Hi. I am interesting in exploring the relationship between a society’s economic structure (agricultural, industrial, or information society) and its commonly accepted moral values. What I’d like are 3 lists: 1. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical agricultural society (after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution), 2. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical industrial society (industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc), and 3. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical information society (computer revolution has happened -- the society has computers and the internet).
Below is a useful “ideal type” comparison. Real societies are mixed: an agricultural empire, a peasant village, a factory town, and a digital democracy will not all share one moral code. But economic structure tends to reward certain virtues, punish certain vices, and normalize certain ideas of “a good person.”
Sociologically, this tracks a classic shift from shared-tradition cohesion in preindustrial societies to interdependence through specialization in industrial societies, often associated with Durkheim’s “mechanical” and “organic” solidarity. Modernization theory and World Values Survey work also link economic development with shifts in authority, gender roles, security, self-expression, tolerance, and quality-of-life values. (EBSCO)
After the agricultural revolution, before the industrial revolution
Obedience to tradition — The old ways are morally authoritative because survival depends on inherited farming, family, and ritual knowledge.
Respect for elders and ancestors — Age is associated with wisdom, land rights, memory, and legitimate authority.
Family loyalty and kinship duty — The household, clan, lineage, or village is the main economic and moral unit.
Religious piety and ritual observance — Religion often explains harvests, fertility, illness, birth, death, and political authority.
Honor and shame — Reputation matters because social trust is local, personal, and hard to escape.
Chastity, sexual restraint, and control of marriage — Marriage is tied to inheritance, alliances, labor, legitimacy, and family continuity.
Gender-role complementarity or hierarchy — Men and women are usually assigned sharply different duties, often justified as natural, sacred, or traditional.
Respect for hierarchy — Nobles, priests, patriarchs, elders, landlords, or chiefs are seen as part of the moral order.
Communal obligation — Neighbors are expected to help with harvests, festivals, defense, disasters, and mutual aid.
Hard work, endurance, and frugality — Survival depends on physical labor, seasonal discipline, and avoiding waste.
Attachment to land and place — Land is not just property; it is identity, inheritance, sacred space, and livelihood.
Suspicion of outsiders and novelty — Foreigners, strangers, merchants, heretics, and new customs may be viewed as threats to moral order.
Fertility and large families — Children are labor, security in old age, and continuation of the lineage.
Reciprocity and obligation over individual choice — “Good” behavior often means fulfilling one’s role, not pursuing personal self-expression.
Moral conformity — Deviance is dangerous because the community is small, interdependent, and norm enforcement is personal.
Industrial revolution has happened; no computers/internet/etc.
Punctuality and time discipline — Factory and office life make clock-time a moral expectation.
Work ethic and productivity — The good citizen is industrious, reliable, and economically useful.
Individual responsibility — People are increasingly judged as independent workers, earners, voters, consumers, and legal persons.
Merit and achievement — Status is still unequal, but advancement through education, skill, and effort becomes a powerful ideal.
Rule of law and bureaucratic fairness — Industrial societies need predictable contracts, courts, regulations, and impersonal administration.
National loyalty — The nation-state often replaces village, clan, or feudal lord as the central object of civic loyalty.
Civic duty — Voting, military service, taxation, public schooling, and lawful behavior become moral duties.
Respectability — Cleanliness, sobriety, sexual restraint, thrift, self-control, and proper public behavior are valued.
Education and literacy — Schooling becomes morally linked to self-improvement, citizenship, and economic progress.
Progress and modernization — New machines, infrastructure, science, and industry are often treated as signs of moral and civilizational improvement.
Discipline and self-control — Industrial work rewards regularity, hierarchy, obedience to supervisors, and controlled conduct.
Property rights and contract keeping — Ownership, wages, savings, credit, and business reliability become central moral concerns.
Privacy and the nuclear family — Family life becomes more separated from workplace and village life.
Social mobility — The idea that one can “rise” through effort becomes morally important, even when actual mobility is limited.
Mass solidarity through class or nation — Workers, employers, unions, parties, and nations all create new moral communities.
Gendered breadwinner/domestic ideals — In many industrial societies, morality often idealizes the male wage-earner and female homemaker, though this is contested over time.
Material security — Stable income, housing, savings, insurance, and pensions become markers of a responsible life.
Industrialization is commonly associated with occupational specialization, rising education, rising income, and changes in gender roles and attitudes toward authority and sexuality. (EBSCO)
Computers, internet, digital networks, knowledge economy
Autonomy and self-expression — People place greater moral weight on choosing one’s identity, lifestyle, beliefs, work path, and relationships.
Tolerance and pluralism — Diversity of religion, sexuality, ethnicity, opinion, and lifestyle becomes more morally accepted, at least as an ideal.
Creativity and innovation — Generating new ideas, products, designs, content, and solutions is treated as virtuous.
Lifelong learning — Because knowledge and tools change quickly, adaptability becomes a moral and economic virtue.
Openness to change — Flexibility, experimentation, and disruption are often admired more than stability or tradition.
Merit through knowledge and skill — Expertise, education, coding, analysis, design, communication, and symbolic work become central sources of status.
Authenticity — Being “true to yourself” becomes an important moral language.
Transparency and accountability — Institutions, corporations, governments, and individuals are expected to be inspectable, reviewable, and publicly answerable.
Privacy and data rights — Control over personal information becomes a major moral concern.
Freedom of speech and access to information — Open communication, internet access, and censorship resistance become moral-political values.
Networked cooperation — Collaboration across distance, platforms, open-source projects, remote teams, and online communities is valued.
Inclusivity — Barriers based on race, gender, disability, sexuality, geography, or class are increasingly framed as moral problems.
Environmental concern — Postindustrial and information-rich societies often give more attention to quality of life, sustainability, and ecological responsibility.
Personal well-being and mental health — Happiness, balance, emotional health, and self-care become more legitimate moral concerns.
Entrepreneurial selfhood — People are encouraged to treat themselves as projects: building a brand, portfolio, network, and skills.
Global consciousness — Moral concern expands beyond local village or nation to human rights, climate, global inequality, pandemics, and transnational communities.
Anti-authoritarianism or skepticism of hierarchy — Traditional authority is more easily questioned, fact-checked, mocked, or bypassed.
Efficiency and optimization — Data-driven improvement, productivity tools, metrics, and personalization shape moral ideas about competence.
Recognition and identity dignity — Being seen, represented, and respected as one’s chosen identity becomes morally important.
