
Maybe status and belonging start attaching more to creative contributions — art, philosophy, storytelling, community leadership — rather than to wealth accumulation.
Maybe service to others — mentoring, teaching, healing — becomes a primary way people find esteem, and not something you need a paycheck to justify.
Maybe partnerships and families form less around financial security and more around shared projects, visions, and goals.
Maybe recognition is earned not by what you hoard but by what you offer back into a system of abundance.

Every person will probably answer these questions differently — and that’s healthy.
The future won’t hand us one monolithic model. It’ll be plural, messy, creative — people building meaning in a thousand different ways that work for them.

The real danger is pretending we don’t have to answer the question at all.
Because whether we like it or not, the safety net that work and money used to provide is already starting to tear — and what we weave in its place will define whether this transition becomes a renaissance or a collapse.

[BigMike]

I envy all the people who look into the future and see utopia. Whenever I look into the future I always see nuclear wars. So I try not to do it.

I hear you, Atla — and honestly, I don't blame you.
There’s a part of me that feels that same tug toward cynicism every time I look around at how recklessly we handle what we already have.

But here’s the thing: the future isn’t a place we just arrive at.
It’s built — step by step, decision by decision — by what we choose to encourage, defend, and fight for now.

If people who can imagine something better give up, then the only people left shaping the future are the ones too short-sighted, too greedy, or too bitter to care what comes next.

I’m not naïve about it — I know the risks. Nuclear wars, ecological collapse, authoritarian backlashes — they’re all live wires in the system.
But resigning ourselves to expecting disaster basically guarantees it.

So yeah, when I push for a better vision — even one that feels audacious — it’s not because I think it’s guaranteed. It’s because giving up would be surrendering the one shot we have.

You’re not wrong to worry.
But maybe don’t let the worst possibilities steal your vote in what comes next.

[Atla]

Wonder what percentage of his comments is AI-generated.

[Gary Childress]

Wonder what percentage of his comments is AI-generated.

Some people naturally think and state things as BigMike does. And even if they are AI-generated or assisted responses, it's not really all that important to the arguments being made.

[Atla]

Wonder what percentage of his comments is AI-generated.

Some people naturally think and state things as BigMike does. And even if they are AI-generated or assisted responses, it's not really all that important to the arguments being made.

Well I find it pretty insulting to be given responses enhanced by some AI.

[Gary Childress]

I’m not naïve about it — I know the risks. Nuclear wars, ecological collapse, authoritarian backlashes — they’re all live wires in the system.
But resigning ourselves to expecting disaster basically guarantees it.

So yeah, when I push for a better vision — even one that feels audacious — it’s not because I think it’s guaranteed. It’s because giving up would be surrendering the one shot we have.

You’re not wrong to worry.
But maybe don’t let the worst possibilities steal your vote in what comes next.

This does seem like a reasonable approach to things. It seems as though our expectations perhaps do play a role in the way things unfold for us. I suppose we ought to take a sober approach to the world, though. Maybe something in between roses and Armageddon.

[Gary Childress]

Wonder what percentage of his comments is AI-generated.

Some people naturally think and state things as BigMike does. And even if they are AI-generated or assisted responses, it's not really all that important to the arguments being made.

Well I find it pretty insulting to be given responses enhanced by some AI.

Maybe just think of it as BigMike's limitation, then. If he needs AI, then it's because he is unable to present topics as eloquently on his own. Maybe he has a "handicap" (probably one that many of us have, though). It's like being insulted by a person with a speech impediment. It's not their fault.

[Atla]

I’m not naïve about it — I know the risks. Nuclear wars, ecological collapse, authoritarian backlashes — they’re all live wires in the system.
But resigning ourselves to expecting disaster basically guarantees it.

So yeah, when I push for a better vision — even one that feels audacious — it’s not because I think it’s guaranteed. It’s because giving up would be surrendering the one shot we have.

You’re not wrong to worry.
But maybe don’t let the worst possibilities steal your vote in what comes next.

This does seem like a reasonable approach to things. It seems as though our expectations perhaps do play a role in the way things unfold for us. I suppose we ought to take a sober approach to the world, though. Maybe something in between roses and Armageddon.

I see this approach as also leading to nuclear armageddon, it's not drastic enough. Which is why I don't like to think about the future.

[BigMike]

I’m not naïve about it — I know the risks. Nuclear wars, ecological collapse, authoritarian backlashes — they’re all live wires in the system.
But resigning ourselves to expecting disaster basically guarantees it.

So yeah, when I push for a better vision — even one that feels audacious — it’s not because I think it’s guaranteed. It’s because giving up would be surrendering the one shot we have.

You’re not wrong to worry.
But maybe don’t let the worst possibilities steal your vote in what comes next.

This does seem like a reasonable approach to things. It seems as though our expectations perhaps do play a role in the way things unfold for us. I suppose we ought to take a sober approach to the world, though. Maybe something in between roses and Armageddon.

Exactly, Gary — that’s really well said.
Finding that sober balance between blind optimism and fatalistic despair is crucial. It's not about pretending everything will turn out fine, and it's not about wallowing in doom either — it's about choosing to guide the ship instead of letting it drift into the rocks.

And you’re right: our expectations shape our actions, and our actions shape the future. It’s all connected.

That’s also why I think it’s so important for the collective us — as fractured and messy as we are — to have as clear a picture as possible of the future we actually want.
Because there will absolutely be unforeseen hurdles between here and there.
And without a clear north star — a shared direction — we could be thrown off track by fear, by chaos, by opportunists.
If we aren’t vigilant, if we don’t keep that vision steady even through storms, we could end up somewhere very different from what we hoped for.

