For centuries, humans have used technology to make life easier: steam engines to move goods, telephones to connect across distances, software to automate repetitive tasks. We have always pursued efficiency. But what happens when we succeed beyond our expectations? When productivity rises to levels previously unimaginable, and machines take on nearly every economically valuable task?

‍

Productivity → ∞

‍

Labor, once the primary driver of value creation, steadily declines.

‍

Value of labor → $0

‍

Though not infinite, productivity is nearing a point where marginal human labor contributes negligible economic value.

This is not a distant future. AI, automation, and robotics are already driving productivity upward, even as the economic role of human labor shrinks. This quiet revolution is what some call the Economic Singularity: the moment when the value of labor approaches zero. This should force us to rethink how our economies have to work.

As Vernor Vinge noted in his 1993 essay The Coming Technological Singularity, once intelligence crosses certain thresholds, society encounters an “event horizon”—a point beyond which familiar models fail. The Economic Singularity mirrors this logic: productivity races ahead so quickly that our existing economic frameworks can no longer keep pace.

*A singularity is when a key parameter of a system tends to zero or to infinity, causing the behavior of the system to become unpredictable. The tech world also contemplates a Technological Singularity (Vinge’s term) in which the intelligence of machines gets high enough that we can’t predict how civilization will evolve because we can’t foresee how technology will empower change.

‍

A Quiet Revolution

This is not a science-fiction scenario of super-intelligent AIs taking over. The real shift is more mundane, yet no less transformative.

Self-driving vehicles reduce the need for drivers. AI-powered legal assistants parse contracts in milliseconds. Robotic pharmacists dispense medication with precision. These innovations are already here.

Unlike past industrial revolutions, which unfolded over generations, today’s transformation is both exponentially faster and more pervasive. Propelled by Moore’s law and compounding AI capabilities, what once took centuries now compresses into decades, or even years. Within a decade, it will be difficult to name an economically productive activity that technology cannot perform.

‍

The Technology Diffusion Reprieve

There is one saving grace: technology adoption takes time.

Innovation rarely transforms society overnight. Electricity generation was demonstrated in the 1880s but took half a century to reach most households in “developed countries”. There are still millions of homes without electricity. The internet was “switched on” in 1968, yet millions still lack access today.

Adoption depends not only on technical feasibility, but on infrastructure, cost curves, regulation, culture, and politics. A factory may not automate if capital is scarce; a hospital may delay AI diagnostics if rules are unclear; consumers may resist self-driving cars out of distrust.

This diffusion gap buys us time. It stretches disruption out over years, perhaps a decade or two, giving societies a window to reconfigure systems before the full force of the Economic Singularity arrives. The question is whether nations use this time wisely to prepare.

‍

Capitalism’s Test of Distribution

The acceleration of technology will not just reshape industries, it will test the foundations of our economic systems. The challenge is not technological, it is systemic.

Economic systems exist to enable specialization while ensuring members of society achieve a basic standard of living. Today, most distribute value through capital and labor. But for the majority of humanity, labor is the only asset people have.

As labor’s role declines, capitalism as currently structured will need to evolve, just as it has after every major technological leap, to keep value circulating broadly. Early signs of strain are already visible: widening inequality, precarious gig economies, populist backlash.

Consider the Philippines, where 8% of GDP comes from call centers. Within a decade, advances in voice AI may profoundly reshape this sector. The question is not whether disruption will occur, but how societies will adapt.

‍

Distributing Abundance

The good news is that the problem we face stems from abundance, though unevenly distributed. Today, most benefits of technology flow to capital. The task ahead is to design systems that allow this abundance to circulate more widely.

Societies may experiment with models such as:

• Universal Basic Income (UBI): Direct redistribution of resources to ensure a baseline standard of living. The challenge with UBI is it concentrates power—who decides, how much, for whom?
• Universal Basic Capital (UBC): Expanding ownership of capital so all citizens benefit from, and ultimately live off, dividends generated by technology.

In practice, hybrids are likely. A world could emerge where basic needs are covered through a safety net, while aspirational pursuits, such as art, exploration, and competition, are supported through capital ownership.

Beyond these structural changes, the Economic Singularity demands a fundamental shift in how we define value in a world where labor is no longer central. Who we are, what our purpose is, when we no longer have to toil. This may mean expanding the definition of the Commons (from clean air, water, defense to housing, healthcare, education), structuring incentives for societal good, and creating new economies that recognize uniquely human contributions: creativity, empathy, and connection. Societies will have to consciously answer the question: What do we value?

‍

Governance in Transition

Governance will be one of the greatest challenges. Democracies, with short election cycles, are ill-suited for long-term redesign of our economic systems. Authoritarian regimes can move faster, but often at the expense of freedoms. How nations navigate this tension will shape their path through the Economic Singularity.

Markets, meanwhile, will not slow down voluntarily. Left unchecked, automation will continue racing ahead, leaving societies and governments to catch up. Unless governments act, economic dislocation will intensify, raising the risk of fragmentation.

‍

The Likely Path: Hybrid and Uneven

If history is a guide, the transition will be hybrid and uneven. Policies like UBI may emerge incrementally. Wealth concentration may intensify before regulation catches up. Democracies may struggle with foresight, while tech oligarchs or non-democratic states fill leadership vacuums.

The process will be messy, but societies will adapt. Different nations and communities will experiment with different models, and some will find more successful paths than others.

Building on these policy experiments, we can envision diverse futures shaped by how societies distribute abundance.

‍

A World of Abundance

If governments and societies navigate the transition well, abundance awaits. The future is not one where humans do nothing, but one where survival is decoupled from employment, freeing people to engage in purposeful activities: caregiving, exploration, art, spiritual growth, community building.

Possible visions of such futures include:

• The Star Trek World: Purpose is driven by discovery and exploration.
• The Olympics World: Competition thrives as pursuit of excellence, not survival.
• The Heart-work World: Caregiving and empathy become central sources of value.
• The Art World: Creativity and expression drive culture and meaning.
• The Wall-E World: Leisure and consumption dominate (risking stagnation and “living in the matrix”).
• The Religion World: Spirituality and reflection guide fulfillment.
• The Backup World: Communities preserve essential skills as safeguards against systems failure.

These are not mutually exclusive. A thriving society will blend elements of all, offering diverse avenues for pursuing meaning and purpose.

‍

Conclusion: Designing the Future

The approach of the Economic Singularity is not a distant possibility. It is already underway. The question is not whether it happens, but how we prepare for it.

The transformation of work can become either a crisis of displacement or an opportunity for renaissance. The outcome depends on how deliberately we design the transition. As one of my friends has said: Our generation will decide if AI will be cage or catalyst for humanity’s future.

This is not a call to panic, it is a call to imagination, experimentation, and leadership. The choices we make in the coming years will determine whether technology fragments society or enables a new era of human flourishing.

The answer begins with us—through dialogue, experimentation, and bold leadership, we can design a future where technology serves humanity’s highest aspirations.

‍

Epilogue

Halfway through writing this article, especially the parts about the post-Singularity world, I started to feel that I had shifted to writing science fiction. I paused to ask myself if there are other ways the world could viably evolve. Perhaps it is a failure of imagination, but I’m hard pressed to figure out other options that don’t involve some deus ex-machina. If you somewhat or vehemently disagree about my future-casting, please let me know at https://x.com/peng_t_ong. Thank you for your time and attention.

‍