The idle society

If we didn't have to work for a living, what would we do instead? Would the world become a utopia where everyone had the chance to grow into the best versions of themselves? Or would humanity sink into a mire of self-indulgence and mindless hedonism?

Wouldn't it be wonderful for everyone's basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, medical care, entertainment) to be taken care of? Utopian thinkers and radicals across history have argued that society should guarantee these necessities to all. There are various proposals for how to achieve this: a basic income, from either a citizen's dividend (a payment to all citizens for the loss of property that is held to be theirs by right, such as land in general) or negative income tax, where people below certain income levels receive money to supplement their income from the government rather than paying tax, among others.

All this rests on the implicit assumption that, with guaranteed material security, people will be happier and better cared for. Yet at the same time, we know many of the richest people, who already have this assurance, aren't especially happy or satisfied. The "idle rich" and their problems, particularly those derived from inheritance, are well known. Ironically, many of the people who advocate something like a basic income are the same ones who point this out. It's as if they're decrying the rich while also saying, "Let us all be rich."

The post-scarcity utopia of Star Trek

One vision of the idle society was shown in the utopian Federation of Star Trek, where, although the details were understandably (and conveniently) never shown, everyone has their material needs taken care of. Given futuristic technologies like the replicator, this might in fact be possible.

However, this leaves the question: since the replicator can produce most material goods, what jobs are left for people to do? We're already seeing the rise of a service economy replacing industrial jobs. Could it be that service jobs are the only employment left in the Federation for most people, absent perhaps a very few that cannot be done with replicators (say, coming up with new ideas or designs of products to make)?

Star Trek’s solution is that, when the necessity of work is removed, people will choose to devote their lives to self-improvement, personal growth, and adventurous exploration and settlement of the galaxy. We should all be so lucky if this turns out to be possible, but it's more likely that inventions like warp drive will remain in the realm of sci-fi. If our material needs are met but we're unable to take to the stars, how would we choose to fill our time?

The post-scarcity dystopia of Brave New World

A darker version of the idle society is mass unemployment, with attendant social unrest. In Brave New World, the dystopian novel by Aldous Huxley, people are born into genetically engineered castes, lulled by constant use of the drug soma, and distracted with an ideology of mindless consumerism, casual sex and pornographic films whose sensations the viewer can fully experience, called "feelies." In the novel, World Controller Mustapha Mond explains to John the Savage that the government has purposefully retarded the rate of technological progress so automation does not cause that very problem.

Innovators who refuse to toe the line are exiled to isolated areas. Mond even says the world government experimented by reducing work hours in Ireland, to give people more leisure time. The experiment was a failure: rather than making them happier, it led to increased soma use and overall social disorder. However, it seems that in order to provide everyone's material needs, something like the replicator would be needed, which would render most industrial work obsolete.

Surprisingly, while the Federation of Star Trek differs almost wholly from the global state of Brave New World, there's one thing they seem to have in common. Holodecks, in the Star Trek universe, are virtual reality chambers which can simulate practically any experience. Star Trek only hints at it, as you'd expect from a prime time TV show, but an obvious use of this VR would of course be sexual.

The fact that both imaginary worlds saw fit to include this element of entertainment suggests it might be an essential means of preventing social unrest. One must wonder if the holodecks would be monitored to make sure pathological behavior, sexual and otherwise, is not vented, or whether this may be allowed when it's strictly virtual.

Who plans the post-scarcity economy?

If we implemented a basic income scheme, a large majority of people could be permanently idle, living on the necessities provided by the state. However, there would have to be at least a small number of people whose job it is to decide what goods will be produced, unless all this is achieved with artificial intelligence.

Government officials, civilian or military, scientists and engineers would likely make up this class, perhaps along with those coming up with templates for the goods to be produced. One can imagine that a tiny elite might emerge, which, if human nature remains unchanged, provides its membership with superior luxury goods and looks down on the idle masses with contempt, giving them an equivalent of bread and circuses.

Another question is whether the economy of an idle society would be state-run. If economic production is managed with central planning, no matter how advanced the computer, how could this society solve the economic calculation problem?

Given the information constraints of providing for everyone, it seems unlikely this problem could be solved perfectly. But even assuming it could, the other social problems remain (perhaps lowering world population would help, but that brings up other issues). Naturally, all of this assumes humans in their present form would exist at that point.

Now, as with the global state in Brave New World, the pace of technological development could be suppressed (for instance, Star Trek posits that genetic augmentation is banned in the Federation), but I'm skeptical that such a ban could be maintained forever. All of this is not to say we should cease attempting to alleviate poverty, or fight technological progress. Only that we must evaluate it critically—even, or perhaps especially, when it promises what so many desire. The outcome may not be what we expect. It may even be the opposite.

Perhaps this would not be the case. There have been studies that show basic income aided people, after all. We are simply dealing with too many unknowns. A future economy might be able to abolish work for most if not all people, but we should approach the idea of the idle society with caution.