Meritocracy, Inequality and the future of the human race

[ElRaja]

This follows from a conversation I had with one of my uncles discussing the current state of unrest around the world. While he argued that these events are part of a cyclical pattern, much like those we've seen in the past, I contended that the situation is fundamentally different this time.

I've always supported the idea of a meritocratic system, where individuals advance based on their abilities and efforts. However, it's becoming increasingly clear that the value of human labour is declining with each passing day. In the modern economy, the primary forms of capital available to individuals are intellectual and financial. Unlike physical labour, which has inherent limitations, the potential value generated by intellectual and financial capital is significantly higher and can scale without the same constraints.

A meritocracy based on physical labor seemed like a fair way to distribute resources, as everyone was limited to more or less a similar level of physical effort. However, a meritocracy driven by intellect and financial acumen is a much more complex and potentially problematic concept. The last few decades have shown that the most intelligent and wealthy individuals have been able to amass unprecedented levels of power and influence on a global scale. This concentration of wealth and power has contributed to growing economic inequality, as evidenced by numerous studies on the widening gap between the rich and the poor, particularly in the developed world.

It’s not surprising, then, that many of the participants in the riots in Northern England came from economically underprivileged backgrounds. Historically, the politics of division have been a key strategy for controlling resources and maintaining power. Yet, even if these individuals succeed in achieving short-term goals—such as reducing immigration or diminishing the influence of minorities in the UK—they are unlikely to see meaningful improvements in their economic situation. This is because the root causes of their discontent, such as economic inequality and lack of opportunity, remain unaddressed.

The most concerning aspect of this system is its inherent paradox: because it is meritocratic, those who are smart or resourceful enough will find a way to attain wealth and comfort, regardless of their starting position. As a result, the brightest individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds often end up supporting and perpetuating the very system that exploits those who are left behind. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle in which the underclass of increasingly out of demand people remains marginalized, and social mobility becomes increasingly difficult.

Given these dynamics, is it even possible to reform our systems to ensure that meritocracy benefits everyone, rather than deepening existing and growing inequalities?

 

[Red-Indian]

This follows from a conversation I had with one of my uncles discussing the current state of unrest around the world. While he argued that these events are part of a cyclical pattern, much like those we've seen in the past, I contended that the situation is fundamentally different this time.

I've always supported the idea of a meritocratic system, where individuals advance based on their abilities and efforts. However, it's becoming increasingly clear that the value of human labour is declining with each passing day. In the modern economy, the primary forms of capital available to individuals are intellectual and financial. Unlike physical labour, which has inherent limitations, the potential value generated by intellectual and financial capital is significantly higher and can scale without the same constraints.

A meritocracy based on physical labor seemed like a fair way to distribute resources, as everyone was limited to more or less a similar level of physical effort. However, a meritocracy driven by intellect and financial acumen is a much more complex and potentially problematic concept. The last few decades have shown that the most intelligent and wealthy individuals have been able to amass unprecedented levels of power and influence on a global scale. This concentration of wealth and power has contributed to growing economic inequality, as evidenced by numerous studies on the widening gap between the rich and the poor, particularly in the developed world.

It’s not surprising, then, that many of the participants in the riots in Northern England came from economically underprivileged backgrounds. Historically, the politics of division have been a key strategy for controlling resources and maintaining power. Yet, even if these individuals succeed in achieving short-term goals—such as reducing immigration or diminishing the influence of minorities in the UK—they are unlikely to see meaningful improvements in their economic situation. This is because the root causes of their discontent, such as economic inequality and lack of opportunity, remain unaddressed.

The most concerning aspect of this system is its inherent paradox: because it is meritocratic, those who are smart or resourceful enough will find a way to attain wealth and comfort, regardless of their starting position. As a result, the brightest individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds often end up supporting and perpetuating the very system that exploits those who are left behind. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle in which the underclass of increasingly out of demand people remains marginalized, and social mobility becomes increasingly difficult.

Given these dynamics, is it even possible to reform our systems to ensure that meritocracy benefits everyone, rather than deepening existing and growing inequalities?

Don't know how I missed this thread. It's one of my favourite subjects to pointlessly think about - how do we deal with a society in which physical labour increasingly loses value and not everyone is willing or able to contribute intellectual labour? The force multiplying effects of technology and now AI on intellectual labour are only intensifying the impact.