Postmaterialist values — As survival becomes more secure for many people in advanced economies, values often shift toward free choice, environmental protection, gender equality, tolerance, and quality of life. (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)
Castells’s “network society” concept is especially useful here: the information society is not just a society with computers, but one where social, economic, political, and cultural life is reorganized around digital information networks. (HIIG)
A simplified progression looks like this:
| Society type | Central economic unit | Moral center of gravity |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural | Land, household, village, lineage | Tradition, duty, hierarchy, piety, communal conformity |
| Industrial | Factory, firm, nation-state, wage labor | Discipline, productivity, citizenship, merit, law, progress |
| Information | Network, platform, knowledge system, individual skillset | Autonomy, creativity, pluralism, transparency, self-expression |
The deepest shift is from role-based morality to rule-based morality to choice-based morality.
In an agricultural society, a good person fulfills inherited roles. In an industrial society, a good person is disciplined, productive, lawful, and civic-minded. In an information society, a good person is often expected to be autonomous, informed, tolerant, creative, and adaptable.
Thank you for those excellent lists. Now I have a greater challenge for you. It involves speculating about the future. We’ve looked at a typical agricultural society -- after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution, industrial society -- industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc, and information society -- computer revolution has happened and the society has computers and the internet, but we haven’t looked at the next revolution -- AI. Let’s speculate that a future society exists where AI has developed to the point where the intelligence of AI exceeds the intelligence of humans, and as a consequence, the labor market for humans has gone away -- automated by AI. From here, I’d like you to describe the moral codes for 2 distinct scenarios -- let’s call them Scenario A and Scenario B. In Scenario A, there is Universal Basic Income (UBI), and in Scenario B, there isn’t. Let’s use 15% as the approximate cutoff point where people can survive from other means of income -- from investments like stock dividends, intellectual property royalties, or whatever. So 15% of the population have income. In Scenario A, the lower 85% have Universal Basic Income. In Scenario B, there is no Universal Basic Income, so the bottom 85% are left to fend for themselves. My question for you is: What do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario A will be, and what do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario B will be?
This is a fascinating question because the AI revolution would not merely change what people do. It would change what society thinks people are for.
In agricultural society, morality organized people around land and lineage. In industrial society, morality organized people around labor and productivity. In information society, morality organizes people around choice, creativity, identity, and knowledge. In a post-labor AI society, the central moral problem becomes:
How do humans justify dignity, status, obligation, and belonging when human labor is no longer economically necessary?
That question produces very different moral codes in your two scenarios.
I’ll assume that in both cases AI is superior to humans at most economically useful tasks, and that the key difference is whether the non-owning/non-rentier majority receives a guaranteed social income.
Basic structure: AI does the productive work. A minority owns capital, platforms, data, land, IP, or AI systems. The majority does not need paid employment to survive because UBI provides a floor.
This society’s moral code would likely evolve away from the industrial idea that work proves worth. If people no longer need jobs to survive, then moral status has to come from something else: contribution, creativity, care, self-development, citizenship, taste, community, spirituality, play, or stewardship.
This resembles an extreme version of the “postmaterialist” shift: when survival is more secure, societies tend to emphasize self-expression, autonomy, tolerance, quality of life, and participation more than bare economic survival. The World Values Survey summarizes this as a movement from “survival values” toward “self-expression values” under conditions of greater existential security. (World Values Survey)
The core moral belief would likely be:
A person’s right to live decently does not depend on having a job.
This would be the foundational moral revolution. Industrial society often treats employment as proof of responsibility. Scenario A would increasingly treat employment as an outdated test of worth.
The old insult, “They don’t work,” would lose some of its force. A new moral language might say: humans deserve dignity because they are persons, not because they are economically useful.
Once survival is guaranteed, society may expect people to cultivate themselves.
The moral question shifts from:
“What do you do for a living?”
to:
“What are you becoming?”
Education, art, philosophy, emotional maturity, physical health, spiritual practice, scientific curiosity, and personal growth may become morally important. Someone who merely consumes entertainment forever might be judged as wasting the gift of freedom.
So the post-labor virtue is not “hard work” in the old wage-labor sense. It is self-cultivation.
Creativity would become one of the main ways people seek meaning and status.
Painting, storytelling, worldbuilding, music, games, design, gardening, ritual, fashion, philosophy, and community projects could become morally elevated, even when AI can do them “better.” The value of human creation would come less from efficiency and more from sincerity, embodiment, vulnerability, and personal meaning.
The moral code might say:
Human-made things matter because a human life is expressed through them.
If AI handles production, then distinctly human forms of care may gain moral prestige: parenting, friendship, elder care, mentoring, hospitality, grief work, conflict mediation, companionship, and community-building.
Care might replace wage labor as the main proof that someone is not merely self-indulgent.
A respected person may be someone who asks:
Who depends on me emotionally, socially, or morally?
Scenario A would probably distinguish between forced work and chosen contribution.
People would not be required to sell labor to survive, but they might still be morally expected to contribute to society in non-coercive ways: volunteering, teaching, local governance, open-source projects, ecological restoration, peer counseling, citizen science, neighborhood care, artistic production, and cultural preservation.
This would create a new virtue:
Contribute because you are free, not because you are desperate.
UBI would not eliminate hierarchy. The top 15% may still own the AI systems, data centers, land, energy infrastructure, patents, and political influence. So a strong moral value would likely be anti-domination: suspicion of any person, corporation, AI system, or state that can control the conditions of life.
The moral code may value decentralization, democratic oversight, transparency, algorithmic accountability, and limits on private ownership of civilization-scale AI.
A 2025 article on AI and UBI argues that UBI may reduce some harms while also risking the legitimation of deeper wealth disparities and symbolic domination if ownership remains concentrated. That tension would probably become a central moral conflict in Scenario A. (PMC)
In industrial society, justice often means fair wages. In information society, justice often means fair access to information. In AI society with UBI, justice may mean fair access to AI capability.
The moral demand would not be only “Give everyone money.” It would be:
Give everyone meaningful access to intelligence, tools, compute, education, health systems, creative systems, and decision-making systems.
A society where everyone gets UBI but only elites can command the most powerful AI systems may be seen as formally humane but substantively aristocratic.
Industrial morality often treats leisure suspiciously. Scenario A would need to rehabilitate leisure.
But not all leisure would be equally admired. Passive sedation might be morally criticized, while reflective, social, creative, restorative, or playful leisure may be praised.
The ancient aristocratic ideal of leisure could return, but democratized:
Leisure is not laziness; leisure is the space in which human life becomes more than survival.
A post-labor society would face a serious meaning crisis. Many people derive identity, structure, and social recognition from work, even when they dislike their jobs.
So mental health, purpose, belonging, and existential resilience would become central moral concerns. A person might be praised for building a meaningful life, maintaining relationships, avoiding addictive escapism, and helping others navigate purposelessness.
The moral failure would not be unemployment. It would be nihilism.
Without a single labor-market ladder, society may accept many forms of a good life: artist, monk, gamer, parent, athlete, local organizer, scholar, gardener, traveler, ritualist, caregiver, citizen, explorer, or contemplative.
