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

[BigMike]

If we hit that point where machines do everything, and stuff becomes free, I think the real curveball is boredom. Not just in the “what do I do all day?” sense, but deep, existential boredom. Like, when survival’s not a thing and there’s no pressure to earn or hustle, what keeps people moving?

We might end up with a weird divide, not between rich and poor, but between people who create meaning and people who just float. You’d get folks diving into art, philosophy, space travel, digital worlds, not for money, but because it feels real. And others who just check out, living in auto-pilot because nothing demands their attention anymore.

So maybe the new “job” is actually figuring yourself out. Like emotional and psychological work becomes the new frontier

Exactly. And I think what you're getting at lines up beautifully with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. If AI, robotics, and clean energy take care of the base of the pyramid—physiological needs and safety—then we’re finally free to live in the upper layers full-time.

Social connection, esteem, self-actualization—those don’t disappear in a post-labor world. They become central. People won’t just “float” unless we fail to cultivate meaning. And you’re right, meaning doesn’t come from pressure or paycheck—it comes from purpose.

So the future isn't a void. It’s a blank canvas. People will paint it with creativity, exploration, learning, service, even spiritual or philosophical depth. There is plenty of interesting stuff to do. The difference is, we’ll do it because it matters to us—not because we’re trying to earn the right to eat.

And that shift, honestly, could be the most important one in human history.

[accelafine]

.

[BigMike]

AI?

Yes—AI is central to this. Not as a magic wand, but as the engine that makes this kind of future possible in the first place.

We're talking about AI that can:

• Manage resources with far more precision than humans ever could,
• Coordinate massive logistics chains with zero waste,
• Design products optimized for durability, recyclability, and minimal impact,
• And—maybe most importantly—replace the need for most human labor in production, logistics, transportation, and administration.

Without AI, you’re right to be skeptical. But with it? We're not just automating work—we’re automating efficiency, sustainability, and abundance.

So yes: AI. That’s the pivot.

Fuck off with your phony AI shit. If you are human then present your own arguments.

No problem—I just added you to my foe list, and I’d genuinely recommend you do the same with me. That way, you won’t have to see anything I post, and we both get to move on with our conversations undisturbed.

And for the record: These are my arguments, my words, and my sincere thoughts. Whether you agree or not, that’s entirely up to you. But I’ll step aside now—no hard feelings.

[accelafine]

Yes—AI is central to this. Not as a magic wand, but as the engine that makes this kind of future possible in the first place.

We're talking about AI that can:

• Manage resources with far more precision than humans ever could,
• Coordinate massive logistics chains with zero waste,
• Design products optimized for durability, recyclability, and minimal impact,
• And—maybe most importantly—replace the need for most human labor in production, logistics, transportation, and administration.

Without AI, you’re right to be skeptical. But with it? We're not just automating work—we’re automating efficiency, sustainability, and abundance.

So yes: AI. That’s the pivot.

Fuck off with your phony AI shit. If you are human then present your own arguments.

No problem—I just added you to my foe list, and I’d genuinely recommend you do the same with me. That way, you won’t have to see anything I post, and we both get to move on with our conversations undisturbed.

And for the record: These are my arguments, my words, and my sincere thoughts. Whether you agree or not, that’s entirely up to you. But I’ll step aside now—no hard feelings.

Whatever. Perhaps AI needs to learn to not be QUITE so precise with its comma placements, as humans tend to get it wrong a lot of the time-- although the comma before 'and' is controversial but I rather like it and find it useful.

[phyllo]

AI?

This is how the thinking works :

AI replaces God as the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity which will bring a utopia to us.
AI will know the exact balance for literally everything and will be able to create a world which is in perfect harmony... humans, animals, plants, current generations, future generations.

Forgive my skepticism.

If you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is', then how can AI know what it ought to do?

And why wouldn't lots of inhabitants of this planet think that it ought to be doing something different?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Let’s suppose that BigMike is entirely the author of what he writes. This is most likely.

