Freddy Purcell recounts Philsoc’s recent talk from Ed Skidelsky, addressing some metaphysical worries about the state of the working world.
Last week we were visited by a heritage Philsoc speaker, Dr Ed Skidelsky, who delivered a poignant talk for any student looking at the job market with something close to adject terror. At a society filled with humanities students, that terrified student was well-represented.
Ed began the talk with an economic puzzle. He argued that unemployment is rising because the amount of socially necessary work is decreasing due to automation. This goes against classic economic thinking that humanity’s desire for new products is infinite, so automation need not worry us. However, Ed argued we are at risk of permanent technological unemployment if this trend is to continue, recently enhanced by AI’s forceful advent.
For Ed, work becoming redundant is a troubling metaphysical and ethical issue as he believes it would make human action equally redundant. Action is generally considered the way in which an agent brings about a state of affairs. However, if technology were to already bring about all desired state of affairs, then humanity’s ability to make meaning by shaping the world around them would be dramatically reduced. In question time, audience members argued that even in a technological utopia were everything is provided at the touch of a button, we could still find meaning through doing actions for their own sake. This could be handcrafting a piece of furniture instead of going to Ikea, to take an example from one contributor. I think this is a forceful counterpoint that is supported by the reasonable belief that our ways of making meaning are tied to the economic context in which we rest. Actions for financial gain and societal impact may fit with our current society, but maybe actions for their own sake fit with a technological utopia. That said, I do think Ed effectively pointed to a broad trend where more and more is done for us, and how this might impact our ability to live meaningfully.
The second gripe against the current job market that Ed introduced was the abundance of bullshit jobs. Bullshit jobs is a term borrowed from David Graeber (2018) and refers to various jobs that keep a person busy but provide no social value. Ed referenced management consultants, corporate lawyers, and academics (funnily enough) as potential members of this category. In fact, he believes many of these jobs exist within vast bureaucratic hierarchies where all actions must be passed through a nebulous conglomerate of higher-ups. Ed labelled this sort of hierarchy a pyramid of bullshit.
So, in this work climate, the question becomes, how do we restore meaning? Ed believes one option is to hope that techno-utopians are correct and we will be able to enjoy ourselves in a world where everything is provided for us. Perhaps by playing games or making tables for the sake of making tables. I would add spending time with others and engaging in art creation or appreciation to this list. Ed, however, did not believe this is possible, referring to his argument on human action. Instead, he argued that the other possible choice is to halt our technological advancement, providing people with the opportunity to contribute seriously to society. Ed and various members of the audience raised valid concerns about the practicality of such a technological halt, including the fact it would go against any state’s interests. However, it is of course true that some individuals choose to drop out of conventional society and lead a more minimalistic existence, finding great meaning in this lifestyle. Ed speculated that this decision may become more popular in the future.
Although this talk was delivered in a light-hearted manner, I think it touched upon many young people’s concern that they are entering a working world without meaning. While I think the audience were correct to push back on some of Ed’s more extravagant claims, there was also some important truth to the talk that I believe is reassuring to hear from someone at a different point in their working life. At least we’re not facing the world alone! I would therefore like to thank Ed for his talk, and I hope you enjoyed this summary.