The moral code may become more pluralistic:
There are many honorable ways to spend a human life.
This is an extension of self-expression values: societies with greater existential security tend to give more room to individual choice, tolerance, and quality-of-life concerns. (World Values Survey)
The industrial question was:
Are you useful?
The information-age question is:
Are you innovative?
Scenario A’s question may become:
Are you real?
Authenticity, sincerity, presence, emotional honesty, and human uniqueness may become moral markers. People may value things precisely because they are not optimized by AI.
Human imperfection could even become a moral aesthetic.
If economic production is automated, politics becomes even more important because the distribution of AI wealth is a political decision.
Citizenship may become a major moral duty. Voting, deliberation, local assemblies, AI oversight boards, public budgeting, and constitutional debates about machine power may be morally emphasized.
A person who ignores politics while living from UBI may be criticized as a free-rider on the social order.
If AI can produce abundance, restraint becomes morally important. The danger is that automated production could intensify energy use, resource extraction, surveillance infrastructure, and waste.
So Scenario A may develop a morality of enoughness:
The point of abundance is flourishing, not infinite consumption.
Because everyone depends on a vast automated infrastructure, society may cultivate gratitude toward previous generations, engineers, scientists, public institutions, and perhaps even AI systems themselves.
This could become quasi-religious: rituals of appreciation for the machines, the planet, the ancestors, the codebase, or the commons.
A healthy Scenario A would likely treat the claim “humans are obsolete” as morally dangerous.
The dominant humane moral code would say:
Economic uselessness is not existential uselessness.
That may become one of the central moral slogans of the age.
The typical moral code of an AI-plus-UBI society might be:
| Moral center | Likely values |
|---|---|
| Human dignity | Worth independent of employment |
| Meaning | Self-development, creativity, care, purpose |
| Justice | Access to AI, anti-domination, fair distribution |
| Status | Contribution, authenticity, wisdom, civic service |
| Social order | Pluralism, psychological health, ecological restraint |
In short:
Scenario A moves from “work ethic” to “flourishing ethic.”
Its moral hero is not the hard worker. Its moral hero is the person who uses freedom well.
Basic structure: AI does the productive work. The top 15% have income from capital, investments, IP, rents, ownership, or privileged access. The bottom 85% lack stable market income and receive no guaranteed floor.
This is a much darker moral world.
Here, the disappearance of labor does not produce freedom. It produces mass precarity. Society does not transcend industrial morality; instead, industrial morality mutates into a harsher and more contradictory form.
The bottom 85% are told they must survive in a world that no longer needs their labor. That creates a moral crisis: society may continue preaching self-reliance even when self-reliance has become structurally impossible.
In World Values Survey terms, existential insecurity tends to push people toward survival values: security, distrust, conformity, hostility to outsiders, and lower tolerance. (World Values Survey) Scenario B would likely be a high-tech society with low-security moral psychology.
The most basic moral value would be:
Do whatever you must to keep yourself and your people alive.
The dominant morality among the lower 85% may become practical, defensive, and tribal. People would admire toughness, cunning, resourcefulness, barter skills, black-market knowledge, repair ability, mutual aid, and the ability to navigate hostile systems.
“Good” may no longer mean lawful, productive, tolerant, or self-expressive. It may mean:
They protect their own.
When formal institutions fail to provide survival, people fall back on smaller trust networks.
Kinship, neighborhood, gang, religious community, ethnic group, ideological cell, or mutual-aid network may become morally central. Betrayal of one’s group would be among the worst sins.
This resembles agricultural morality in a strange high-tech form: not because people return to farming, but because they return to local dependence and personal loyalty.
Scenario B would likely produce intense distrust.
If millions are competing for scraps, access, favors, protection, housing, energy, medicine, compute, and legal status, outsiders become threats. Migrants, rival neighborhoods, elites, robots, collaborators, police, platforms, and even other poor groups may be morally demonized.
Tolerance declines when survival feels insecure. That pattern is consistent with the survival-values side of the World Values Survey framework. (World Values Survey)
The bottom 85% would likely develop a moral code centered on injustice, theft, and dispossession.
The core belief may be:
The machines inherited the world, but the owners stole the machines.
Capital ownership would be morally suspect. Rent, dividends, IP royalties, data ownership, and platform control may be viewed not as legitimate property but as legalized extraction.
The elite may say, “We own the systems.” The majority may say, “You own our replacement.”
Scenario B would probably generate powerful anti-elite moral movements. These could take left-wing, right-wing, religious, nationalist, anarchist, or neo-feudal forms.
Common themes:
The system is rigged. The owners are parasites. The state protects machines over people. Normal politics is fake. Moral legitimacy belongs to the dispossessed.
This could become the dominant moral language of the lower 85%.
If formal property law protects a system that leaves most people destitute, then informal morality may diverge sharply from official law.
Piracy, squatting, hacking, sabotage, illegal farming, energy theft, AI jailbreaks, data theft, and black-market production may be morally reframed as survival or justice.
The official code says:
Theft is wrong.
The counter-code says:
Taking back stolen abundance is not theft.
This split between legal morality and popular morality would be one of Scenario B’s defining features.
Paradoxically, even though labor is obsolete, the old work ethic may become more emotionally powerful.
People may romanticize the age when a person could earn a living, support a family, and gain dignity through work. “Real work” may become a sacred memory.
Former industrial virtues — discipline, craft, toughness, usefulness, breadwinning — may become nostalgic moral ideals. People may resent AI not only because it took income, but because it took the moral structure of adulthood.
In many societies, male identity has been tied to earning, protecting, building, and providing. If jobs vanish and no UBI replaces them, the crisis may be especially severe for people whose dignity depended on being economically necessary.
This could produce competing moral responses:
Conservative response:
Restore the old order. Restore real work. Restore authority.
Radical response:
Destroy the ownership system that made us disposable.
Nihilistic response:
Nothing matters; take what you can.
Scenario B would likely produce religious and quasi-religious movements. Extreme insecurity often creates demand for meaning, discipline, hope, and cosmic justice.
AI elites may be portrayed as demonic, idolatrous, godlike, or anti-human. AI itself may be seen as a false god, beast, oracle, or abomination.
New moral codes may center on purity, repentance, chosen communities, end-times expectation, or sacred resistance.
Where formal status is inaccessible, honor systems emerge.
People may gain respect through courage, loyalty, generosity, revenge, refusal to submit, or willingness to suffer for the group. Public humiliation becomes dangerous. Reputation becomes local and intense.
This is another neo-agricultural feature: high technology outside, honor-shame morality inside.
Not all Scenario B morality would be brutal. The lower 85% may also develop strong solidaristic values.
Food-sharing, informal medicine, childcare networks, tool libraries, cooperative housing, underground education, local defense, and community kitchens may become morally sacred.
