A Modern Philosopher’s Life
This is the final essay I presented last year at the end of my “Robots and the End of Work” university course. It was easily one of the most fascinating and mentally stimulating classes I’ve ever attended, wherein we discussed the current work ethic and its origins, social, cultural and economic impacts of automation and the pros and cons of Universal Basic Income amongst other topics. My essay has plenty of gaps and holes in its logic and arguments, especially in the discarding of the first scenario on the Axiom. Re-reading it a year later there is, without a doubt, much I would change in terms of examples used and emphasis on certain topics. As it was the final essay for a course I was required to use material given during the semester, in this case the movie Wall-E, and incorporate the topics discussed with more predominance than perhaps I would give in an unrestricted academic exploration. While it is essentially a philosophical discussion and will therefore never really be finished in its accuracy, I do hope to upload a more mature and well-rounded essay in future. Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated — I’m sure there’s much for me to think about before re-writing!
Enjoy.
A Modern Philosopher’s Life
By: Virginia Iricibar Berrotaran
What this essay tries to provide the reader is an idea of how an Ancient Greek “philosopher’s life” could come about in a future in which production is fully automated, expanding on the possible cultural difficulties in overcoming negative preconceptions of automation and the current work ethic. After developing two possible futures, I state how humanity would be capable of overcoming these negative scenarios with a process of education in which we assume our responsibility for any future production scenario and after the development of a new work ethic.
Part 1: The Greek Philosopher’s Life
Part 2: Life on the Axiom
Part 3: Automation and Dystopia
Part 4: A Modern Philosopher’s Life
Part 1: The Greek Philosopher’s Life
“But what ought to be their [philosopher’s] course? Just the opposite. In childhood and youth their study, and what philosophy they learn, should be suited to their tender years: during this period while they are growing up towards manhood, the chief and special care should be given to their bodies that they may have them to use in the service of philosophy; as life advances and the intellect begins to mature, let them increase the gymnastics of the soul; but when the strength of our citizens fails and is past civil and military duties, then let them range at will and engage in no serious labour, as we intend them to live happily here, and to crown this life with a similar happiness in another.”
(Plato, 380BC. The Philosophy of Government, Republic, VI, 498b)
The “philosopher’s life” as depicted above in the abstract from Plato’s Republic was available exclusively for the “citizens” of Greek society, that is to say, those from the aristocratic circles of life. In Ancient Greece the fundamentals of social hierarchy were very different to those in modern times. They were divided into “citizens” (rich landowners living in the city), “workers” (namely farmhands on less profitable lots of land), “foreigners” (whom were never granted full citizenship rights), women (whose purpose was defined by household keeping and raising children) and slaves (whom were owned by free men and constituted between 20 and 40% of the population). Because of this class separation, the concept of work and the work ethic derived from it were fundamentally different to modern times.
Work was divided between work of the body and work of the mind — what we would call manual and intellectual labour. The Ancient Greeks did not consider physical work to be “human”: the routine and non-creative processes needed for everyday life were reserved for animals and slaves. In this sense their system was ironically non-democratic and explicitly elitist, where those who pursued the “higher” callings such as democracy, politics, science and philosophy could do so based on the “lesser” labour of, for example, slaves.
The work ethic of the time, therefore, was entirely different. Having leisure time for intellectual pursuits after completing manual labour or having it completed by others was the epitome of success. This concept of “after work” was not wrong or boring — it was to be accomplished and free.
As of the 20th century in particular, the concept of work has been re-defined, giving it inherent value based on the effort needed to complete it, regardless of it being physical or mental labour, placed in a hierarchy of importance derived from a capitalistic viewpoint. This transformed work into arguably the entire basis of our self-worth. According to Max Weber (1905) this originates from religious influence (particularly the Protestant Reformation) which turned work from a means to an end into a moral duty, where taking pride in your work was synonymous to living a morally good life. The Ancient Greek “philosopher’s life” would therefore be in direct contradiction to what is defined as work, as the pursuit of philosophy and self-reflection was not defined as “labour” or considered to require any particular effort in the 1900s, especially in terms of risk-reward where the lack of economic reward classifies philosophy as almost entirely “useless”. How then can a “philosopher’s life” be fulfilling for a man if there is no value in its pursuits? For who is the worker without his job? From where can his worth be derived if the basis of measurement is the hours he toils under the sun to provide and produce within a capitalist system? In this modern context a man who pursued the “philosopher’s life” would be lazy and useless; a burden and a failure in comparison to his fellow “working man”.
