Horses for Humans

In 1915 the US horse population peaked at 26.4 million. It is now less than 6.6 million (as of 2023), and continues to fall. The vast majority of this decrease is the result of technological innovations that largely replaced the raw muscle power of horses with machine power. (In fact, that's why we still use the term "horsepower" to measure the output of motors spoiler alert: it was mostly a marketing gimmick.)

In 2015 CGP Grey posted the video Humans Need Not Apply and posits that in the same way machinery (mechanical muscles) replaced horses, AI (mechanical minds) will replace humans. The video holds up well, and is well worth a watch. The main point is that horses became economically nonviable, and as a result their population has continued to decline and this same fate will befall humans in the era of AI.

At the close of of the video CGP Grey warns:

"We need to start thinking now about what to do when large sections of the population are unemployable -- through no fault of their own. What to do in a future where, for most jobs, humans need not apply."

It was prescient then, and continues to loom larger as artificial intelligence and robotic automation become increasingly capable.

But this argument fails to consider something humans have that horses don't. Fingers. 🖐🏽

Two additional, and arguably more important differences, are that we have both economic standing and political advocacy. Unlike horses, we can engage in trade with one another directly and we can vote.

Each of these societal constructs provides humans with tools to change their circumstances in a way that horses didn't.

Economic Modification

By its nature, our economy is highly circular - money cycles through as people buy (and save, invest, loan, and borrow) and it is that interdependence and ongoing movement of money that enables our economy to function. Sure, it has flaws. And, as CGP Grey points out in his video, it is possible that a select few continue to command a disproportionate amount of wealth, eventually leaving the rest of us with little we can do about it. They may then decide to terminate us all (I don't think they will) or pull an Elysium and enjoy a life of luxury while us peons carry on as ants down below.

While I believe those situations to be unlikely, the more likely scenario isn't much more pleasing. As Scott Galloway highlights, ultraluxury is one of the fastest growing sectors. AI will undoubtedly generate significant, perhaps endless, wealth, initially concentrated in the hands of few. This seems to be a somewhat cyclical happening in human history - from emperors and lords to robber barons and oligarchs.

As those cycles show, there are periods of concentration, and periods of redistribution. The speed of these cycles, like technology itself, is accelerating. The next one is likely to be the fastest humanity has experienced. It is, unfortunately, in our nature to wait until the problem is painful to respond, and that will likely be the case here as well. My hope is that we make this transition a less painful and more beneficial one with a bit of intention and forethought.

Political Upheaval

Nonetheless, the majority of the population serving at the beck and call of an extremely wealthy few hardly sounds like what our Founding Father's intended when they started "the last great experiment for promoting human happiness." In fact, it sounds very reminiscent of the tyranny and arrogance they were declaring independence from. As our circumstances change, and people lose their jobs and their ability to earn a living - they will still have a vote.

There will, undoubtedly be candidates who run on such campaigns (some have already started) and while it will take time, eventually people are likely to use that vote to reshape society, to redistribute this concentrated wealth, and begin a new experiment for promoting human happiness - exploring the potential of a post-scarcity future.

In fact, there is a chance that this may be one of the final economic upheavals humanity has to overcome on the path to reinventing society altogether. In relatively short order we could, for the first time, be asking ourselves what life looks like beyond survival and reproduction?