But it will happen more and more that AI will intrude in communication (as there are now AI options in Microsoft Word and in many different apps).

When the trans-humanist options become viable, and available, then no one will know or be able to discern a distinct line between human created and human/AI amalgamation.

BigMike is one who wants to ride the incoming wave. There is a large faction like him who are pro-futurists. So it it likely that when the option is presented, he will “amalgamate” willingly.

More and more everyone will sound like an AI. I think this is already happening.

Mike, you might want to include some errors from time to time. Like, uh, I dunno, maybe include some misspellings. Or cuss words. That calm HAL 9000 tone may need to be modified.

[Alexis Jacobi]

“Well, Acellafine, I have carefully thought over what you said and — I agree — there’s nothing to be gained from further communication between us. Goodbye.”

[BigMike]

AI?

This is how the thinking works :

AI replaces God as the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity which will bring a utopia to us.
AI will know the exact balance for literally everything and will be able to create a world which is in perfect harmony... humans, animals, plants, current generations, future generations.

Forgive my skepticism.

If you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is', then how can AI know what it ought to do?

And why wouldn't lots of inhabitants of this planet think that it ought to be doing something different?

Totally fair questions, and honestly, I think they’re some of the most important ones in the whole debate.

Let me be clear: I don’t see AI as a god. It’s not omnibenevolent, and it definitely doesn’t “know what ought to be.” It’s not about morality falling from the sky. It’s about systems that can manage complexity—resources, logistics, production—with far more precision than humans ever could. That’s not utopia. That’s just competence at scale.

But your point about ought vs. is is exactly why we can’t hand over values to machines. AI can show us consequences. It can optimize for goals we define. But the goals themselves still have to come from us—from human dialogue, from philosophy, from ethics we actually talk through and agree on.

So I’m not saying AI creates harmony on its own. I’m saying it frees us from the grind of survival so we can work on harmony together. Not because AI tells us what matters—but because it finally gives us the time and breathing room to ask.

[BigMike]

Let’s suppose that BigMike is entirely the author of what he writes. This is most likely.

But it will happen more and more that AI will intrude in communication (as there are now AI options in Microsoft Word and in many different apps).

When the trans-humanist options become viable, and available, then no one will know or be able to discern a distinct line between human created and human/AI amalgamation.

BigMike is one who wants to ride the incoming wave. There is a large faction like him who are pro-futurists. So it it likely that when the option is presented, he will “amalgamate” willingly.

More and more everyone will sound like an AI. I think this is already happening.

Mike, you might want to include some errors from time to time. Like, uh, I dunno, maybe include some misspellings. Or cuss words. That calm HAL 9000 tone may need to be modified.

Fair enough, Alexis. I get the unease. We're definitely heading into blurry territory—between what’s human-made and what’s machine-augmented. That’s not science fiction anymore. That’s happening now. But here’s the thing I’d ask you to look at, not with fear, but with clear eyes:

Automation isn’t some dreamy future—it’s already here. Entire job sectors are shrinking fast. Warehouses are run by robots. Customer service is handled by AI. Coding, writing, analysis, logistics—all being eaten away, bit by bit, by smarter systems that don’t need sleep, wages, or breaks. Truck drivers, cashiers, paralegals, even radiologists—none of that is off-limits anymore. The evolution isn’t just theorized—it has traction. It has momentum.

Same with clean energy. Solar and wind are cheaper than coal in most parts of the world. Entire grids are shifting. Storage tech is catching up. We are—slowly, unevenly—replacing dirty scarcity with clean abundance. That’s not wishful thinking. It’s market data.

So you can roll your eyes at pro-futurism, and that’s fine. But the wave’s already crashing. I’m not “riding” it for thrills—I’m trying to understand it, to help steer it before it steers us.

And as for the tone—sure, maybe I’ll throw in a typo next time. But I’m calm because I believe what I’m saying. If that sounds like HAL 9000, so be it. Just don’t mistake clarity for artificiality.