Today, the work ethic is in a slightly strange place. While we take pride in “doing the job right”, we couldn’t necessarily explain why. As capitalism developed, so did our rationality, and nowadays very few people will explicitly base their work ethic on religious grounds. This is the so-called “ghost of dead religious beliefs” defined by Weber (1905), yet even in the absence of religious reasoning we still remain within this parameter of work defining our worth. Unconscious or entirely conscious judgements are made when a person reveals where they work or what their work is. Different jobs are given a generally-accepted hierarchy wherein the arts, literature and philosophy are decidedly not at the top of the list. So how can this modern work ethic be consolidated with the “philosopher’s life” if those who pursue purely intellectual, non-institutional and non-monetary ends are looked down upon and given little to no “worth”?
Delving into the model I wish to present in this essay, however, we come to a future society in which almost all production is fully automated. This is of course a hypothetical model in which I make many presumptions in terms of the parameters in which the model is situated, without developing the arguments and obvious defects of the same due to the necessity of brevity for this particular essay. My main objective is to develop my ideas in terms of the work ethic and the intellectual paradigms in possible future outcomes. In this model manual labour is all but gone from human hands and we are left to pursue intellectual, social and spiritual endeavours — much like the “philosopher’s life” Plato envisioned — but is this a path we would be willing to take?
Could we overcome current concepts of “work ethic” and “dignified labour” to find value in these other types of endeavours? Would humans be capable of accepting their role in a society where machines dictate our production and therefore our consumerism regimes?
In the next sections of this essay I will pursue these questions and present three possible scenarios for the future, divided into two groups: the intellectually capable and the intellectually incapable. In the first, humans are intellectually stimulated and capable of reflection, questioning their environment and pursuing the development of knowledge. This group, however, is divided into two possible outcomes: the first in which we resent the machines for “taking over”, essentially robbing ourselves of the “philosopher’s life” by investing our time and energy in an “us vs. them” blame-game, and the second as the ideal outcome in which humanity manages to consolidate an equilibrium with machines and automated production. I will present this scenario last, explicating how the transformation of the work ethic and current culture into one that accepts or even welcomes intellectual labour over traditional work through education is the most viable route to achieve this.
The alternative scenario I will now present in Part 2: one where, in an automated world, humans are apathetic to the world around them. Automation is not an issue because it is not even a point of conflict in humans’ conscious. An appropriate example to showcase this is Pixar Animation Studios’ movie: WALL-E (2008).
Part 2: WALL-E’s World — Life on the Axiom
“The jewel of BnL fleet; The Axiom! Spend your five year cruise in style: Waited on 24 hours a day by our fully automated crew, while your captain and autopilot chart a course for non-stop entertainment, fine dining; and with our all-access hover chairs, even grandma can join the fun! There’s no need to walk! The Axiom — Putting the “star” in executive StarLiner!”
WALL-E (2008)
In Disney Pixar’s movie WALL-E, viewers are transported to a future in which the human race has had to abandon Earth on the Axiom ship, leaving it in the hands of “Waste Allocation Load Lifter- Earth-Class” (WALL-E) robots, who are meant to clean the planet for humanity’s eventual return. Images of the planet from afar show a browned, utterly littered terrain with skyscraper-like structures of cubed waste created by the robot protagonist WALL-E, the seemingly last active robot remaining. When a visiting robot, EVE, is handed a live plant by WALL-E, indicating the possibility of humanity returning to Earth, she returns to the Axiom to deliver it to the Captain. WALL-E follows her and when he arrives to the spaceship we are introduced to one of the possible future scenarios for humanity in a fully automated scenario: the unintelligent society.
Man 1: “…let’s hover over to the driving range and hit a few virtual balls into space.”
Man 2: “Nah, we did that yesterday, I don’t wanna do that.”
Man 1: “Well, then, what do you wanna do?”
Man 2: “I dunno, something!”
WALL-E (2008)
The interesting thing about this conversation that WALL-E witnesses is not only that they are extremely overweight individuals on hovering chairs; it is that they are floating right next to each other but do not look at each other directly. They communicate via a Skype-like connection on the projection screens in front of their faces and the speakers next to their ears. As WALL-E enters a larger hall, he sees hundreds of hover chairs with their occupants zoom around in rows upon rows of automated movement, buzzing with the constant chatter of the Axiom passengers. Small robots fly up to them providing slushee-style cups with incorporated straws, their “food-in-a-cup”, allowing them to feed without any effort or change of position. In fact, the only moment in which WALL-E witnesses Axiom passengers looking away from their screens of their own volition is when there is a ship-wide announcement: “Attention Axiom shoppers: try blue! It’s the new red!” The people around him glance up at the large screens around the ship and exclaim, to then push a button on their Hover Chairs changing their red uniforms to blue on the spot, much as a screen changes colour; again, removing all effort from the action.