It's tough not to get dystopian as we think about the future. The scifi world where a few run the world and the idle masses vacuously survive on some version of the UBI.

No easy answers but I can add a few thoughts that I'll try to add if folks are interested to discuss.

 

[ElRaja]

Don't know how I missed this thread. It's one of my favourite subjects to pointlessly think about - how do we deal with a society in which physical labour increasingly loses value and not everyone is willing or able to contribute intellectual labour? The force multiplying effects of technology and now AI on intellectual labour are only intensifying the impact.

It's tough not to get dystopian as we think about the future. The scifi world where a few run the world and the idle masses vacuously survive on some version of the UBI.

No easy answers but I can add a few thoughts that I'll try to add if folks are interested to discuss.

i think UBI will definitely come into play at some point, however we are yet to see what the psychological impact of potentially relegating a huge chunk of the population to subsistence living will have on humanity, or will it mean that we will end up with a deluge of artists and creatives?

i know this is pbly controversial to say, but theres lots of jobs out there which are basically subsistence UBI, very little value add, and are only there due to intertia in technology adoption.

one place where young people do have an advantage however, is that they seem less insecure abt leveraging technology, whereas older people tend to be set in their ways. ive seen a new generation of interns over the last year or two who are naturally inclined to using AI.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I believe AI won't affect people job much provided they master the art of supervising machine performances.

 

[Red-Indian]

i think UBI will definitely come into play at some point, however we are yet to see what the psychological impact of potentially relegating a huge chunk of the population to subsistence living will have on humanity, or will it mean that we will end up with a deluge of artists and creatives?

i know this is pbly controversial to say, but theres lots of jobs out there which are basically subsistence UBI, very little value add, and are only there due to intertia in technology adoption.

one place where young people do have an advantage however, is that they seem less insecure abt leveraging technology, whereas older people tend to be set in their ways. ive seen a new generation of interns over the last year or two who are naturally inclined to using AI.

Of course...just compare physical labour usage in say Japan and the subcontinent. Gas station attendants, corner kiosks, human dishwashers - loads and loads of jobs can be automated overnight. There's plenty more lined up behind that can be automated as soon as the economics work out.

2-3 factors to consider though
1. Steady stabilisation and perhaps eventual decline in the human population
2. More demand for physical services that are still currently technology proof - nursing, elder care
3. Steady improvement in education standards in countries like India creating more intellectual labour capacity

Where it ends up is tough to say but one thing is for sure - it will be the big political/economic question of the lifetime of everyone under 40. Us over 40s can probably still live and die out in a somewhat familiar world.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I believe AI won't affect people job much provided they master the art of supervising machine performances.

In our life time, there will still be jobs for skilled people. Robots are not going to take over every job. The easiest jobs that Robots can take over are the ones that require human thinking brain. AI will be much better at making decisions and predicting the outcomes than a human can ever do given the vast amount of historic data that is available.
Human intuition is no match for AI's predictions.

Jobs that require manual labor which required dexterity of hands will be tough to replicate. Jobs like Plumbing, Electricians etc require human dexterity of using the fingers. Robotics is still decades away from achieving that.

 

[RidiculousMan]

This follows from a conversation I had with one of my uncles discussing the current state of unrest around the world. While he argued that these events are part of a cyclical pattern, much like those we've seen in the past, I contended that the situation is fundamentally different this time.

I've always supported the idea of a meritocratic system, where individuals advance based on their abilities and efforts. However, it's becoming increasingly clear that the value of human labour is declining with each passing day. In the modern economy, the primary forms of capital available to individuals are intellectual and financial. Unlike physical labour, which has inherent limitations, the potential value generated by intellectual and financial capital is significantly higher and can scale without the same constraints.

A meritocracy based on physical labor seemed like a fair way to distribute resources, as everyone was limited to more or less a similar level of physical effort. However, a meritocracy driven by intellect and financial acumen is a much more complex and potentially problematic concept. The last few decades have shown that the most intelligent and wealthy individuals have been able to amass unprecedented levels of power and influence on a global scale. This concentration of wealth and power has contributed to growing economic inequality, as evidenced by numerous studies on the widening gap between the rich and the poor, particularly in the developed world.

