The possible ranks higher than the actual.

(Martin Heidegger)

To will oneself free is also to will others free.

(Simone de Beauvoir)

The ongoing debate over the future of work, accelerated by AI and automation, raises profound questions about the role of human activity in society. As technological progress intensifies, the fear of work’s obsolescence obscures a more significant issue: the reduction of human beings to mere instruments of productivity. This essay delves deeper into this existential dilemma, proposing a new civilizational design rooted in Sapiocracy—a system that redefines work as a medium of meaning and potential, transcending the limitations of survival-based labor. It reclaims the intrinsic creative autonomy that makes us uniquely human, offering a future where purpose, not productivity, defines human endeavor.

Building on Heidegger's notion that “the possible ranks higher than the actual,” and de Beauvoir's insight that "to will oneself free is also to will others free," this essay frames the philosophical tension between potentiality and actuality. The Sapiocratic vision envisions a shift from work as a tool for survival to a space where human potential unfolds, focusing on autonomy and purpose, ultimately fostering a richer, more ethical civilization.

The traditional concept of work: a tool for survival

For centuries, work has primarily been seen as a necessity for survival, driven by scarcity, where people labored to ensure that their basic needs were met. As Derek Thompson notes in The Atlantic, work “wakes up our agency,” acting as a medium through which individuals grow, connect, and contribute. Work thus provides both physical survival and a sense of identity. Yet, as material abundance grows and the concept of scarcity fades, the role of work begins to shift.

John Maynard Keynes famously predicted in the 1930s that technological advancement would one day enable us to work only 15 hours a week, leaving the rest of our time for leisure and self-development. He wasn’t alone in his optimism—many believed machines would eventually free us from the drudgery of labor. However, while machines have indeed taken over many tasks, the anticipated leisure revolution has not materialized. Instead, we find ourselves locked in a battle to preserve traditional forms of employment, even as their necessity fades.

Instrumentalization of humanity: the crisis beneath the surface

The problem goes far deeper than job displacement due to automation. It is rooted in what I term the "tool-making crisis": the systemic tendency to turn humans into tools for production, stifling their inherent potential for meaning-making and creative autonomy. This isn’t just a critique of capitalism or industrialization; it is a critique of a broader civilizational failure to see human beings as ends in themselves.

In the industrial era, workers were treated as interchangeable cogs in the machine of production. The same logic persists today in the digital age, where metrics, optimization, and efficiency take precedence over human creativity, ethical autonomy, and purpose. As my research has consistently argued, this reduction of human beings to mere instruments is a fundamental flaw in the current structure of our societies. The obsession with maintaining the status quo of productivity—often at the cost of individual development—only deepens this crisis.

John F. Kennedy’s optimism that humans, if capable of inventing machines that displace jobs, could equally invent ways to employ those displaced, is now seen as overly simplistic. Instead, as Lawrence Summers admitted, many economists are no longer sure whether the "Luddite fallacy"—the belief that automation won’t lead to mass unemployment—was entirely wrong. Automation may not just replace jobs, but may also erode the very fabric of how we understand work and purpose in human life.

Reimagining work and purpose: the Sapiocratic vision

To solve this, we must move beyond the narrow view of work as tied exclusively to material survival. A broader, more human-centered perspective is required, one that aligns with the framework of Sapiocracy—a system of governance and societal organization that prioritizes the realization of human potential through ethical, self-regulating systems.

The Sapiocratic Vision posits that the true aim of any advanced society should be the full realization of human potential. Work, in this context, is not a means to an end (e.g., wages, productivity), but a process of meaningful engagement with the world, driven by intrinsic purpose. In a Sapiocratic society, the purpose of human activity would shift from survival to flourishing, from mere existence to the continual unfolding of creative potential.

The real threat of AI and automation is not that it will take away our jobs, but that it will force us to confront a long-ignored truth: work has been misdefined. As society transitions into a post-scarcity world, the purpose of work must evolve into something that nourishes human autonomy and creativity. Rather than seeing AI as a "Frankenstein monster," as some have called it, we should view it as an opportunity to redesign civilization toward greater ethical and creative self-actualization.

In traditional systems, human potential is often reduced to rigid roles shaped by external pressures—whether in work, societal expectations, or political systems. This static subject-constancy, where individuals conform to predefined parameters, limits not only personal growth but also the evolution of societies. Sapiocracy, however, shifts this paradigm. Rather than clinging to static notions of success or identity, it emphasizes emancipated potentiality: the capacity of individuals to evolve in meaningful, purpose-driven ways, free from power distortions.

This approach is particularly relevant in a world increasingly governed by AI and technological infrastructures. Where conventional systems trap people in the pursuit of productivity and efficiency, Sapiocracy envisions AI as an enabler of human potential, not as a controller. By fostering self-regulation and expanding individual choices, AI becomes an infrastructure that amplifies the potential of each individual, creating conditions for deeper intersubjectivity—the dynamic interplay between individual perspectives that leads to mutual growth and understanding.

The key lies in reframing how we approach human potential, moving away from competitive metrics and instrumentalization. As cybernetic pioneer Heinz von Foerster noted in his ethical imperative: “Act always so as to increase the number of choices.” In Sapiocracy, the goal is not to reduce humans to tools within a mechanized system but to create a society where self-realization and meaning are central. AI becomes a facilitator of this process, supporting an infrastructure where human potential is nurtured rather than stifled by rigid frameworks.