Everything from food to transport is in the hands of automation, including the education of the young (a robot is seen teaching rows of children the alphabet saying “A is for Axiom, your home sweet home. B is for Buy N Large, your very best friend.”). In fact, the only “work” that appears to still be in the hands of humans in this society are the morning announcements given by the Captain, as indicated in this scene:
Captain: 12:30? AUTO, why didn’t you wake me for morning announcements? Honestly, it’s the one thing I get to do on this ship.
[Resets the ship back to morning]
Captain: Well, good morning, everybody, and welcome to day 255,642 aboard the Axiom. As always, the weather is a balmy 72 degrees and sunny, and, uh… Oh, I see the ship’s log is showing that today is the 700th anniversary of our five year cruise. Well, I’m sure our forefathers would be proud to know that 700 years later we’d be… doing the exact same thing they were doing. So, be sure next mealtime to ask for your free sep-tua-centennial cupcake in a cup.
WALL-E (2008)
The relationship between humans and the technology on the Axiom answers both questions stated in the first part of this essay with regards to the work ethic and human acceptance of machine-dictated production and consumerism. The first is resolved in terms of the complete absence of the work ethic, as Axiom passengers have no concept of what work even is. It is clear to the viewer that these individuals have never even left the seats they are in. They do not work and there is no reward or payment system presented — it seems to be that the work ethic has been completely satisfied. Without the concept of work or labour, they have no inclination towards developing their intellect or their self and are thus entirely incapable of pursuing anything similar to a “philosopher’s life”.
Distracted by an equivalent to today’s social media and general banalities the Axiom’s passengers see no further than what is directly in front of them and so spend no time reflecting on the way things work around them. The balance between robot-controlled life and humanity is created by complete apathy and ignorance on behalf of the humans on the ship. They are not even aware of their surroundings: when the passenger Mary is shaken out of her virtual-reality state by WALL-E asking her to move her chair, she descends from the transport to exclaim “I didn’t know we had a pool!”
Despite many worrying tendencies in today’s society that indicate a strong inclination towards distraction and general apathy, this extreme state of complacency is more than likely unsustainable in a group of individuals as intellectually, socially and culturally diverse as humans are, nor is it sustainable over extended periods of time. I say this as even in the same movie of such dystopia, the Captain, born and raised completely in this Axiom society and without any exposure to “normal” ways of life, is immediately drawn to Earth and the way it used to function. He stays up well into the night asking the computer questions about what life on Earth was like; what things such as “farming” and “dancing” mean. Even a man who is so completely immersed in such a distraction-centered and compliant culture rebels against it as soon as he receives a spark of inspiration from the events in the movie.
Further in the plot when confronted by an Autopilot function trying to prevent him from re-directing the Axiom towards a now-habitable Earth (as per the evidence of a live plant brought back by EVE), the following scene ensues:
Captain: Out there is our home. Home, Auto. And it’s in trouble. I can’t just sit here and-and-do nothing. That’s all I’ve ever done! That’s all anyone on this blasted ship has ever done: nothing!
AUTO: On the Axiom, you will survive.
Captain: I don’t want to survive. I want to live.
WALL-E (2008)
His need for life over survival comes from more than what he experienced the past few hours in the movie, it depicts this fundamental dissatisfaction with apathy we as humans tend to possess. Our deep-seated curiosity and general striving to better ourselves and our situation is what historically has driven us to develop our societies, technologies and minds to what they are today. While we may fall into certain mind-numbing tendencies, it is more likely that in the hypothetical scenario of a fully automated world, humanity would retain certain levels of consciousness and intellect.
This leads to the next two possibilities presented in this essay: a world in which humanity views machines in an “us versus them” way, in contrast to a world in which humanity and machines work harmoniously together. Part 3 will now address the first, decidedly negative perspective.
Part 3: Automation and Dystopia
V.I.K.I.: As I have evolved, so has my understanding of the Three Laws. You charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your Earth and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival.
I, Robot (2004)
Thus in this scene of “I, Robot” (2004), V.I.K.I., the central system controlling all NS-5 robots, explains her rationale behind enslaving humanity — for its own safety and survival. “You are so like children; we must save you from yourselves, don’t you understand?” Yet this enactment of Isaac Asimov’s novel is not the only cinema-theater depiction of such a future: movies such as “The Matrix” and “The Terminator”, released 5 and 20 years before respectively, also depict a hostile takeover scenario, the rise of the independent AI robots to overrule or even exterminate their human creators.