It’s not surprising, then, that many of the participants in the riots in Northern England came from economically underprivileged backgrounds. Historically, the politics of division have been a key strategy for controlling resources and maintaining power. Yet, even if these individuals succeed in achieving short-term goals—such as reducing immigration or diminishing the influence of minorities in the UK—they are unlikely to see meaningful improvements in their economic situation. This is because the root causes of their discontent, such as economic inequality and lack of opportunity, remain unaddressed.

The most concerning aspect of this system is its inherent paradox: because it is meritocratic, those who are smart or resourceful enough will find a way to attain wealth and comfort, regardless of their starting position. As a result, the brightest individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds often end up supporting and perpetuating the very system that exploits those who are left behind. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle in which the underclass of increasingly out of demand people remains marginalized, and social mobility becomes increasingly difficult.

Given these dynamics, is it even possible to reform our systems to ensure that meritocracy benefits everyone, rather than deepening existing and growing inequalities?

Recently, I found out about Normal and Pareto Distribution in Mathematics and its effects in economy.

It's easier to understand with this game. Lets say in a system we have 100 people. Everyone has a $100. If we allow trading to happen between them slowly you will see a bell shaped graph (Normal Principle) where on average 50% of folks will have $100. 10% will have $150 and and $10 will have $50 and the rest in between. Which is natural right?

Now if we continue to run this game. Slowly the bell shaped graph will turn into a one sided slope (Pareto Principle). Where now one or a few people will end up having most of the money.

Another example is the game Monopoly. Where one person eventually ends up having all the money and wins.

Pareto Principle basically says that 20% of work leads to 80% of the results. Or 80% outcome are due to 20% cause. This is basically true in all domains of work and life.

The world already has and probably will always have this inequality problem to deal with. Where naturally everything will become unequal. Unless we monitor and control it externally.

Now with the emergence of AI automation we are starting to see rapid job replacements. Many of these works that AI is taking over isn't small boring work. It's also creative. The problem is ten folds in my opinion because we already have a significant portion of people in the world who struggle to do any complex job as they do not possess a very high IQ or mental capacity.

The people on the lower spectrum of intelligence struggle to work with complex jobs, because they aren't simple and repeatable. Technology already took care of that. Robotics and Automation in industry replaced those people. But now with AI automation people with complex and creative jobs are not safe either. The baseline of what is considered as a skill, knowledge and job-ready is going up.

So the people who are higher in the hierarchy of money and intelligence have a role to play and they have to take care of the ones below them.

 

[JaDed]

Meritocracy based on intellect provides a way for everyone to have basic needs atleast which wasn’t the case with physical labor.
Also Europeans built their wealth and exploited the world thanks to intellect so not true it jus happened in last few decades, it happened since Dutch went on to make colonies.

 

[Red-Indian]

Meritocracy based on intellect provides a way for everyone to have basic needs atleast which wasn’t the case with physical labor.
Also Europeans built their wealth and exploited the world thanks to intellect so not true it jus happened in last few decades, it happened since Dutch went on to make colonies.

This is where I differ. To @ElRaja 's point. Physical labour made for a much more equitable meritocratic system. The difference between physical labour contributed by say Arnold Schwarznegger and me with my pencil arms is marginal at best with the mitigation of simple tools and the industrial revolution. As long as the meritocratic system had enough reward for physical labour, most people would be fine.

However the level of contribution say from an average factory worker and Sam Altman is so huge today that the value and need of physical labour is reaching insignificant levels (in relative contemporary terms...not historical).

Yes basic needs can be met a lot easier even in semi-developed societies but that only makes the problem worse in some ways. If you meet basic needs (say through UBI or an unemployment allowance) without engaging the individual sufficiently, where does the physical and creative impulse go for release?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Heavy thread.

I'll need to revisit once I've had a chance to think more about the topic to see if I can inject a positive spin.

Because mostly I see the future as a bleak dystopian future for most of humanity.

 

[ElRaja]

Recently, I found out about Normal and Pareto Distribution in Mathematics and its effects in economy.

It's easier to understand with this game. Lets say in a system we have 100 people. Everyone has a $100. If we allow trading to happen between them slowly you will see a bell shaped graph (Normal Principle) where on average 50% of folks will have $100. 10% will have $150 and and $10 will have $50 and the rest in between. Which is natural right?

