Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming various aspects of society, leading to discussions about its profound implications for the economy and our understanding of money. While many view AI as a pathway to material abundance, the reality of how this wealth will be distributed remains uncertain. Current issues in Australia’s food economy illustrate this tension vividly.
According to the Australian government, approximately 7.6 million tonnes of food are wasted annually, translating to about 312 kilograms per person. Meanwhile, one in eight Australians experiences food insecurity, primarily due to insufficient financial resources. This disparity raises significant questions about our capacity to equitably share the potential wealth generated by the AI revolution.
Shifting Economic Models
Economics, as defined by economist Lionel Robbins, examines the relationship between our desires and the limited resources available to satisfy them. In market economies, scarcity drives prices and necessitates work to earn money, which in turn fuels production. Yet, the promise of AI to enhance abundance and solve complex societal issues conflicts with this established market logic.
Concerns abound that AI could render millions of jobs obsolete. Without employment, individuals lose their means to earn money, challenging the fundamental operations of markets. This dilemma is not solely attributed to technology; market economies can create unemployment or stagnate wages amid apparent abundance. As John Maynard Keynes pointed out, economic downturns can emerge from within the market system, leaving many in poverty even when resources are available.
The recent public health crisis caused by the pandemic exposed another layer to this issue. In response to economic challenges, Australia implemented changes to government benefits, enhancing payments and easing restrictions. These measures significantly reduced poverty and food insecurity, even as the economy faced contraction. Similar initiatives led to cash payments in over 200 countries, highlighting a global shift towards rethinking economic support systems during crises.
Universal Basic Income and Economic Equity
The pandemic reinforced calls for a combination of technological advancements and universal basic income (UBI). Research by the Australian Basic Income Lab, a collaboration involving Macquarie University, the University of Sydney, and the Australian National University, focuses on the potential of UBI to provide a guaranteed income sufficient to cover essential needs. Such a system could facilitate a smoother transition into an economy reshaped by AI.
Discussions surrounding UBI necessitate clarity regarding its purpose. Some propose a model that still permits substantial wealth inequalities. Colleagues at the Australian Basic Income Lab, including Elise Klein and James Ferguson, advocate for a UBI that serves as a “rightful share” of the wealth generated by technological progress. They argue that the fruits of collective human endeavors should be distributed equitably, akin to how natural resources are viewed as communal property.
The concept of UBI is not new; similar discussions emerged in early 20th-century Britain, driven by industrialisation and automation. Historical movements, such as the Luddites, opposed technological changes that threatened livelihoods, illustrating the ongoing tension between innovation and economic security.
Another perspective on addressing the challenges posed by AI involves rethinking the distribution of its benefits. Author Aaron Bastani presents the idea of “fully automated luxury communism,” advocating for increased leisure and improved living standards through technological advancements. Instead of providing financial assistance, Bastani proposes offering universal basic services. This approach would ensure access to essentials like healthcare, education, and transportation, effectively socialising the benefits of technology to meet collective needs.
While UBI and universal basic services present potential solutions, they also underscore the reality that AI alone will not create an ideal society. As Peter Frase notes, the interplay between technological progress and ecological challenges could lead to diverse futures, affecting production and the political landscape of resource distribution.
The increasing influence of tech companies led by billionaires raises concerns about a future resembling technofeudalism, where control over technology shifts power dynamics away from markets and democratic processes.
The notion of waiting for a technological “nirvana” overlooks the immediate possibilities at hand. As Ben Spies-Butcher, Associate Professor at Macquarie University, asserts, we already possess the means to eliminate food scarcity and poverty. The challenge lies not in the technology itself, but in our willingness to implement equitable solutions that ensure everyone benefits from the advancements AI offers.