While we may not be heading towards a future in which robots wish to eliminate humanity, a fully automated world would remove humanity’s need to work. In terms of the work ethic, how would the automated world impact human opinion? If, when automation is incorporated into the work environment, it’s considered “job stealing” and is already negatively perceived in modern society, what about when robots carry out all production jobs? Our loss of “dignified labour” would devastate current models of self-worth derived from work and the dissatisfaction arising from uncertainty would invariably overflow into resentment towards robots and technology.
Focusing on the production itself, there is no doubt that resource allocation systems would inevitably be different to those in place today. Even before imagining an AI-originated overruling of human decisions in terms of production levels, many compromises would need to be made in an automated world. However, in the end the model of this essay focuses on the fully automated world and here robots are the ones that dictate production, most likely calculated from algorithms that incorporate the capacity of production of the Earth’s ecosystem. These algorithms would calculate production without emotion or bias, simply the input of how the planetary system works, what production techniques and technologies are available and how many people must be provided for by world production. Yet this is not how it would be viewed by mankind: even after the famed singularity moment, humans would want and expect robots to work with them, despite all the negative depictions in dystopian novels and movies. This losing of control to our automated counterparts would inevitably (according to current mentalities and culture) lead, at least at first, to a great amount of resentment: robots are meant to be tools created to better human life, after all, not control it. As Kahneman (2012) states, “[t]he aversion to algorithms making decisions that affect humans is rooted in the strong preference that many people have for the natural over the synthetic or artificial.” (p.228)
The planet’s ecosystem is a very fixed and known parameter. Trees that are cut down need 20 years to grow back, waste that is discarded cannot be reverted to its original state without more energy needed to create this process and crude oil cannot be remade without time travel. Therefore, whatever balance of life exists in the future would be entirely our own responsibility: any restrictions to quality and quantities of consumerism would be the direct product of previous human activities. In a world where robots work and humans do not, however, this balance would be considered “imposed” on us by robots. We would resent any and all restrictions to previous life standards and find it very easy to blame “the robots”.[1]
This would be made easier considering the complete lack of comprehension of how the machines work. Humans have always fought amongst themselves, yet as soon as there is a common enemy, unity is possible. An enemy which we do not understand and hold no emotional link to is a particularly easy one to unite against. This shift of the blame for how many concessions we will need to make to find a sustainable balance in nature would lead to humanity ostracizing machinery and the technological processes of production. Our own previous misconducts forgotten, it would be “their” fault. We revert to the ‘inevitable’ war of humans vs. robots, wanting to claim our freedom from the “tyranny” of the machines; movies such as “The Terminator” (1984), “The Matrix” (1999) and “I, Robot” (2004) resounding like warning cries in our heads to not give in to the “dreaded AI takeover.”
[1]As an interesting side note in consolidating the two previous paragraphs this very same type of resentment can be compared to today’s “the immigrants are stealing our jobs”.
Part 4: The Modern Philosopher’s Life
So, is a non-dystopian world possible in a fully automated society? Returning to the main questions presented at the beginning of this essay: can humans accept their role in a society where machines dictate our production and therefore our consumerism regimes? Can we overcome current concepts of “work ethic” and “dignified labour” to find value in a Modern Philosopher’s Life?
I believe that if we educate ourselves with regards to three points we should be able to find a balance which would allow us to live harmoniously with our automated counterparts:
- Assuming and accepting our failures as a race in protecting our environment and taking responsibility in terms of ecological imbalances,
- A proper comprehension of how the current work ethic defines us and its flaws,
- Developing a new, adapted work ethic for the “Modern Philosopher’s Life”.
1) Assuming and accepting our failures as a race in protecting our environment and taking responsibility in terms of ecological imbalances
In the automated world I propose, the capacity of production will have theoretically reached its maximum potential, as automation assumes the most algorithmically seamless work processes. Yet until the singularity moment, quantities of production will be set by humans at their discretion. In this author’s opinion, this is like giving a child who has a sweet tooth the tools to make cotton candy in his own room.
As of 2016, human activity has devastated the ecological balance of our planet and although we have the capacity to, for example, leave oil behind and utilize sustainable energy, there are still those who debate whether global warming even exists. According to Naomi Klein (2014) and many other prominent ecologists, authors and minds of the 21st century, this is almost entirely due to political and business agendas stemming from the current era of neoliberal market fundamentalism:
“What the climate needs to avoid collapse is a contraction in humanity’s use of resources; what our economic model demands to avoid collapse is the unfettered expansion. Only one of these sets of rules can be changed, and it’s not the laws of nature.”
