Artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to transform economies worldwide, prompting a critical examination of how wealth is generated and distributed. The Australian government reports a staggering annual food waste of approximately 7.6 million tonnes, equating to about 312 kilograms per person. In stark contrast, one in eight Australians faces food insecurity, primarily due to insufficient financial resources. This disparity raises questions about the equitable distribution of potential abundance stemming from AI advancements.
Economist Lionel Robbins defined economics as the study of how limited resources are allocated to fulfill unlimited wants. In traditional market economies, scarcity dictates pricing and employment, forcing most individuals to work for their sustenance. The promise of AI to enhance productivity and solve complex societal issues conflicts with this established economic framework. There are growing concerns about the potential for widespread job displacement as AI technologies evolve. This scenario presents a dilemma: without employment, how do individuals earn income, and how do markets sustain themselves?
The dynamics of unemployment are not solely attributable to technological advancements. Market economies can create a paradox where significant demand exists alongside economic hardship. John Maynard Keynes highlighted that recessions can stem from systemic market failures, leaving many in poverty even amidst material abundance. Australia’s recent economic downturn, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, reinforces this notion. Despite a decline in productivity, adjustments to government benefits, including increased payments and relaxed means-testing, effectively reduced poverty levels and food insecurity.
In response to the challenges posed by AI, there is a growing advocacy for a universal basic income (UBI). This concept is being researched by the Australian Basic Income Lab, a collaboration involving Macquarie University, the University of Sydney, and the Australian National University. The idea proposes that providing everyone with a guaranteed income sufficient to cover basic necessities could facilitate a smoother transition into an economy transformed by technological progress.
Discussions around UBI often raise concerns about perpetuating wealth inequalities. Elise Klein from the Australian Basic Income Lab, alongside Stanford University’s James Ferguson, advocates for a version of UBI understood as a “rightful share.” They argue that the wealth generated through technological innovation should be regarded as a collective asset, accessible to all individuals akin to a nation’s natural resources.
The historical context of UBI debates can be traced back to early 20th-century Britain, where industrialization and automation led to economic growth without alleviating poverty. As the Luddites resisted machines that threatened their livelihoods, current discussions highlight the uneven distribution of the benefits of technological change.
In contrast to UBI, some thinkers, such as Aaron Bastani, propose the concept of “fully automated luxury communism.” This vision embraces technological advancements, suggesting that they should lead to increased leisure and improved living standards. Bastani advocates for universal basic services, where necessities such as healthcare, education, and energy are provided directly to individuals rather than through monetary compensation. This approach requires a fundamental shift in how AI and other technologies are utilized, ensuring they meet collective needs rather than merely serving market demands.
The ongoing discourse around UBI and universal services underscores that AI alone is unlikely to create a utopian future. As noted by Peter Frase, the intersection of technological progress and ecological concerns could lead to disparate outcomes, influencing political dynamics around resource allocation. Concerns about “technofeudalism,” as articulated by former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, reflect fears that control over technology by a few billionaires could undermine democratic processes and market principles.
While the path forward remains uncertain, it is clear that solutions to systemic issues such as poverty and resource distribution already exist. The world currently possesses enough food to sustain its population and has the knowledge to eradicate poverty. The challenge lies not in the technology itself, but in how society chooses to harness its potential for the greater good.
Ben Spies-Butcher, an associate professor at Macquarie University, emphasizes that we do not need AI to outline these solutions. The current discourse surrounding AI’s potential impact on economies invites a broader conversation about the values and systems that drive our resource allocation and economic models.