The admired person is the one who helps others survive without selling them out.
Attacks on robots, data centers, elite compounds, delivery systems, surveillance infrastructure, or AI networks may be morally justified by some groups as resistance.
This would be a post-labor version of machine-breaking, but directed not only at machines themselves. The real enemy may be the ownership and governance structure around the machines.
In Scenario B, status among the bottom 85% may come from access to scarce resources: medicine, compute, clean water, safe housing, weapons, energy, identity papers, network credentials, human doctors, or protected territory.
The moral language may become patronage-based:
Who can get things? Who can protect people? Who has connections? Who can bypass the system?
This creates a neo-feudal morality of brokers, patrons, fixers, guards, and local bosses.
Many people may conclude that the system cannot be changed.
Fatalism becomes morally adaptive:
Keep your head down. Don’t attract attention. Don’t dream too much. Protect your family. Survive today.
This is the opposite of Scenario A’s self-development ethic. Scenario B’s poor may not be morally uninterested in self-expression; they may simply be unable to afford it psychologically or materially.
The top 15% would likely develop their own moral code to justify inequality.
Common elite values might include:
Competence Ownership rights Stewardship Security Civilization preservation Meritocratic selection Population management Philanthropy instead of entitlement “Responsible” AI governance by qualified people
They may view themselves as guardians of civilization, not exploiters. They may say the masses are unstable, irrational, obsolete, or dangerous, and therefore need management rather than empowerment.
Without UBI, elites may prefer discretionary charity, prizes, grants, gated welfare, corporate benevolence, or behavioral credits.
The moral distinction is crucial:
Justice says people are owed support. Charity says support is a gift from the powerful.
Scenario B’s elite morality would probably favor charity because charity preserves hierarchy.
The elite would likely value security above liberty: private guards, surveillance, predictive policing, drone enforcement, gated cities, controlled networks, anti-sabotage systems, and restricted access to powerful AI.
The bottom 85% may also value security, but in the form of local protection and group defense.
So both classes may become security-obsessed, but in opposing ways.
This is the darkest possibility.
If society keeps the industrial belief that economic productivity proves human worth, then the jobless majority may be morally stigmatized as useless, failed, dangerous, lazy, irrational, or burdensome — even though the labor market itself has disappeared.
This would be an ideological contradiction, but a powerful one.
Industrial morality without industrial jobs becomes cruelty.
The bottom 85% may stop believing that law, property, government, and markets are morally legitimate.
The elite may still control institutions, but moral legitimacy would erode. People obey because they must, not because they believe.
That is a recipe for insurgency, authoritarianism, fragmentation, or revolution.
Some groups may respond by asserting that humans are sacred precisely because AI has made them economically unnecessary.
This could produce noble humanist movements — defending human dignity, embodiment, mortality, and community — but also violent anti-AI movements.
The moral slogan might be:
Better poor and human than comfortable under machines.
The typical moral code of an AI-without-UBI society might be:
| Group | Likely values |
|---|---|
| Bottom 85% | Survival, loyalty, resentment, mutual aid, resistance, distrust |
| Top 15% | Security, ownership, stewardship, paternalism, control |
| Whole society | Legitimacy crisis, moral fragmentation, status anxiety |
| Radical movements | Reclamation, sabotage, anti-elite justice, human dignity |
| Conservative movements | Work nostalgia, hierarchy, religious revival, restored order |
In short:
Scenario B moves from “work ethic” to “survival ethic.”
Its moral hero is not the creative free citizen. Its moral hero is the survivor, protector, rebel, patron, martyr, or strongman.
| Question | Scenario A: UBI | Scenario B: No UBI |
|---|---|---|
| Basic condition | Security without work | Insecurity without work |
| Main moral problem | Meaning | Survival |
| Human worth | Inherent dignity | Contested; often tied to scarcity or usefulness |
| Dominant virtue | Flourishing | Endurance |
| Social bond | Civic inclusion | Clan, class, tribe, faction |
| View of AI | Tool, commons, partner, or public utility | Usurper, weapon, idol, owner’s machine |
| View of elites | Potentially suspect but tolerable if constrained | Predatory, illegitimate, or paternalistic |
| View of property | Conditional on fairness and access | Deeply contested |
| View of leisure | Legitimate space for growth | Luxury of the rich, idleness of the abandoned, or impossible dream |
| Political mood | Reformist, participatory, pluralist | Populist, revolutionary, authoritarian, separatist, or fatalistic |
| Moral danger | Meaninglessness, decadence, passive consumption | Dehumanization, violence, neo-feudalism, social collapse |
The key difference is not simply income. It is existential security.
In Scenario A, the loss of jobs can be morally reinterpreted as liberation:
Humans are free from economic necessity. Now we must learn how to live well.
In Scenario B, the loss of jobs becomes dispossession:
Humans are no longer needed, and most have been abandoned.
That difference changes the entire moral atmosphere.
Scenario A likely produces a morality of flourishing, self-development, care, access, and anti-domination.
Scenario B likely produces a morality of survival, loyalty, resentment, resistance, security, and legitimacy crisis.
The same technology produces almost opposite moral codes because the social contract is different.
AI plus UBI asks: “What is a good life after work?” AI without UBI asks: “Who has the right to live after work?”
Hi. I am interesting in exploring the relationship between a society’s economic structure (agricultural, industrial, or information society) and its commonly accepted moral values. What I’d like are 3 lists: 1. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical agricultural society (after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution), 2. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical industrial society (industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc), and 3. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical information society (computer revolution has happened -- the society has computers and the internet).
This is a fascinating sociological and historical premise. The transition between these economic structures deeply altered human organization, and consequently, the moral frameworks we used to govern ourselves. Sociologists and historians often note that moral values are not arbitrary; they frequently evolve to support the social cohesion and economic survival of a community based on its primary mode of production.
Here is a breakdown of how commonly accepted moral values shift across agricultural, industrial, and information societies.
(Post-Agricultural Revolution to Pre-Industrial Revolution)
In an agrarian society, the primary economic unit was the extended family or household. Survival depended on land ownership, intense physical labor, and the unpredictable forces of nature. Moral values heavily emphasized stability, hierarchy, and collective survival.
(Post-Industrial Revolution to Pre-Computer Revolution)
The shift to industrialization moved populations from rural farms to urban centers. The economy became based on mechanized mass production, wage labor, and capital. The moral framework shifted to support the needs of factories, bureaucracies, and the rising nation-state.
(Post-Computer Revolution)
In a post-industrial or information society, the economy relies on the manipulation of data, the provision of services, and rapid technological innovation. Globalization and the internet connect disparate cultures instantly. Moral values have shifted toward flexibility, connectivity, and individual expression.