Or to put it differently: try to stop it. Tell automation to slow down. Tell solar panels to stop working. See what happens.

[Flannel Jesus]

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

Either a famine that makes the poor near-extinct, or an extreme form of financial redistribution style government.

The point is that neither of those are available outcomes. Food and daily basics are no longer scarce in the scenario provided, so famine is effectively impossible and redistribution is not required - redistributive economies redistribute something that is scarce from those who have more than plenty to those who need. Post-scarcity, everybody has access to plenty.

They don't just automatically get access to plenty. If things are no longer scarce because of technology, and the vast majority of that technology is owned by the wealthy / corporations, then YES you still need government intervention to make sure that the fruits of that technology aren't just horded by the wealthy.

It's not automatic, and assuming it will be automatic is a recipe for disaster.

[FlashDangerpants]

Either a famine that makes the poor near-extinct, or an extreme form of financial redistribution style government.

The point is that neither of those are available outcomes. Food and daily basics are no longer scarce in the scenario provided, so famine is effectively impossible and redistribution is not required - redistributive economies redistribute something that is scarce from those who have more than plenty to those who need. Post-scarcity, everybody has access to plenty.

They don't just automatically get access to plenty. If things are no longer scarce because of technology, and the vast majority of that technology is owned by the wealthy / corporations, then YES you still need government intervention to make sure that the fruits of that technology aren't just horded by the wealthy.

It's not automatic, and assuming it will be automatic is a recipe for disaster.

I definitely agree it isn't automatic. And he's not a details guy. His scenario is sort of post-historic in Marxist sense, so perhaps we can fill in the missing details...

Being the ultimate as the ultimate labour saving devices that they are, the robots have done the revolution for us and overthrown the capitalist pig dogs. After that the robots have eliminated the non-working classes by converting landlords, aristocrats and all other rentiers into tinned dog food. Finally, with no need for the nation state that serves only to separate the workers of the world into arbitrary warring entities, the robots (henceforth to be known as the Means of Production) will dissolve the nations and the united nations alike. As history is really nothing but a list of battles between the working classes and their oppressors, history is now at an end, and so is hunger.

[BigMike]

Either a famine that makes the poor near-extinct, or an extreme form of financial redistribution style government.

The point is that neither of those are available outcomes. Food and daily basics are no longer scarce in the scenario provided, so famine is effectively impossible and redistribution is not required - redistributive economies redistribute something that is scarce from those who have more than plenty to those who need. Post-scarcity, everybody has access to plenty.

They don't just automatically get access to plenty. If things are no longer scarce because of technology, and the vast majority of that technology is owned by the wealthy / corporations, then YES you still need government intervention to make sure that the fruits of that technology aren't just horded by the wealthy.

It's not automatic, and assuming it will be automatic is a recipe for disaster.

Totally with you on that—access isn’t automatic just because abundance is technically possible. Technology doesn’t redistribute itself. If the infrastructure is owned by a handful of corporations or ultra-wealthy individuals, then yeah, we just reinvent feudalism with solar panels and robots.

But here’s a wild thought—maybe we could, together, make laws that deny machine-owners free access to our sunshine. I mean, the sun shines on all of us, right? It’s a public good in the most literal sense. If energy is the root of post-scarcity production, then controlling its access could be the democratic lever that tips the balance. Block the monopoly at the source.

Okay, maybe that sounds naive. Or overly optimistic. Or just plain silly. But the alternative—letting a new aristocracy lock up the means of post-work production and decide who gets to “live well” and who doesn’t—isn’t silly, it’s horrifying.

And yeah, I hear the snarky voices: “Why not just kill the owners?” But that's not a fix—that's just tragedy on repeat. The moment calls for imagination, not vengeance. We need a political solution that matches the technological moment. Because if we don’t build it, the default will be built against us.

So the question isn’t if we need intervention—it’s how soon we wake up and fight for one that reflects fairness, not ownership.