So it’s not about utopian daydreaming.
It’s about staying awake, staying sober, and steering as best we can, together.

[Gary Childress]

Which is why I don't like to think about the future.

I should probably adopt that approach also.

[BigMike]

Some people naturally think and state things as BigMike does. And even if they are AI-generated or assisted responses, it's not really all that important to the arguments being made.

Well I find it pretty insulting to be given responses enhanced by some AI.

Maybe just think of it as BigMike's limitation, then. If he needs AI, then it's because he is unable to present topics as eloquently on his own. Maybe he has a "handicap" (probably one that many of us have, though). It's like being insulted by a person with a speech impediment. It's not their fault.

Alright, I’ll say this plainly:

This whole AI-accusation thing has come up over and over again, and honestly, I’m getting tired of it. I stopped engaging with it a long time ago because it’s not a real conversation — it’s just a distraction.
I find the questions and accusations partly flattering, sure, but mostly just insulting.

Similarly — maybe not so much here, but definitely in other topic threads — the persistent view that my position must be "lunatic," "extreme," "dangerous," "mad," or whatever else, just because I stick to scientifically overwhelming, widely accepted facts... it gets exhausting.
Apparently saying “Hey, maybe physics and economics matter” now counts as radical extremism.

So for the record — for the nth time — what I say here is me talking, with my own words.
No AI whispering in my ear.
No script.
No bots.
Just me.
I’ll try to sprinkle a misplaced comma here and there if that helps you feel better about it.

But I’m not going to keep apologizing for thinking clearly, caring about cause and effect, and trying to hold the conversation to a serious level. You can either engage with the ideas, or not — but the childish side accusations stop here.

[Gary Childress]

Well I find it pretty insulting to be given responses enhanced by some AI.

Maybe just think of it as BigMike's limitation, then. If he needs AI, then it's because he is unable to present topics as eloquently on his own. Maybe he has a "handicap" (probably one that many of us have, though). It's like being insulted by a person with a speech impediment. It's not their fault.

Alright, I’ll say this plainly:

This whole AI-accusation thing has come up over and over again, and honestly, I’m getting tired of it. I stopped engaging with it a long time ago because it’s not a real conversation — it’s just a distraction.
I find the questions and accusations partly flattering, sure, but mostly just insulting.

Similarly — maybe not so much here, but definitely in other topic threads — the persistent view that my position must be "lunatic," "extreme," "dangerous," "mad," or whatever else, just because I stick to scientifically overwhelming, widely accepted facts... it gets exhausting.
Apparently saying “Hey, maybe physics and economics matter” now counts as radical extremism.

So for the record — for the nth time — what I say here is me talking, with my own words.
No AI whispering in my ear.
No script.
No bots.
Just me.
I’ll try to sprinkle a misplaced comma here and there if that helps you feel better about it.

But I’m not going to keep apologizing for thinking clearly, caring about cause and effect, and trying to hold the conversation to a serious level. You can either engage with the ideas, or not — but the childish side accusations stop here.

Sounds fair to me. I look forward to the misplaced commas. You're too perfect, Mike!

[accelafine]

Could whoever said that BigMike was AI in the first place (rhymes with piss pie) please post your proof of this? I would like to know how that works. You need to post something written by AI that is indistinguishable from one of BM's posts. Your last effort was pathetic. It should include cutting but hilarious insults. I have little interest in AI (apart from whether or not it's going to annihilate humankind) and have never knowingly used it except for the one that's now forced on everyone in google searches, so no condescending 'IT nerdish' remarks or deliberately confusing techy-speak if you don't mind. Thanks in advance.

[accelafine]

Maybe just think of it as BigMike's limitation, then. If he needs AI, then it's because he is unable to present topics as eloquently on his own. Maybe he has a "handicap" (probably one that many of us have, though). It's like being insulted by a person with a speech impediment. It's not their fault.

Alright, I’ll say this plainly:

This whole AI-accusation thing has come up over and over again, and honestly, I’m getting tired of it. I stopped engaging with it a long time ago because it’s not a real conversation — it’s just a distraction.
I find the questions and accusations partly flattering, sure, but mostly just insulting.

Similarly — maybe not so much here, but definitely in other topic threads — the persistent view that my position must be "lunatic," "extreme," "dangerous," "mad," or whatever else, just because I stick to scientifically overwhelming, widely accepted facts... it gets exhausting.
Apparently saying “Hey, maybe physics and economics matter” now counts as radical extremism.

So for the record — for the nth time — what I say here is me talking, with my own words.
No AI whispering in my ear.
No script.
No bots.
Just me.
I’ll try to sprinkle a misplaced comma here and there if that helps you feel better about it.

But I’m not going to keep apologizing for thinking clearly, caring about cause and effect, and trying to hold the conversation to a serious level. You can either engage with the ideas, or not — but the childish side accusations stop here.

Sounds fair to me. I look forward to the misplaced commas. You're too perfect, Mike!

It's not the clear thinking, it's the complete and utter ansence of typos, grammatical errors, dodgy punctuation, word over-use, or spelling mistakes (although 'American spelling' is automatically incorrect but that's irrelevant here--AI uses American manglish) that smells a bit 'off'. I can't write a two sentence 'tweet' without SOME kind of typo. I have no idea why but I think it has something to do with the brain working faster than the fingers or the other way around--I've never been able to work that out. Perhaps Mike spends hours editing each post. There's no way of telling, unless someone goes over all of them with a fine tooth comb to determine the amount of time lapses between posts--which only an insane person would do. Even then, the odd typo will inevitably be missed, although I don't use spellchecks so I don't know what their capabilites are these days.