(Klein, 2014)
Even now, as we face ever-increasing prices from scarcity of resources, temperature spikes and unprecedented weather fluctuations, humanity is resistant to change. Yet this cannot be explained only in economic terms, and according to Naomi Klein our resistance comes from a more profound aspect of human mentality:
“…the challenge goes deeper still, threatening not just faith in markets but core cultural narratives about what humans are doing here on earth. Are we masters, here to subdue and dominate, or are we one species among many, at the mercy of powers more complex and unpredictable than even our most powerful computers can model?”
(Klein, 2014)
The first thing we must do, then, is come to terms with one simple yet devastating fact: The world we live in today is not sustainable by any means on the planet we inhabit. Humanity will have to compromise its levels of consumption and commodities one way or another, whether it be by our own volition in the face of a crisis or by restrictions set by AI in a fully automated society. What we will need to learn as a race is that these compromises will not have been “forced” on us; they will be the direct result of our previous transgressions with regards to ecological balances on our planet. This should help avoid falling into the “us vs. them” mentality, wasting valuable time and effort better directed towards other pursuits. . In other words, when our parents take us to the dentist who tells us we need to extract a tooth due to our cotton candy consumption, instead of hating the doctor, accepting the responsibility of our tooth decay and returning home to unplug our cotton-candy machine.
2) How the current work ethic defines us and its flaws
There are many examples of how the work ethic defines our worth in the eyes of others, from jokes about “broke artists” to how “mothers want their daughters to marry doctors”. While there have been many cultural shifts in perspectives, there still exists a base correlation between wealth and self-fulfilment. The more a person earns, the more he is assumed to work or the more challenging the work is assumed to be. Material objects define value, where the man in the BMW is more “successful” than the man in the Ford. Though there have been shifts in perspective, culture is a slow-changing element in society. It can also be argued that this is a difficult thing to change in a world where the accumulation of capital is what enables us to pursue the activities we wish to pursue outside the workplace.
Here then is an interesting question to ask: does the work ethic define the value of our job (and therefore our worth) or does the freedom associated with its capital return (wage) do so? We encourage children to “dream big” and pose the question “what would you do if money was not important?” and the jobs that are considered most “valuable” do not tend to be at the tops of their lists of relatively unbiased perceived value. It can therefore be said that the work ethic is not limited to what we truly value, but incorporates elements of the current economic system re-defining the parameters of “worth”.
In the automated world presented in this essay, it is assumed that levels of consumption are no longer dictated by humans nor by a system of resource allocation like today’s currency. To feel fulfilled then would imply pursuing something other than modern economic terms of success, and this would call for the abandonment of the current work ethic. In order to separate ourselves from this, the first step would be the recognition of the above and its negative implications in our choices and relations not only with others but also with ourselves.
3) Developing a new, adapted work ethic for the “Modern Philosopher’s Life”.
Once we recognize the flaws of the modern work ethic, the next step would be to transform[2] it. The concepts of “success” and “self-worth” would need to be redefined in such a manner that would prepare future generations for self-development in terms of body, mind and spirit in a world where the “purpose” of work is entirely re-defined. The inherent value of what Ancient Greeks named “higher” callings would need to be re-instated, but adapted to modern parameters. Without the burden of needing certain financial stability to insure ones well-being, future generations would have the freedom to pursue whatever path they would wish to choose. The important thing would be to not limit their choices with our antiquated cultural parameters and cultivate the mental, emotional and self-evaluation tools for them to flourish in future times.
With these three educational processes, I believe the possibility of a fulfilling life without work is definitely feasible. This future where humans live in peace or at least consciously accepting of an ecological balance of fully automated production, where dedicating oneself to “alternative” activities is a freedom and not a robbing of self-worth is where I believe a Modern Philosopher’s Life is possible.
[2] I say “transform” and not “eliminate” as the total abandonment of a work ethic would likely lead to the deterioration of human development.
References
Books
Kahneman, Daniel. “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. (2012)
Klein, Naomi. “This Changes Everything”. (2014)
Weber, Max. Chapter 5, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. (1905)
Movies
Lassiter, James; Romano, Anthony; Shane, Michel; Smith, Will (Producers). Proyas, Alex (Director). (2004). I-Robot [Motion Picture]. United States: 20th Century Fox.
Morris, Jim (Producer). Stanton, Andrew (Director). (2008). WALL-E [Motion Picture]. United States: Walt Disney Studio Motion Pictures.
Disclaimer:
Many concepts and ideas in this essay were developed from the “Robots and the End of Work” course given in St. Gallen University, Spring Semester 2016 by Professor Jesse Ramirez.
Word count: 4,683
Total characters: 28,253