Now if we continue to run this game. Slowly the bell shaped graph will turn into a one sided slope (Pareto Principle). Where now one or a few people will end up having most of the money.

Another example is the game Monopoly. Where one person eventually ends up having all the money and wins.

Pareto Principle basically says that 20% of work leads to 80% of the results. Or 80% outcome are due to 20% cause. This is basically true in all domains of work and life.

The world already has and probably will always have this inequality problem to deal with. Where naturally everything will become unequal. Unless we monitor and control it externally.

Now with the emergence of AI automation we are starting to see rapid job replacements. Many of these works that AI is taking over isn't small boring work. It's also creative. The problem is ten folds in my opinion because we already have a significant portion of people in the world who struggle to do any complex job as they do not possess a very high IQ or mental capacity.

The people on the lower spectrum of intelligence struggle to work with complex jobs, because they aren't simple and repeatable. Technology already took care of that. Robotics and Automation in industry replaced those people. But now with AI automation people with complex and creative jobs are not safe either. The baseline of what is considered as a skill, knowledge and job-ready is going up.

So the people who are higher in the hierarchy of money and intelligence have a role to play and they have to take care of the ones below them.

so then what form does taking care look like, this was why the question always annoys me, because i dont believe in external systems or big brother because the systems always get hijacked for the benefit of the few, regardless of the intention with which any system of checks and balances in put in place.

i think there was some jordan peterson clip which said an IQ of below 83 meant anyone in the US army actually was destroying value than creating it, so if we assume that this threshold is increasing for complex tasks, what does that mean in terms of the population which needs to be supported, and there would be national level connotations, the average Japanese has an IQ of 105 i think, so i think this trend will not just increase individual inequality, but inequality across ethno racial and country groups too.

 

[JaDed]

This is where I differ. To @ElRaja 's point. Physical labour made for a much more equitable meritocratic system. The difference between physical labour contributed by say Arnold Schwarznegger and me with my pencil arms is marginal at best with the mitigation of simple tools and the industrial revolution. As long as the meritocratic system had enough reward for physical labour, most people would be fine.

However the level of contribution say from an average factory worker and Sam Altman is so huge today that the value and need of physical labour is reaching insignificant levels (in relative contemporary terms...not historical).

Yes basic needs can be met a lot easier even in semi-developed societies but that only makes the problem worse in some ways. If you meet basic needs (say through UBI or an unemployment allowance) without engaging the individual sufficiently, where does the physical and creative impulse go for release?

That’s like using extremes, and I think your example is using the comparison only within a single civilisation.

Let me say it this way- The difference between everyone at Cambridge in 17th century and a random one in India was so huge that it actually created the British Empire that lasted 3 centuries.

The current intellectuals thanks to their massive need for recognition actually involve themselves in philanthropy much more compared to eras of 15-20th century that equitable distribution, UBI are concepts that are talked about which wouldn’t be the case during those eras.

The biggest difference is that this is age of information where many intellectuals (RIP Aaron Swartz) have used their intellect to make sure there is a way for others to have right tools to actually come up if they want to, whereas historically knowledge has been hidden away from an average joe.

 

[Red-Indian]

That’s like using extremes, and I think your example is using the comparison only within a single civilisation.

Let me say it this way- The difference between everyone at Cambridge in 17th century and a random one in India was so huge that it actually created the British Empire that lasted 3 centuries.

The current intellectuals thanks to their massive need for recognition actually involve themselves in philanthropy much more compared to eras of 15-20th century that equitable distribution, UBI are concepts that are talked about which wouldn’t be the case during those eras.

The biggest difference is that this is age of information where many intellectuals (RIP Aaron Swartz) have used their intellect to make sure there is a way for others to have right tools to actually come up if they want to, whereas historically knowledge has been hidden away from an average joe.

I think maybe I'm just not able to explain myself clearly enough because I hardly disagree with anything you're saying and yet we're talking past each other.

Let me try again.

I don't disagree that even if we're not today, we're not far off from being able to provide basic necessities for everyone on the planet from the efforts of a small proportion of the smarter folks. We can pay out UBI or philanthropy or unemployment allowance - anything that allows them to have an okay life.