In essence, Sapiocracy is about creating value for human beings, not just for traditional power structures. It recognizes the intrinsic drive in humans—their search for meaning—and channels it through systems that respect individual growth, autonomy, and the natural processes of self-regulation. By placing potentiality at the core, this vision offers a radically human-centered approach, where technology serves as a bridge toward self-actualization, rather than reinforcing obsolete structures of control and conformity.

From tool-dependency to meaning-orientation

A key element of this redesign is reclaiming the concept of work as inherently tied to meaning. In the current framework, the overwhelming focus on efficiency and productivity has led to what I call the "distorted actuality of tool-dependency." This refers to how systems condition humans to become tools themselves, focusing solely on external measures of success like profit or output, rather than intrinsic values like creativity and ethical autonomy.

Historically, great thinkers like Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill emphasized the importance of autonomy in moral and intellectual life. Similarly, cybernetic pioneers such as Norbert Wiener understood that self-regulation—both of individuals and of societies—is the foundation of ethical development. In a Sapiocratic society, this concept of self-regulation would form the basis of work, governance, and technology. AI would not be seen as a replacement for human intelligence, but as a facilitator of human potential, an agent of meaningful empowerment rather than a tool of control.

As Wiener famously said, “We can be the masters of our technology, not its slaves. But only if we use it to extend our purpose, not to replace it.” The key here is to see technology not as a threat, but as an opportunity to create systems that foster human growth and ethical alignment.

Emanicipatory subjectivity and work

One critical dimension that must be emphasized is the shift from precarious subject-constancy to emancipated subject-in-becoming. Traditional work environments often reinforce rigid ego-identifications, whereby individuals define themselves primarily by their work, seeking power or control over others. In contrast, an emancipated, dynamic subject defines itself by its unfolding potential, continually evolving and discovering its own ethical orientation.

This difference is pivotal. It makes more sense for individuals to evolve as emancipated subjects exploring their creative potential than to cling to the static ego of work-defined identity. In doing so, individuals reclaim their autonomy and align themselves with meaning-oriented systems of growth, rather than being trapped in an instrumentalized cycle of labor.

Conclusion: toward an ethically oriented civilization

The central challenge of our time is not technological progress, but ethical stagnation. Machines taking away our jobs is not the real issue; rather, the crisis lies in our inability to imagine a future where work transcends mere survival. The real crisis is one of imagination: we need to envision a society where work becomes a means of realizing human autonomy, creativity, and purpose. This is the essence of Sapiocracy—a civilizational framework designed not around tools or efficiency, but around meaning.

As technological innovations such as AI become more prevalent, the question is not simply whether we will lose our jobs, but whether we will reclaim our potential. Technology should not be seen as a threat but as an enabler, amplifying human potential rather than reducing it to mechanized routines. Work, in its most meaningful form, should become a vehicle for individual flourishing, allowing us to engage deeply with our creative and ethical potentialities.

As Martin Heidegger asserts, "The possible ranks higher than the actual"—a reminder that our future lies not in the mechanization of existence but in the unfolding of possibilities that ethically aligned technology can facilitate. The true potential of AI, then, is not merely in automation but in autonomization—the reorientation of human attention away from technological control and toward the ethical emancipation of meaning and purpose.

Hannah Arendt’s critique of totalitarianism sharpens this perspective further. In her view, "The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any." Arendt’s observation underscores the danger of a system that instrumentalizes human beings, whether through labor or broader social structures. When work becomes merely a tool for indoctrination, the capacity for self-determination and ethical growth is stifled, reducing individuals to mere cogs in a machine that prizes output over autonomy. This totalitarian model of labor, seen in both historical and contemporary contexts, reflects a broader civilizational failure—one that risks the subjugation of human potential to systems of control.

In this way, Arendt’s insight resonates with the ongoing instrumentalization of humanity in modern work structures, where individuals are conditioned to survive within systems of productivity rather than thrive in spaces of creative and ethical self-realization. The precarity of subject-constancy, where individuals remain confined to rigid roles of ego-defined identity, exacerbates this crisis. By contrast, the emancipated subject, free from these confines, explores its unfolding potential and aligns itself with meaning-oriented systems of growth.

The Sapiocratic Vision offers a solution to this predicament: a society that rejects the instrumentalization of human beings and instead creates systems that allow for self-regulation, ethical growth, and creative autonomy. This vision shifts the paradigm from a fixation on productivity to a framework where technology serves to amplify potential rather than reinforce outdated structures of control.

In reimagining work, education, and societal structures, we are not merely preserving jobs but transforming human life. By moving toward a world where human agency is restored, where technology serves to amplify potential, and where work becomes a path to fulfillment, we can overcome the crises of our time. As Wiener reminds us, "We can be the masters of our technology, not its slaves," but only if we use it to extend our purpose rather than to replace it.

The transition to this Sapiocratic future necessitates a profound shift in how we conceptualize work, governance, and technology—not as means of control but as infrastructures of autonomy and meaning. This is the new civilizational design we must strive for, one where work is not a burden but a path to fulfillment, and where autonomous subjects, evolving toward their highest potential, become the foundation of an ethically and creatively enriched society.

References

Wiener, N. (1950). The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society. Da Capo Press.
Keynes, J. M. (1930). Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren.
Kant, I. (1784). What Is Enlightenment?
Heidegger, M. (Quodid). "The possible ranks higher than the actual."
Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism.
Tsvasman, L. (2023). The Age of Sapiocracy: On the Radical Ethics of Data-Driven Civilization.
Tsvasman, L. (2021). Infosomatische Wende: Impulse für intelligentes Zivilisationsdesign.
Tsvasman, L. (2019). AI-Thinking: Dialog eines Vordenkers und eines Praktikers über die Bedeutung von Künstlicher Intelligenz.