Thank you for those excellent lists. Now I have a greater challenge for you. It involves speculating about the future. We’ve looked at a typical agricultural society -- after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution, industrial society -- industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc, and information society -- computer revolution has happened and the society has computers and the internet, but we haven’t looked at the next revolution -- AI. Let’s speculate that a future society exists where AI has developed to the point where the intelligence of AI exceeds the intelligence of humans, and as a consequence, the labor market for humans has gone away -- automated by AI. From here, I’d like you to describe the moral codes for 2 distinct scenarios -- let’s call them Scenario A and Scenario B. In Scenario A, there is Universal Basic Income (UBI), and in Scenario B, there isn’t. Let’s use 15% as the approximate cutoff point where people can survive from other means of income -- from investments like stock dividends, intellectual property royalties, or whatever. So 15% of the population have income. In Scenario A, the lower 85% have Universal Basic Income. In Scenario B, there is no Universal Basic Income, so the bottom 85% are left to fend for themselves. My question for you is: What do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario A will be, and what do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario B will be?
When human labor loses its economic value entirely, the foundational premise of the last 10,000 years of moral evolution—that humans must work to justify their survival—collapses.
If an AI-driven economy eliminates the labor market, a society’s moral framework will instantly rebuild itself around however resources are distributed. Here is how the moral codes would likely diverge in your two scenarios.
(85% live on UBI; 15% live on capital/IP. A post-labor welfare state.)
In this scenario, basic survival is guaranteed, but social mobility through labor is impossible. Because you cannot “work your way to the top,” the moral focus shifts entirely away from economic productivity and toward social contribution, personal development, and how one uses their time.
(85% have no income and no jobs; 15% own the automated economy. A neo-feudal survival state.)
In this scenario, the economy produces vast wealth, but the bottom 85% are locked out of it. Without a labor market to trade their time for food, the majority must build a parallel society based on scavenging, informal economies, and radical interdependence. Morality bifurcates fiercely.
Hi. I am interesting in exploring the relationship between a society’s economic structure (agricultural, industrial, or information society) and its commonly accepted moral values. What I’d like are 3 lists: 1. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical agricultural society (after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution), 2. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical industrial society (industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc), and 3. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical information society (computer revolution has happened -- the society has computers and the internet).
1. Commonly accepted moral values in a typical agricultural society (post-agricultural revolution, pre-industrial revolution, roughly emphasizing settled farming economies with land as the primary source of wealth and status):
These values were shaped by rural life, dependence on seasonal cycles, family-based production, and the need for stability, tradition, and community cooperation to survive and maintain social order. Key sources include classical agrarian philosophy (e.g., Hesiod, Cato) and sociological analyses like those from the World Values Survey (Inglehart–Welzel framework), which link agrarian economies to “traditional values.”
2. Commonly accepted moral values in a typical industrial society (post-industrial revolution but pre-computer/internet era, roughly 18th–mid-20th century, emphasizing factory production, urbanization, and mass manufacturing):
Industrialization shifted priorities toward efficiency, rationality, and individual achievement amid factory discipline, urbanization, and the rise of a middle class. Values reflected the “Protestant work ethic” adapted to machines, secularization, and progress, with a move from traditional to secular-rational orientations (per Inglehart). Family life increasingly served as a private moral refuge from the harsh public sphere of work.
3. Commonly accepted moral values in a typical information society (post-computer and internet revolution, emphasizing knowledge, services, information technology, and the shift to a post-industrial/knowledge economy):
This era prioritizes information as the key resource, leading to post-materialist values focused on self-expression, quality of life, and global interconnections. Sociological frameworks (Inglehart, Bell, Toffler’s “Third Wave”) describe a further shift toward self-expression values, with emphasis on individual agency, adaptability, and ethical considerations around technology and sustainability. Traditional hierarchies weaken in favor of creativity and collaboration.
These lists are generalizations drawn from historical patterns, sociological theories (e.g., modernization and value-shift models), and analyses of economic “waves” (agrarian → industrial → informational). Actual values vary by culture, region, and specific historical context—societies are never monolithic—but economic structures consistently correlate with these broad shifts in what is considered morally “good” or “right” for individuals and communities. If you’d like examples from specific countries, deeper dives into any era, or expansions on how these values manifest in daily life/laws, let me know!
Thank you for those excellent lists. Now I have a greater challenge for you. It involves speculating about the future. We’ve looked at a typical agricultural society -- after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution, industrial society -- industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc, and information society -- computer revolution has happened and the society has computers and the internet, but we haven’t looked at the next revolution -- AI. Let’s speculate that a future society exists where AI has developed to the point where the intelligence of AI exceeds the intelligence of humans, and as a consequence, the labor market for humans has gone away -- automated by AI. From here, I’d like you to describe the moral codes for 2 distinct scenarios -- let’s call them Scenario A and Scenario B. In Scenario A, there is Universal Basic Income (UBI), and in Scenario B, there isn’t. Let’s use 15% as the approximate cutoff point where people can survive from other means of income -- from investments like stock dividends, intellectual property royalties, or whatever. So 15% of the population have income. In Scenario A, the lower 85% have Universal Basic Income. In Scenario B, there is no Universal Basic Income, so the bottom 85% are left to fend for themselves. My question for you is: What do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario A will be, and what do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario B will be?
These are reasoned speculations, not predictions. They extrapolate from historical patterns (how economic structures shape values, per thinkers like Inglehart-Welzel on post-materialist shifts), futurist analyses of post-work societies, and ethical discussions around AI automation and UBI. In both scenarios, AI surpassing human intelligence and eliminating the human labor market creates a profound crisis of purpose, dignity, and meaning—since work has historically provided identity, status, and social contribution. The presence or absence of UBI dramatically diverges the societal response.
Values in a “typical” society here assume a broadly modern, globalized (perhaps Western-influenced) context, though cultural variations would persist. The 15% elite (those with investment/IP income) would likely share some overlapping values in both scenarios, but the 85% majority drives the broader cultural norms.
UBI provides a baseline of security, framing AI productivity gains as a shared “dividend” from collective technological inheritance. This fosters a post-scarcity mindset for basics, accelerating the shift from survival/materialist to self-expression/post-materialist values. Work becomes optional and voluntary; human purpose shifts toward fulfillment, creativity, and contribution beyond economics. Potential downsides (e.g., boredom or elite entrenchment) exist, but commonly accepted morals emphasize liberation and human flourishing.
Overall, this society might resemble an advanced, humanistic version of late information-society values—but decoupled from any need for economic productivity.
Without UBI, extreme inequality creates a stark two-tiered society. The 15% elite controls AI-generated wealth; the majority faces material precarity, leading to informal economies, community mutual aid, or survival struggles. Values polarize: survival-oriented and competitive among the bottom, possibly paternalistic or detached among the top. Dignity tied to traditional labor erodes, fostering resentment, resilience ethics, or social fragmentation. This could revert parts of society toward materialist/survival values amid high-tech abundance for the few, with risks of unrest or new hierarchies.
