There are basically only three futures for the developed world. It’s a little more complex than this in that they aren’t totally exclusive; mass immigration would lead to enforced fertility and ruin the development potential needed for (as yet far away) full automation. However, broadly, these three extreme solutions constitute the available scope of policy responses that could conceivably work. We either invite in the portions of humanity who are yet to suffer from the fertility crisis, try and pump up our domestic fertility with policies that severely regiment fertility, or look to the future and try to replace workers with machines.
Progressive liberals and econ wonk neolibs want the first solution (which won’t lead to the maintenance of prog liberalism and neoliberalism), whereas conservatives basically want the softiest fluffiest version of the second solution, to the point where it won’t work either. The fertility crisis is an extremely biting one (though I have mentioned before that we simultaneously suffer under the weight of a large absolute population size and high population density). It is an almost total phenomena that will lead inexorably to economic decline, if nothing is done. It does not mean extinction, as certainly higher fertility sub populations can eventually burst through the lower fertility masses, but that organic process in itself seems to mean social and economic collapse. Countries with a wide array of different policy tools in their respective overton windows are suffering through the early stages of the same process:
It’s pretty obvious that pro-natal policies would have to be EXTREME, as even countries like Iran are seeing a declining fertility rate. Essentially “people who have less than three kids are second class citizens”, and certainly the retraction of women’s rights. Namby pamby solutions like more child care payments will not work. Countries with generous child payments (like Norway) and countries that are socially traditional in the standard cultural sense (like Russia) are both experiencing the same decline. Something much more repressive would be required. It is possible that standard social conservatism could work under some circumstances. Israel is one of the few exceptions, as a developed nation with positive TFR, but it is under conditions of what it believes to be existential conflict. There would have to be a siege mentality. Perhaps a new global conflict. Whatever the form it takes, the enforcement of fertility through means of passive social conservatism clearly doesn’t work. Russia is generally taken to be socially traditionalist, but the reality is that it suffers from low church attendance and high divorce rates. It’s clear that the required traditionalism needs to be rabid and active. More than that, if it fails to take hold organically, the state would have to enforce fertility in some fashion that tears up the conventions of human rights.
Now, the group that wants the third solution (the group I’m sort of part of) has extremely minimal impact and mostly includes e/acc meme lords (“effective acceleration”). Pretty much the entire rest of society wants to restrict AI and slow its progress, so that likely whittles things down to the first two solutions. Restrictionists will surely both slow innovation here, but also concentrate AI development into regulation compliant monopolies and the military industrial complex, whether they desire that or not. The use of AI for labor replacement may be slowed.
I hope this is not true, but there is simply too much fear of annihilation at the hands of Artificial Intelligence, and more than that; fears of job loss and loss of status or meaning in life. Even slightly slowing development here may exacerbate things and lead to more restrictions. If AI can take over jobs relatively quickly, a trivial conversion of jobseeker’s allowance into a liveable basic income is required (and I have discussed elsewhere the diminishing of the inflationary effects of a basic income under full automation). If it occurs slowly, then you get certain sections of workers being thrown out of that section of industry without the widespread effect that would lead to a crisis policy response. This may lead to regulators slamming on the breaks as regards commercial application of AI (but of course, behind the scenes, whatever treaties they sign, militaries will still be eager).
The game is, of course, already afoot. The first solution, that of mass immigration, is what the current crop of elites have chosen (they even sell it partially on the grounds of labor replacement), but as we all know and expected; it’s not going too well, is it?
Ultimately, I’m not sure what gives left of center actors so much confidence. Either they end up with social traditionalism because of immigrants, or there’s a fertility decline induced economic collapse and they end up with social traditionalism (or more high tech and totalitarian fertility enforcement) because of the reaction.
The futures that could narrowly thread progressivism are that progressives wake up and kick out the barbarians (but then they wouldn’t be progressives; at least not left wing ones), or they embrace automation at full speed (be progressives in the purist material sense), but there are too many labor movement concerns. Too many progressive clients, such as the entertainment industry, have a vested interest in preventing the growth of AI.
The modern left is mostly an alliance between minorities and white collar workers. Middle class professionals have the most to lose from AI. Theoretically they could buy into shares in AI companies (or buy robot workers when they appear), but people always fear uncertainty. In the social capitalist state of modern times, where the ever present and feared austerity is always in hindsight but a blip on a graph, the working class will likely benefit from full automation by replacing wages with a basic income. At least economically.
More welfare is what the elites have chosen as policy for the past hundred years of democracy, so that is unlikely to change. The rich and capital owners obviously benefit massively. It is the middle class professionals that stand to lose out (if they don’t individually prepare themselves), since whereas for the working class, a basic income guarantee could provide an amount that essentially replaces wages, the middle class professional can no longer enjoy their £70k income any more. There is also a loss of status to consider. The recent strikes were about pay, but also included some anti-AI rhetoric. It is very unlikely that the progressives will be able to navigate a strongly pro automation position in the coming decades.
We can easily see from this that the game is up. It’s over even as it begins. Either we head towards extreme natalist policies that mean not just an end to progressivism but liberalism more broadly, or we forge forwards into a new stage of production that threatens the humanity identity. That may be functionally possible, but politically impossible.
So, we built a fantastic civilization. A true wonder. We simply didn’t care to maintain it, and took it for granted, until the last final moments forced bitter choices upon us.
The whole of the story can be summed up in these lines from a movie about a bat man; “Peace has cost you your strength! Victory has defeated you!”
Forward Synthesis 