Universal Basic Income: what will we do when there is nothing left to do?

A recent Brainpool debate brought together professionals from diverse fields to explore a question that grows more urgent by the day: In a world increasingly transformed by artificial intelligence, what happens when there's simply nothing left for humans to do? The April 2025 discussion examined Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a potential response to widespread job displacement and questioned how society might adapt when traditional employment becomes scarce.

Which Jobs Will AI Take First?

The debate revealed an interesting inversion of traditional automation patterns. While previous technological revolutions typically replaced physical labor first, AI appears poised to disrupt knowledge work before tasks requiring physical dexterity or emotional intelligence.

Louis Ryan framed this shift succinctly: "Those jobs that involve logic and reasoning are probably the first [to go]... and the last to fall, or the absolute extreme scale will be stuff that involves human interaction."

Participants discussed how various forms of intelligence might be differently vulnerable to AI replacement, noting that musical intelligence, spatial intelligence, body-kinesthetic intelligence, and interpersonal intelligence might prove more challenging for machines to replicate effectively.

Iain MacKay drew parallels to previous technological transitions in software development, noting that each new tool simply raised expectations rather than eliminating jobs entirely. This prompted a broader discussion about whether the AI revolution is fundamentally different from previous industrial revolutions or simply another technological transition that humanity will adapt to. Kasia Borowska made a point that this is the first technology capable of improving itself, therefore by definition this revolution will be different.

The Human Touch: What Jobs Might Remain?

The debate highlighted several areas where human involvement might remain essential, with therapeutic professions, nursing, and jobs requiring emotional connections identified as potentially resistant to full automation.

Kasia Borowska offered a memorable example: "The jobs that will go last are those in which people care about sharing emotions with the person, the service provider. For example, a DJ. People want to see a DJ getting excited about his own music and the energy that you see behind the decks."

However, some participants questioned whether AI's improving ability to simulate emotions might eventually challenge even these seemingly safe domains. As the capabilities of AI continue to expand, the distinction between authentic human expression and convincing simulation may become increasingly blurred.

Universal Basic Income: Solution or Pipe Dream?

As the conversation shifted to UBI as a potential response to widespread job displacement, participants explored both practical implementation questions and philosophical concerns.

Andrew framed the fundamental challenge: "Economic systems historically have largely been around how to deal with labour... If there's no Labour to sell then that question is going to be irrelevant." This observation highlights how AI disruption could undermine the very foundations of our economic systems.

Various implementation approaches were discussed, including transitional mechanisms such as an "AI replacement tax" where companies would contribute a portion of their automation-related savings to fund social support systems. The political feasibility of such approaches was questioned, with references to historical UBI proposals that failed to gain traction despite support from unexpected quarters.

A key concern emerged about whether UBI would actually improve lives or simply provide subsistence without purpose. As participants noted, economic security alone doesn't guarantee well-being or fulfilment.

Finding Meaning in a Post-Work Society

Perhaps the most profound section of the debate centered on what humans would do in a post-work world. How would we find meaning and purpose without the organizing principle of employment?

Kasia Borowska framed the psychological challenge: "We know that meaning comes from and is related to dopamine, which is generated as we get closer to achieving a specific task or objective.” If there are no tasks when this dopamine source will have to be replaced.

Participants suggested various alternatives to work as sources of meaning, including leisure activities, creative pursuits, community building, and family. Yet questions remained about whether these would provide the same sense of purpose and accomplishment that work has traditionally offered.

Iuliana Berzuntanu added an insightful observation about the role of novelty and scarcity in our experience of pleasure, suggesting that unlimited free time might actually diminish the enjoyment we derive from our pursuits rather than enhancing it.

The Future of Markets and Currency

The debate took an unexpected turn when participants considered whether traditional economic structures would even remain relevant in a fully automated society.

Some questioned whether markets and currency would continue to serve a purpose in a world where production is largely automated. Would we transition to pure resource allocation rather than exchange? Others argued that scarcity would remain for certain goods and experiences, creating the conditions for alternative currencies and status markets to emerge.

Louis Ryan envisioned something like an "everything app" through which people could request whatever they needed, but noted: "Not everyone can live with an idyllic, beautiful view on a lovely mountainside top... So there will be scarcity."

The cyclical nature of human society was noted, with the observation that attempts to create egalitarian systems have historically been challenged by individuals seeking to distinguish themselves and accumulate power or status.

Conclusion: More Questions Than Answers

As the debate concluded, participants acknowledged they had raised more questions than they had answered. The implementation of UBI across different countries simultaneously presents enormous challenges. Even if achieved, questions remain about whether it should be equal for everyone and what would replace work as a source of meaning and motivation.

What became clear through the discussion is that the AI revolution isn't merely a technological shift but potentially a fundamental transformation of human society, economics, and purpose. The participants agreed that adaptation will be essential.

As we stand at the threshold of this new era, the debate highlighted the urgent need for thoughtful consideration of not just how we'll distribute resources in an automated world, but also how we'll distribute meaning.

This article summarizes a Brainpool debate held on April 30, 2025. Participants included Kasia Borowska, Louis Ryan, Iain MacKay, Andrew Romero, Andrew Norris, Maritsa Inglessis, Iuliana Berzuntanu, and Madhavi Latha.