What are they going to do with their day though? The fear is that not enough of them will be able to develop their skills and dare I say it intellect enough to be a knowledge worker. Yes they'll be paid a basic living but not all the factory/service workers out of a job because AI or a robot is doing it for them will be happy to just sit around and paint or play video games. Some (many?) of them will be resentful, angry etc. Are we ready for the associated societal changes and upheavals?

 

[JaDed]

I think maybe I'm just not able to explain myself clearly enough because I hardly disagree with anything you're saying and yet we're talking past each other.

Let me try again.

I don't disagree that even if we're not today, we're not far off from being able to provide basic necessities for everyone on the planet from the efforts of a small proportion of the smarter folks. We can pay out UBI or philanthropy or unemployment allowance - anything that allows them to have an okay life.

What are they going to do with their day though? The fear is that not enough of them will be able to develop their skills and dare I say it intellect enough to be a knowledge worker. Yes they'll be paid a basic living but not all the factory/service workers out of a job because AI or a robot is doing it for them will be happy to just sit around and paint or play video games. Some (many?) of them will be resentful, angry etc. Are we ready for the associated societal changes and upheavals?

Those are fair points.

 

[ElRaja]

Heavy thread.

I'll need to revisit once I've had a chance to think more about the topic to see if I can inject a positive spin.

Because mostly I see the future as a bleak dystopian future for most of humanity.

just a regular sunday morning phone chat in the household

I think maybe I'm just not able to explain myself clearly enough because I hardly disagree with anything you're saying and yet we're talking past each other.

Let me try again.

I don't disagree that even if we're not today, we're not far off from being able to provide basic necessities for everyone on the planet from the efforts of a small proportion of the smarter folks. We can pay out UBI or philanthropy or unemployment allowance - anything that allows them to have an okay life.

What are they going to do with their day though? The fear is that not enough of them will be able to develop their skills and dare I say it intellect enough to be a knowledge worker. Yes they'll be paid a basic living but not all the factory/service workers out of a job because AI or a robot is doing it for them will be happy to just sit around and paint or play video games. Some (many?) of them will be resentful, angry etc. Are we ready for the associated societal changes and upheavals?

also we havnt acknowledged the sociological phenomena around partner selection, how attractive would someone from this leisure class be to someone in the working class? would it manifest itself in genetic changes in the classes. if epigenetic theories turn out to be true in some broad way, how does a completely unstressed (in a good and bad way) mind manifest itself in its offspring. you still have some cross class interactions in the work place, if u are confined to your spec 10 x 8 room, who are you going to be interacting with who is form a different social background?

 

[Red-Indian]

just a regular sunday morning phone chat in the household

also we havnt acknowledged the sociological phenomena around partner selection, how attractive would someone from this leisure class be to someone in the working class? would it manifest itself in genetic changes in the classes. if epigenetic theories turn out to be true in some broad way, how does a completely unstressed (in a good and bad way) mind manifest itself in its offspring. you still have some cross class interactions in the work place, if u are confined to your spec 10 x 8 room, who are you going to be interacting with who is form a different social background?

Yeah the beginnings of the problem are already here in the so-called jobless growth phenomenon. The west is already afflicted but even countries with booming economies like China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia are unable to fully employ their youth.


This is only going to keep getting more of an issue. The historical employers of the physically skilled - low level agriculture, manufacturing and service jobs need less and less labour to produce the same or even more output.

You've gone far too dystopian in your thinking. I think we'll have to cross those bridges when we come to them. For now, my worry is how do we deal with the non-starving unemployed/underemployed across the world? The west has them in plenty...only the restricted immigration has kept the problem from exploding. As you can see, the developing countries are starting to have them. Soon underdeveloped countries like Pakistan, African nations will have them - armies of folks who get the basic necessities but have to figure out what to do with their lives.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Is there a country where manual labour has been minimised to such an extent that sewage problems are all managed by robots yet?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Robots will do most jobs , physical & mental . The issue is distribution of wealth & resources. Human nature points to powerful humans enslaving the rest . Only a powerful system of running a society or living together can stop this future. Unfortunately most are already controlled by their minds , unlikely to develop any co existing way forward.