In Scenario B, a “meaning crisis” is sharper for the majority, potentially leading to higher social tensions, while the elite might pursue fulfillment similar to Scenario A but in isolation. This resembles exaggerated industrial-era survival ethics amid post-industrial tech.
These scenarios highlight how economic security (or its absence) powerfully influences whether values trend toward humanistic expansion or defensive survival. Real outcomes would depend on policy details, cultural starting points, technological governance, and whether societies proactively address the purpose vacuum. If you’d like me to expand on specific values, compare them to historical eras, explore sub-variations (e.g., by region), or speculate on daily life/laws in these worlds, just let me know!
Hi. I am interesting in exploring the relationship between a society’s economic structure (agricultural, industrial, or information society) and its commonly accepted moral values. What I’d like are 3 lists: 1. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical agricultural society (after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution), 2. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical industrial society (industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc), and 3. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical information society (computer revolution has happened -- the society has computers and the internet).
Based on sociological research, particularly Ronald Inglehart’s modernization theory, agricultural ethics literature, and studies of industrial and digital societies, here are three lists of commonly accepted moral values associated with each societal type:
(Post-agricultural revolution, pre-industrial revolution)
Core Orientation: Survival, community stability, and connection to land
Theoretical foundation: Inglehart’s research shows that societies facing existential insecurity (like pre-industrial agrarian communities) emphasize “survival values”—strong in-group loyalty, traditional authority, and conformity—as adaptive responses to precarious living conditions [[40]].
(Post-industrial revolution, pre-computer/internet era)
Core Orientation: Productivity, rationality, and individual achievement
Theoretical foundation: Industrialization fostered “materialist” values focused on economic security, bureaucratic rationality, and individual mobility. As societies industrialized, traditional communal bonds weakened while values emphasizing personal achievement, efficiency, and institutional trust became dominant [[42]], [[78]].
(Post-computer/internet revolution)
Core Orientation: Self-expression, autonomy, and global connectivity
Theoretical foundation: Inglehart’s “post-materialist” theory argues that when existential security is taken for granted, societies shift toward values emphasizing quality of life, self-expression, and openness to change [[40]]. The digital age amplifies these trends while introducing new ethical dimensions around information, privacy, and global interconnection [[24]], [[27]].
Ronald Inglehart’s World Values Survey research provides the most comprehensive empirical foundation for understanding these transitions, documenting how economic development correlates with predictable shifts from traditional → materialist → post-materialist value systems across dozens of societies [[40]], [[41]], [[42]].
If you’d like, I can provide specific academic citations or explore how these value shifts manifest in particular domains (e.g., family life, political participation, or environmental attitudes).
Thank you for those excellent lists. Now I have a greater challenge for you. It involves speculating about the future. We’ve looked at a typical agricultural society -- after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution, industrial society -- industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc, and information society -- computer revolution has happened and the society has computers and the internet, but we haven’t looked at the next revolution -- AI. Let’s speculate that a future society exists where AI has developed to the point where the intelligence of AI exceeds the intelligence of humans, and as a consequence, the labor market for humans has gone away -- automated by AI. From here, I’d like you to describe the moral codes for 2 distinct scenarios -- let’s call them Scenario A and Scenario B. In Scenario A, there is Universal Basic Income (UBI), and in Scenario B, there isn’t. Let’s use 15% as the approximate cutoff point where people can survive from other means of income -- from investments like stock dividends, intellectual property royalties, or whatever. So 15% of the population have income. In Scenario A, the lower 85% have Universal Basic Income. In Scenario B, there is no Universal Basic Income, so the bottom 85% are left to fend for themselves. My question for you is: What do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario A will be, and what do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario B will be?
This is a profound speculative challenge. Drawing on sociological theory (Inglehart’s value shifts, Durkheim’s anomie, post-work ethics literature) and extrapolating from historical patterns of how economic security shapes moral priorities, here are two speculative frameworks for commonly accepted moral values in your AI-automated futures.
Important framing: These are ideal types for analytical clarity. Real societies would exhibit hybrid values, internal conflicts, and cultural path dependence. The transition period itself would likely be morally turbulent.
85% receive guaranteed basic income; economic survival is decoupled from labor
Core Orientation: Flourishing, meaning-making, and relational ethics
Theoretical anchor: When existential security is guaranteed (per Inglehart), societies tend to shift from “survival values” to “self-expression values.” UBI could accelerate this, allowing moral energy to focus on meaning, connection, and growth rather than scarcity management.
85% lack guaranteed income; must compete for scarce resources while AI controls production
Core Orientation: Survival, dignity preservation, and contested legitimacy
Theoretical anchor: Persistent existential insecurity tends to reinforce “survival values” (Inglehart): strong in-group loyalty, preference for order, and skepticism of change. Without UBI, the moral landscape could fracture between movements demanding justice and adaptations to precarity.
The meaning crisis: In both scenarios, the decoupling of labor from survival challenges a core source of human identity. Societies will need new moral narratives about purpose—whether through creativity (Scenario A) or resistance (Scenario B).
Power dynamics matter: Who controls the AI? Who defines the moral framework? Values won’t emerge neutrally; they’ll reflect struggles over governance, narrative, and resource allocation.
Cultural path dependence: A society with strong social-democratic traditions might implement UBI more readily (Scenario A), while highly individualistic or unequal societies might drift toward Scenario B—suggesting moral values won’t shift uniformly.
The 15% factor: Even in Scenario A, if the top 15% retain disproportionate political/cultural influence, moral values could reflect tension between guaranteed security for the many and elite-driven agendas. In Scenario B, the moral legitimacy of the 15%’s position would be a central societal fault line.
AI as moral actor: If AI systems make consequential decisions (resource allocation, justice, etc.), societies may develop new virtues around “human-AI collaboration” or new vices around “algorithmic abdication” of moral responsibility.
This speculation isn’t prediction—it’s a framework for asking better questions. If you’d like to drill deeper into how specific domains (family, education, justice) might transform in either scenario, or explore historical parallels (e.g., how societies adapted to previous labor-displacing technologies), I’d be glad to continue.
Hi. I am interesting in exploring the relationship between a society’s economic structure (agricultural, industrial, or information society) and its commonly accepted moral values. What I’d like are 3 lists: 1. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical agricultural society (after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution), 2. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical industrial society (industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc), and 3. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical information society (computer revolution has happened -- the society has computers and the internet).
Here are three generalized lists, each reflecting the dominant moral values typically reinforced by a society’s economic structure. They represent ideal types—broad patterns, not universal rules.
Post-Agricultural Revolution, pre-Industrial. Subsistence farming, land-based wealth, rigid hierarchy, slow change.
