Somewhere in your late thirties or forties, if you are paying any attention at all, a question appears that nobody prepared you for. Not a dramatic question — it arrives quietly, usually in a gap between things. A Sunday afternoon. A meeting that ended early. A moment when nobody needs anything from you and you realise you have no idea what to do with that.
The question is this: who are you when you stop being useful?
Most of us, if we are honest, do not know. We know our roles. We know our titles, our responsibilities, our function in the various systems we inhabit — work, family, social. We know who we are to people. But who we are on our own, without the usefulness — that is a different question, and most of us have been too busy to answer it.
· · ·
Now add this: AI is coming for the usefulness.
Not all of it, not immediately, and not evenly — let us be precise about this. In 2024, roughly 2.6 billion people still lacked regular internet access. The disruption being discussed in technology conferences in San Francisco looks very different from a small business in rural Indonesia or a manufacturing town in eastern Europe. The future does not arrive at the same speed everywhere, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
But the direction is clear enough. McKinsey estimates that by 2030, up to 30% of work hours in the United States could be automated. Oxford economists Frey and Osborne put 47% of US jobs at high risk of computerisation in their widely cited 2013 study — a number debated since but not dismissed. The World Economic Forum projects that 85 million jobs may be displaced by 2025, while 97 million new ones emerge. The net number is uncertain. The disruption is not.
What is interesting is what comes after the disruption. Governments are already debating responses — universal basic income pilots in Finland, Kenya, and Stockton, California. Proposals for taxing automation and redistributing the proceeds. Some economists argue for giving citizens shares in the companies whose AI systems replace their labour. The details are unresolved. The conversation has started.
And underneath the economics is a question that no policy paper addresses directly: if your job disappears or shrinks significantly, and your income is partially covered by some form of social dividend — who are you then? What do you do with a Tuesday?
· · ·
This is, it turns out, a very old question wearing new clothes.
The ancient Greeks had a word for the kind of life worth living: eudaimonia — often translated as happiness but more accurately as flourishing. For Aristotle, eudaimonia was not about pleasure or productivity. It was about living in accordance with your deepest nature, exercising your distinctly human capacities — reason, contemplation, connection — fully and well. The Athenian philosophers had slaves to handle the useful work. This freed them to think. We can argue about the ethics of that arrangement, and we should. But the question they were living inside — what does a human being do when not consumed by survival and utility — is exactly the question AI is beginning to pose to the rest of us.
|
"The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking, for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else." — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics |
Before the Industrial Revolution, most people were not employees. They were farmers, craftspeople, artisans — people whose work had a visible beginning and end, whose hands made something whole. The separation between who you were and what you did was much smaller. The blacksmith was a blacksmith not because of a job title but because of a practice, a skill, a relationship to material and community that constituted identity rather than just occupation.
The corporate age changed this. We became human resources — a phrase so strange that we stopped noticing how strange it is. We built identities around roles that could be eliminated in a restructuring. We taught our children to find themselves through career paths, to define their worth through productivity metrics, to ask "what do you do?" as the first question to any new person, as though the answer told you something essential.
It does not. It tells you what someone does between nine and six. That is not the same thing.
· · ·
There is a version of the AI future that is genuinely worth considering with something other than fear. Not the utopian version — the realistic one.
If significant portions of routine cognitive work are automated over the next twenty years, and if societies develop adequate mechanisms to distribute the resulting productivity gains — neither of which is guaranteed, but both of which are possible — then a large number of people will find themselves with something that has historically been the preserve of the very rich: time that is not spoken for.
What do humans do with unstructured time, historically? They make things with their hands. They tell stories. They raise children and tend gardens and cook elaborate meals and build furniture and play music badly and philosophise with neighbours. They do, in other words, what they did before the factory system convinced them that value was measured in output per hour.
The craftsperson, the artisan, the person who makes something whole from raw material — this is not a romantic fantasy about the past. It is a description of human beings in their most natural relationship to work: purposeful, skilled, unhurried, connected to the thing being made. Richard Sennett, the sociologist, spent a book arguing that craftsmanship — the desire to do something well for its own sake — is a fundamental human impulse that industrial economies have systematically suppressed.
|
"The craftsman represents the special human condition of being engaged." — Richard Sennett, The Craftsman (2008) |
The schools are not helping. We are still, in most of the world, educating children for the economy of 1975 — sorting them by subject performance, channelling them toward credentials, measuring them against standardised outputs. We teach them what to do. We do not teach them who to be. We do not teach them to sit with themselves, to tolerate uncertainty, to find something worth making regardless of whether it is monetisable. These are the capacities that neither AI nor a restructuring can take away — and they are precisely what most education systems treat as extracurricular.
· · ·
I am not saying any of this will be easy or clean or equitable. The transition — if it happens at the scale some predict — will be painful for many people in ways that philosophical reframing does not address. A middle-aged logistics worker whose job is automated does not primarily need Aristotle. He needs income, retraining, and time. The policy problems are real and largely unsolved.
But underneath the policy problems is a personal question that AI is surfacing for people like you and me right now, ahead of schedule, not because our jobs disappeared but because at some point in the middle of a reasonably successful life we looked up and asked — is this it? Is usefulness the whole story? Is the corporate rat on the hedonic treadmill, running harder each year toward a retirement that never quite arrives, actually the highest expression of what a human being is?
I do not think it is. And I think, quietly, neither do you.
The question — who are you when you stop being useful — is not a threat. It is an invitation. One that the Greeks spent their best years sitting with, that the artisans of pre-industrial Europe answered with their hands, and that AI, for all its disruption, is now extending to a generation of professionals who built their identities on roles rather than on themselves.
The invitation is uncomfortable. It is also, I think, overdue.
|
This week's insight Your job title was never your identity. It was a placeholder — convenient, socially legible, temporarily adequate. AI is not taking your identity. It is removing the placeholder and leaving the question that was always there underneath it: who are you, actually, when nobody is waiting for your output? That question is not new. Every generation that ever had enough time eventually had to answer it. Now it is your turn. |