Some of the biggest names in artificial intelligence technology, including Elon Musk, have been saying that, within the next decade or so, money could become largely irrelevant and work will be optional. The reason, they say, is the arrival of superintelligence and the armies of robots and systems that will come with it.
But what does that claim mean? It does not mean cash will suddenly appear everywhere or that people will stop caring about numbers in a bank account overnight. It really rests on two linked ideas.
First of all, superintelligent systems and robots will drive productivity to levels we have never seen. These machines do not get tired. They do not need sleep, breaks, pensions or overtime pay. They can work around the clock in factories, warehouses, farms, laboratories and hospitals. For example, in healthcare, robot nurses or diagnostic systems could operate 24 hours a day without fatigue. In manufacturing, production lines could run continuously. The result would be a massive jump in the supply of goods and services.
When supply rises dramatically and the cost of labor falls toward zero, basic economics says prices drop. Everyday products and services become extremely cheap — cheap enough that many of them can be provided to everyone.
If machines produce most of the value, that value has to be shared somehow or the social system breaks down
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
Second, the same systems that create this abundance will also take over large numbers of jobs. Companies that build and control the most advanced robots and superintelligent tools stand to become extraordinarily wealthy.
At the same time, many people will find their old work gone. A society in which large numbers of people have no income is not sustainable. People still need food, housing, healthcare and a sense of security.
So, the argument goes that governments, or the companies themselves, will have to distribute some form of dividend or universal payment. Some observers have suggested these payments could start in the tens of thousands of dollars a year and, as abundance grows, climb much higher — possibly into the hundreds of thousands or even toward a million dollars annually by 2040 for each person in the richest scenarios. Whether those numbers materialize is uncertain but the logic is that if machines produce most of the value, that value has to be shared somehow or the social system breaks down.
Taken together, these two forces point toward what I would call a post-scarcity civilization. In such a world, the struggle simply to secure food, shelter, basic healthcare and everyday goods largely disappears. Those necessities become so plentiful and inexpensive that almost no one has to worry about them. For the first time in human history, the majority of people might not need to sell their time just to survive.
That possibility is real, yet it does not automatically mean money itself becomes irrelevant. As long as humans remain capable of greed, money and the power that often comes with it will keep mattering to someone.
Greed is not switched off by abundance. A person who receives a generous dividend and free access to housing, transport, healthcare and entertainment may still want more — a larger house, a rarer experience, greater influence or simply the satisfaction of having more than their neighbor.
Comparison is built into much of modern life, amplified by social media. Seeing someone else with something better can reopen the desire for more. Greed, once active, tends to keep expanding. It is not cured by external gifts. Giving a greedy person everything for free does not end the wanting; it often feeds it.
Whether money fades in importance depends less on the technology and more on what happens inside people
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
The companies that build the robots and the superintelligent systems are themselves driven, at least for now, by the desire for profit and competitive advantage. They are not building abundance out of pure charity. Power and wealth remain motivators. Until that changes at a deep, cultural level, money will continue to function as a scorekeeper and a tool of influence for those who still chase it.
This brings us to a harder truth. Whether money fades in importance depends less on the technology and more on what happens inside people. Contentment is a skill, not an automatic result of having enough. Some billionaires remain restless and unhappy. Some people with modest means live with genuine peace and happiness.
The difference is not the size of the bank balance but the ability to be satisfied with what one has and to protect that satisfaction from endless comparison. Education, culture and personal practice would need to shift toward teaching that skill — learning how to live without the constant pull of “more” controlling our lives. Without that inner work, abundance alone will not make money irrelevant. It will simply raise the baseline while the race for status continues for those still driven by greed.
There is another practical problem. Saying people will no longer need to work sounds liberating. In reality, it would be one of the largest changes in human experience. For thousands of years, work has shaped daily life, identity, social status and the structure of communities.
Many people define themselves by what they do. Removing the necessity of working overnight would leave a vacuum. Humans are not automatically equipped to wake up every day with no required activity and simply “be.” Boredom, loss of purpose and restlessness are real risks.
Without new habits and new sources of meaning — such as time in nature, creative pursuits, relationships, learning and community service — some people could drift toward destructive habits, depression or aimless distraction. Learning how to live without the old pressure of work is itself a skill that would need to be developed across society. Technology can remove the economic need for labor; it cannot instantly give people the capacity to thrive in that freedom.
In conclusion, superintelligence and the robots it directs can almost certainly create a post-scarcity world in which basic needs are met without the old struggle. Goods and services can become abundant and inexpensive. Broad dividend payments could keep the social fabric from tearing. That part of the vision is plausible and, if managed well, could free enormous human potential.
But money becoming completely irrelevant is a different matter. That outcome depends on whether human greed is brought under control.
Technology cannot conquer greed for us. For people who have already learned contentment and who refuse to let comparison and endless desires run their lives, the coming abundance would likely bring greater freedom and happiness. For those still driven by the need for more, money and power will remain important, no matter how plentiful the robots make everything else. The decisive change, if it comes, will not be only in the machines, it will be in what human beings choose to value once the old scarcity is gone.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh
