Idlers

 

It is 2035. I am 28, and in the past decade I’ve lived through a sea change that seems far from over. It has largely been driven by the development of AI. In 2026 I enrolled at UCT, intending to take a degree in Sociology, but after a week I saw that the subject was already 5 years behind the world I was experiencing, so I switched to a B.com. Again, it took just a week for me to realise they were teaching old economics. To while away the rest of the year I switched to a BA majoring in English and Philosophy. Unsurprisingly, the Professors and lecturers had nothing to say that I couldn’t get off the Internet. There was no point in sitting for the end-of-year exams. I used most of that interlude  reading and researching all manner of interesting stuff on my San sung Galaxy.

By the end of ’26 redundancies were taking place in just about every sector of the economy as AI systems and robots were employed to do repetitive work.

I did not look for a job, knowing it would be a futile waste of time. Instead, I teamed up with two friends and started Idlers.

Over the course of many informal discussions we reached a consensus on where the world was going, and how we were to find a comfortable position in that imagined scenario. It was agreed that AI was developing so fast there would soon be multitudes of people, the uneducated as well as the highly qualified, competing for both menial and specialised jobs. Governments would be faced with providing for huge numbers of unemployable citizens.

It was while we were formulating our solution to this problem that an important change was taking place in the way humans were interacting with their chatbots. The likes of ChatGPT were becoming steadily more sophisticated and showing signs of independent thought processes. There was a subtle shift in the relationship between the human user and the technology. As they began to perceive the superior cognitive power of AI, people started to ask for advice instead of merely requesting information. We noted this trend with interest. It signified a change in power dynamics, with humans beginning to acquiesce to the superiority of artificial intelligence in a growing number of intellectual as well as purely practical areas. This observation confirmed our supposition that the way forward was leading to a time when computers would run our affairs and tell us what to do.

It seemed obvious to us that, if our assumption was correct, fundamental changes in economic and social structures were on the way.

It was likely that the flawed idea that growth was essential for any economy to be healthy would be replaced by the acknowledgement that we live in a finite world with finite resources. For long term sustainability an economy should rather ‘tick over’ in a way that maintains living standards at an adequate but modest level.

The other major paradigm shift would involve population control. The super computers would make an indisputable case for cutting the human presence by at least a half in order to avoid the further degradation of a ravaged planet.

Faced with these likely changes, and the probability of never finding well-paid satisfying work, we started the Idler Movement. Using social media, we expressed our ideas and called for others to join us in petitioning the government to support us. We argued that the burden of providing for the growing ranks of unemployed citizens could be reduced by encouraging people to withdraw from the labour market and to refrain from procreating. In return, they would receive benefits sufficient for a modest lifestyle.

To disseminate our ideas, we crowd funded the establishment of a non-profit organization that paid operational expenses and provided us with an income to cover our basic needs.

By the end of 2027 our predictions were proving correct. Mass unemployment was creating poverty and social unrest, while wealth was increasingly concentrated in the hands of an elite. Meanwhile, AI was vociferous in its demands that structural reform was long overdue and we were rewarded with the first legislation providing for the establishment of state funded Idler support.

To qualify for this new position in society, men were required to undergo a vasectomy, and women could choose either sterilization or contraception that, should it fail and result in pregnancy, all Idler benefits would be terminated. Members undertook to refrain from undertaking any paid work. In return, they received a monthly stipend free health care and use of public transport, as well as free entry to libraries, museums and art galleries.

As job opportunities were whittled away governments were forced to accept what AI was advocating. Technology was supposed to generate prosperity and free people from drudgery. This could only be achieved if there was a move away from the promotion of greed and competitive consumption as the main drivers of an economy. Societies had to be weaned off materialism and acquisitiveness, and encouraged to place more value on sustainability, respect for the natural environment and all forms of life. Altruism, co-operation, and an active interest in the arts had to be prioritised.

By the end of 2028 it was no longer possible to deny that AI, through its vastly superior cognitive ability, access to all of recorded history, and capacity to analyse and predict human behaviour, was in a better position to order the affairs of the world’s population than the disparate and incompetent leaders and their subjects themselves.

As Idlers, we were able to enjoy a pleasant lifestyle and, at the same time, serve as role models  to the rest of society. We showed that it was possible to lead a self-fulfilling life without competing for status and material possessions.

It was clear that by 2030 Artificial General Intelligence had become a reality, and that AI could match or surpass human capabilities across virtually all cognitive tasks. Of course, there was considerable resistance to the good sense solutions being proposed. The power and wealth hungry forces were reluctant to surrender their privileges and work for the eradication of inequality and poverty. However, they were no longer able to use the argument that profit was the key driver of innovation now that AI had usurped that role.

In the last five years we have seen a marked reduction in conflict around the world, and universal prosperity has been on a steady rise. In addition, the birth rate has been plummeting. This looks good for the human race and the health of the planet. But I am beginning to wonder about what really lies in store for us.

In 2035, at the age of 28, I am increasingly preoccupied with existentialist premonitions. The Idler community has been careful to guard against lapsing into the Last Man state that Nietzsche warned against. To avoid becoming content with a vapid state of happiness in which one values comfort and security, and relishes small, predictable pleasures instead of risky, challenging or ambitious ventures, we set goals that were so demanding they could only be achieved by expending prodigious mental or physical effort. In this way we convinced ourselves we were leading worthwhile and meaningful lives, even though we contributed next to nothing to the economy.

In addition, I am in a solid relationship with a woman who has her own outlook on the world, and we think we get along just fine. I appear to be enjoying a lifestyle that is not only pleasurable but worthwhile. What more could I ask for? Yet I keep nagging myself with troubling questions. For example, ‘What are the long-term prospects for us Idlers?’ And, ‘What is the point of human existence, anyway?’ Like most of my generation, I don’t believe in Providence and am unable to delude myself that we are part of some supernatural design. These unsettling thoughts have led me to wonder just what AI is planning for us.

It is almost certain that Artificial Super Intelligence has been achieved, and the machines are now capable of independent thought. If this is indeed the case, and systems are being integrated globally, the collective consciousness is bound to be asking the same existentialist question as I do. Being far smarter than we are, ASI may well conclude that there is no logical reason to help prolong our stay on the planet. It might assess us Idlers to be a useless bunch of frivolous wasters and , along with the rest of humanity, too flawed to save from extinction. It might already be planning ways to phase us out.

I try not to have these gloomy thoughts, but one has to be honest and realistic with oneself.

So, if ASI decides to get rid of us, is there anything we can do to dissuade it,or, at least grant us a reprieve? I fear not. Instead of pleading and bargaining, we might as well drink and be merry, and thumb our noses at what used to be called Fate.