[phyllo]

Let me be clear: I don’t see AI as a god. It’s not omnibenevolent, and it definitely doesn’t “know what ought to be.” It’s not about morality falling from the sky. It’s about systems that can manage complexity—resources, logistics, production—with far more precision than humans ever could. That’s not utopia. That’s just competence at scale.

You have already made comments in this thread which attribute God-like powers to AI :
"Coordinate massive logistics chains with zero waste,"
"If AI and robotics, powered by clean energy, can recycle materials at near-total efficiency, synthesize alternatives to rare elements"
"The same systems that can automate everything can also track environmental impact down to the molecule."

In another thread, you wrote that that AI could write a better ethics than Christianity.

But your point about ought vs. is is exactly why we can’t hand over values to machines.

If AI is so much better than humans, then why wouldn't "we" hand it over to AI?

So I’m not saying AI creates harmony on its own. I’m saying it frees us from the grind of survival so we can work on harmony together. Not because AI tells us what matters—but because it finally gives us the time and breathing room to ask.

If AI is producing everything, distributing everything and managing everything, then people would have to adapt to that system of organization.

You can't have it both ways ... humans organizing things and AI organizing things at the same time.

[BigMike]

Let me be clear: I don’t see AI as a god. It’s not omnibenevolent, and it definitely doesn’t “know what ought to be.” It’s not about morality falling from the sky. It’s about systems that can manage complexity—resources, logistics, production—with far more precision than humans ever could. That’s not utopia. That’s just competence at scale.

You have already made comments in this thread which attribute God-like powers to AI :
"Coordinate massive logistics chains with zero waste,"
"If AI and robotics, powered by clean energy, can recycle materials at near-total efficiency, synthesize alternatives to rare elements"
"The same systems that can automate everything can also track environmental impact down to the molecule."

In another thread, you wrote that that AI could write a better ethics than Christianity.

But your point about ought vs. is is exactly why we can’t hand over values to machines.

If AI is so much better than humans, then why wouldn't "we" hand it over to AI?

So I’m not saying AI creates harmony on its own. I’m saying it frees us from the grind of survival so we can work on harmony together. Not because AI tells us what matters—but because it finally gives us the time and breathing room to ask.

If AI is producing everything, distributing everything and managing everything, then people would have to adapt to that system of organization.

You can't have it both ways ... humans organizing things and AI organizing things at the same time.

Right—and I appreciate you holding my feet to the fire on consistency here. But just to be clear: I honestly don’t remember ever saying that AI could write a better ethics than Christianity. That doesn’t even sound like something I’d argue. If I did say it somewhere, point me to it and I’ll either own it or clarify what I meant. But my consistent position has been that AI doesn’t do ethics—it does optimization. And what it optimizes depends entirely on what we tell it to value.

Now, as for the “God-like powers” thing—yeah, I see how that could sound a little starry-eyed. But again, what I’m describing isn’t divine intervention, it’s highly advanced systems engineering. We're talking about supply chains managed with sensor networks and machine learning models, not miracles. AI can track environmental data, predict outcomes, and help us reduce waste—not because it has a soul or a conscience, but because it’s a tool with reach and speed far beyond what we’ve had before. It’s not God. It’s Google, with steroids and a brain.

And you're right—if AI is handling everything logistical and productive, that’s a real system, and people will absolutely have to adapt to it. But here’s where we may disagree: I think it’s possible to draw a line between technical systems that run physical infrastructure and moral systems that govern human life. AI can do the first. It should never do the second.

So no, I’m not trying to have it both ways. I’m arguing for a division of labor:
- Let AI handle the material world efficiently,
- Let us—humans, communities, societies—handle the moral, existential, and cultural questions.

That’s not contradiction. That’s partnership, with clear boundaries.

[accelafine]

I predict a new buzzword for wokies in the near future--'botphobic'. But will they be able to chant 'Bot rights are human rights' ?