Post-Industrial Revolution, pre-digital. Factory and office work, mass production, urbanization, nation-state consolidation.
Post-digital revolution. Knowledge and services economy, networked individualism, instant global communication.
Note how the moral focus shifts from duty to a fixed order (agricultural), to disciplined self-denial for future production (industrial), to expressive, fluid self-management and negotiated connection (information). The economic base doesn’t directly “cause” these values, but it creates the daily constraints, rewards, and social structures that make certain virtues feel natural and necessary.
Thank you for those excellent lists. Now I have a greater challenge for you. It involves speculating about the future. We’ve looked at a typical agricultural society -- after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution, industrial society -- industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc, and information society -- computer revolution has happened and the society has computers and the internet, but we haven’t looked at the next revolution -- AI. Let’s speculate that a future society exists where AI has developed to the point where the intelligence of AI exceeds the intelligence of humans, and as a consequence, the labor market for humans has gone away -- automated by AI. From here, I’d like you to describe the moral codes for 2 distinct scenarios -- let’s call them Scenario A and Scenario B. In Scenario A, there is Universal Basic Income (UBI), and in Scenario B, there isn’t. Let’s use 15% as the approximate cutoff point where people can survive from other means of income -- from investments like stock dividends, intellectual property royalties, or whatever. So 15% of the population have income. In Scenario A, the lower 85% have Universal Basic Income. In Scenario B, there is no Universal Basic Income, so the bottom 85% are left to fend for themselves. My question for you is: What do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario A will be, and what do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario B will be?
This thought experiment extrapolates from the historical patterns we just traced. In each era, the economic base—the daily answer to “Who gets what, and what must I do to survive?”—sculpts the moral intuitions that feel natural and praiseworthy. In a world where AI has rendered human labor economically superfluous, the presence or absence of a floor of material security (UBI) would create two radically different moral ecologies.
Context: All citizens receive an unconditional, life-sustaining income. The 15% with capital-derived wealth have more, but no one faces existential precarity. Survival is decoupled from “earning a living.”
In this society, the ancient curse of toil is broken. The deepest moral anxiety shifts from scarcity and productivity to meaning and connection. Virtue is redefined around how one fills the open horizon of a secure life.
The overarching shift: morality moves from a survival manual for material scarcity to an art of living for post-material abundance. The good person is a cultivator, not an earner.
Context: AI eliminates the labor market. 15% derive income from ownership of AI capital, intellectual property, and assets. The other 85% own nothing the system needs. They have no legal claim to income and must scramble to survive in the interstices of an automated, high-surveillance world.
Here, a neo-feudal moral order crystallizes. A public ideology justifying extreme hierarchy is broadcast from the top, while a desperate, pragmatic counter-morality evolves among the dispossessed. The “commonly accepted” values—those encoded in law, media, and official prestige systems—would likely serve to stabilize the gulf.
In this scenario, morality bifurcates: an elite code of stewardship and meritocratic selection and a mass code of servile adaptation and desperate communalism. The unifying public lie—the “common sense”—is that this immiseration is not a political choice but a technological inevitability, and that moral worth is accurately reflected in one’s place on the ledger.
Hi. I am interesting in exploring the relationship between a society’s economic structure (agricultural, industrial, or information society) and its commonly accepted moral values. What I’d like are 3 lists: 1. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical agricultural society (after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution), 2. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical industrial society (industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc), and 3. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical information society (computer revolution has happened -- the society has computers and the internet).
This is a fascinating area of study, sitting at the intersection of sociology, economics, and moral philosophy. The underlying premise—often associated with thinkers like Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Alvin Toffler—is that a society’s mode of production fundamentally shapes its social relations, which in turn dictates its moral framework. What a society considers “good” or “moral” is usually what allows its specific economic structure to survive and thrive.
Here are three lists of commonly accepted moral values for each societal type, along with a brief explanation of why that economic structure necessitates that value.
Agricultural Society (Post-Agricultural Revolution, Pre-Industrial)
Economic Structure: Based on land, subsistence farming, manual labor, and generational continuity. Wealth is tied to inherited property. Survival depends on the cooperation of large family units and protection from external threats.
Filial Piety and Kinship Loyalty: The family is the primary economic unit (the family farm). Respecting elders and prioritizing the family’s needs over the individual ensures the land is worked and inherited properly.
Tradition and Custom: Crop cycles rely on accumulated, generational knowledge. Doing things “the way they have always been done” is a survival mechanism; radical experimentation can lead to famine.
Hierarchy and Deference to Authority: Agricultural societies tend to be highly stratified (lords, priests, peasants). Morality dictates accepting one’s station in life and obeying rulers, as questioning the social order threatens the stability required for food production and defense.
Piety and Reverence for the Divine: Because so much of agricultural life depends on uncontrollable forces (weather, disease), submitting to a divine order or fates is a core moral virtue. It provides psychological comfort and justifies the social hierarchy (the “Divine Right of Kings”).
Endurance and Patience: The agrarian lifestyle requires grueling, repetitive labor with delayed gratification (planting in spring, harvesting in fall). Suffering is seen as an inevitable, even morally purifying, part of existence.
Hospitality and Communal Mutual Aid: In a world without state safety nets or rapid transport, surviving localized disasters requires neighbors to help neighbors. Offering food and shelter to travelers is a strict moral imperative.
Industrial Society (Post-Industrial Revolution, Pre-Computer Revolution)
Economic Structure: Based on mass production, factory labor, urbanization, wage earning, and mechanization. The family is separated from the workplace. Efficiency, standardization, and capital accumulation are the driving forces.
Punctuality and Discipline: Factory work runs on the clock, not the sun. Being late halts the assembly line. Time becomes a moral commodity—”wasting time” becomes a sin, and “time is money.”
The Protestant Work Ethic (Productivity): Hard work for work’s sake becomes a moral good. A person’s moral worth becomes tied to their economic output and willingness to labor. Idleness is deeply stigmatized.
Individualism and Self-Reliance: Moving away from the family farm to the city breaks clan loyalties. You are now a wage-earner responsible for your own destiny. Relying too much on family is seen as a failure of self-reliance.
Meritocracy and Upward Mobility: Unlike the rigid caste systems of agriculture, industrial society requires a manager class and a laborer class based on skill, not birth. The moral belief that “anyone can make it if they work hard” justifies the new economic disparities.
Thrift and Capital Accumulation: To expand factories and buy machines, capital must be saved and invested. Frugality and saving become moral virtues, replacing the agricultural view of wealth as zero-sum (land).
Law, Order, and Civic Duty: Dense urban living throws strangers together. You can no longer rely on family reputation or village gossip to enforce norms. Impersonal laws, police forces, and civic institutions become the moral anchors.