 

[Buffet]

The most concerning aspect of this system is its inherent paradox: because it is meritocratic, those who are smart or resourceful enough will find a way to attain wealth and comfort, regardless of their starting position. As a result, the brightest individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds often end up supporting and perpetuating the very system that exploits those who are left behind. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle in which the underclass of increasingly out of demand people remains marginalized, and social mobility becomes increasingly difficult.

Given these dynamics, is it even possible to reform our systems to ensure that meritocracy benefits everyone, rather than deepening existing and growing inequalities?

I think you are contradicting yourself here. As long as system is in place for smart to rise no matter where they start based on meritocracy then it should be fine.

Yes, you are right. We used to have 95% populationm oding farming. Best farmer and average farmers were not too different in productivity. Now, best in many field can be vastly supeiorr in productivty as comapred to average.

It's not going to reverse. Having said that world is far better place in the alst 300 years and I have no doubt that it will be far better place in the next 100 years from now. Average person has to work just 1-2 hours to produce enough to eat as compared to working 10-12 hours. Yes, people do work longer hours now as well but not for just food. Child mortality is way down. Medical is saving so many people.

Anyone feeling depressed should watch this. World over time has gotten better and it will keep getting better.

200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats​

 

[ElRaja]

I think you are contradicting yourself here. As long as system is in place for smart to rise no matter where they start based on meritocracy then it should be fine.

Yes, you are right. We used to have 95% populationm oding farming. Best farmer and average farmers were not too different in productivity. Now, best in many field can be vastly supeiorr in productivty as comapred to average.

It's not going to reverse. Having said that world is far better place in the alst 300 years and I have no doubt that it will be far better place in the next 100 years from now. Average person has to work just 1-2 hours to produce enough to eat as compared to working 10-12 hours. Yes, people do work longer hours now as well but not for just food. Child mortality is way down. Medical is saving so many people.

Anyone feeling depressed should watch this. World over time has gotten better and it will keep getting better.

200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats​

totally agree the world has gotten better, yet mental illnesses, depression, personality disorders, etc, are at endemic, and more in developed economically comfortable societies. economic and financial security does not translate into mental well-being because you end up comparing yourself to others. living as a farmer in a society of farmers, doing hard labour every day is likely to engender a better sense of wellness and community than being financially comfortable with little physical stress, but living cut off, and comparing yourself to millionaires on social media.

the human brain is a problem solving, goal oriented machine, when you take away problems and goals the human brain goes nuts, theres enough anecdotal evidence in humans, and empirical evidence in animal colonies where tested in "utopian" conditions. i cant say about globally, but mental illness issues in the UK are going crazy in the last decade or so, and the core demographic is under or unemployed disenfranchised young men, who have no immediate physical threats.

 

[Red-Indian]

totally agree the world has gotten better, yet mental illnesses, depression, personality disorders, etc, are at endemic, and more in developed economically comfortable societies. economic and financial security does not translate into mental well-being because you end up comparing yourself to others. living as a farmer in a society of farmers, doing hard labour every day is likely to engender a better sense of wellness and community than being financially comfortable with little physical stress, but living cut off, and comparing yourself to millionaires on social media.

the human brain is a problem solving, goal oriented machine, when you take away problems and goals the human brain goes nuts, theres enough anecdotal evidence in humans, and empirical evidence in animal colonies where tested in "utopian" conditions. i cant say about globally, but mental illness issues in the UK are going crazy in the last decade or so, and the core demographic is under or unemployed disenfranchised young men, who have no immediate physical threats.

I think on the whole, I'm not too gloom and doom about these developments. Humankind has faced so many societal challenges over the last 5000 years of civilization and has managed to solve them while maintaining a steady upward trend and improving quality of life for the vast majority. It's tough to believe that this latest one will defeat us.

I'm an optimist...maybe even a techno-optimist in general. I'm more curious about what solution we will find than worried that we'll be unable to find any

- Would it be a great outpouring of creative output tailored to specific tastes rather than massive tastes? We're already heading in that direction with nicher and nicher entertainment options and it's pulling in a lot of manpower

- Could it be creating and accepting 'make-work' that doesn't generate productivity but is mildly useful?

- Could we see a more drastic decline in world population as a reaction?

And then we get into more fantastic scenarios - colonising space, colonising the ocean floor etc.