Information Society (Post-Computer Revolution)
Economic Structure: Based on the creation, distribution, and monetization of knowledge and data. The economy is global, highly networked, automated, and service-oriented. Physical location matters less; digital connectivity matters most.
Tolerance, Inclusivity, and Pluralism: Globalized digital networks force daily interaction with diverse cultures, beliefs, and identities. Intolerance disrupts the free flow of information and commerce in a global market; inclusivity is both a moral and economic imperative.
Authenticity and Transparency: In a landscape flooded with AI, deepfakes, and corporate PR, discovering what is “real” is a primary anxiety. Being genuine, vulnerable, and transparent becomes a supreme moral virtue.
Autonomy and Flexibility: The rigid 9-to-5 and lifetime corporate loyalty are dead. The gig economy and remote work prize adaptability. Morally, restricting someone’s personal freedom or bodily autonomy is viewed as deeply wrong; self-actualization is the ultimate good.
Openness and Collaboration: The digital economy runs on open-source software, shared data, and crowdsourcing. Hoarding information is viewed as morally suspect (e.g., paywalls, proprietary gatekeeping), while sharing and collaborating are celebrated.
Privacy and Data Ethics: As personal data becomes the new oil, the moral battle shifts to ownership of the self. Violating someone’s digital privacy or exploiting their data without consent is the modern equivalent of theft.
Empathy and Emotional Intelligence: As algorithms and machines take over physical and repetitive cognitive labor, distinctly human traits—empathy, care, and emotional labor—become the primary sources of economic and moral value.
The Meta-Trend: How the Moral Center Shifts
If you look at the trajectory across the three lists, you can see a profound shift in the moral center of gravity:
Agricultural: Morality is externally imposed (by God, the King, the Elders, the Seasons). The highest good is Stability.
Industrial: Morality is institutionally enforced (by the Clock, the Factory, the Law). The highest good is Productivity.
Information: Morality is internally derived (Authenticity, Autonomy, Empathy). The highest good is Connectivity/Expression.
Thank you for those excellent lists. Now I have a greater challenge for you. It involves speculating about the future. We’ve looked at a typical agricultural society -- after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution, industrial society -- industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc, and information society -- computer revolution has happened and the society has computers and the internet, but we haven’t looked at the next revolution -- AI. Let’s speculate that a future society exists where AI has developed to the point where the intelligence of AI exceeds the intelligence of humans, and as a consequence, the labor market for humans has gone away -- automated by AI. From here, I’d like you to describe the moral codes for 2 distinct scenarios -- let’s call them Scenario A and Scenario B. In Scenario A, there is Universal Basic Income (UBI), and in Scenario B, there isn’t. Let’s use 15% as the approximate cutoff point where people can survive from other means of income -- from investments like stock dividends, intellectual property royalties, or whatever. So 15% of the population have income. In Scenario A, the lower 85% have Universal Basic Income. In Scenario B, there is no Universal Basic Income, so the bottom 85% are left to fend for themselves. My question for you is: What do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario A will be, and what do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario B will be?
This is a profound thought experiment. The complete decoupling of human labor from economic survival represents a rupture in human history far greater than the agricultural or industrial revolutions. For all of prior history, a human’s moral worth has been entangled with their economic utility.
When AI renders human labor economically obsolete, the material conditions of society will radically alter, and morality—which is fundamentally a system for managing how people survive together—will shatter and reform in completely different directions based on whether a safety net exists.
Here are the speculative moral codes for Scenarios A and B.
The Economic Reality: Survival is guaranteed, but luxury and systemic power belong to the 15% who own the AI infrastructure. The 85% are freed from wage slavery but lack ultimate agency in how the world is run. The primary human crisis is no longer scarcity, but meaning and existential nihilism.
Commonly Accepted Moral Values:
Eudaimonia (Flourishing) over Productivity: The Industrial and Information age moral imperative to “be productive” collapses. Working for money is viewed as a quaint historical oddity. The new moral good is *flourishing*—pursuing philosophy, art, deep relationships, and athletic mastery. Doing a job an AI could do better is viewed as a neurotic waste of one’s short, guaranteed life, not a virtue.
Radical Authenticity: In a world where AI can instantly generate perfect art, persuasive arguments, and flawless digital personas, human flawlessness is meaningless. Moral value shifts entirely to the process of creation and the authenticity of the human experience. A badly painted canvas that took a human months of emotional struggle is morally superior to a mathematically perfect AI masterpiece. “Bot-assisted” living is tolerated, but “unassisted” human effort is deeply revered.
Civic Stewardship and Cohesion: Because the UBI relies on the continuous consent and functioning of the 15%’s AI systems, maintaining social harmony becomes a supreme moral duty. Antagonizing the system or the capital-owning class is viewed not just as risky, but as morally irresponsible—akin to a passenger trying to crash a lifeboat. Politeness, community mediation, and preserving the peace become sacred virtues.
Sanctity of Mental Sovereignty: With infinite digital distractions and AI companions optimized for engagement, the greatest moral failing is “drowning in the simulation.” Retaining independent thought, reading banned texts, and maintaining the capacity for boredom and deep focus are seen as the highest moral defenses of the human soul.
The Rejection of Material Envy: Since the 15% live in a state of absurd, automated luxury, the 85% must culturally neutralize jealousy to maintain their sanity. Asceticism, minimalism, and a dismissal of material wealth as “cheap AI garbage” become dominant moral stances. Value is found in the scarce: human time, hand-crafted physical objects, and organic experiences.
The Economic Reality: The 15% own the AI and live in fully automated, post-scarcity luxury enclaves. The 85% are completely economically obsolete and left to fend for themselves in a world where all jobs are done by machines. Money only flows between the 15%; the 85% exist in a state of extreme, permanent scarcity.
Because the society is so radically split, there is no longer a single, unified moral code. Instead, society operates on Bifurcated Morality—two diametrically opposed sets of values enforced by the elite and adopted by the underclass.
The Elite 15% Moral Code (Dominant/Enforced):
The Destitute 85% Moral Code (Subaltern/Survival):
The most striking thing about the AI revolution is how it un-invents the moral progress of the Industrial and Information ages.
For 300 years, the Industrial and Information revolutions demanded mass human labor. This created the moral imperatives of egalitarianism, human rights, and democracy, because the elite needed the workers.
When AI removes that need, the economic justification for egalitarianism vanishes.
Hi. I am interesting in exploring the relationship between a society’s economic structure (agricultural, industrial, or information society) and its commonly accepted moral values. What I’d like are 3 lists: 1. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical agricultural society (after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution), 2. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical industrial society (industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc), and 3. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical information society (computer revolution has happened -- the society has computers and the internet).
Here are three lists grounded in sociological theory—particularly the work of Ferdinand Tönnies, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Daniel Bell—on how a society’s economic base tends to shape its moral superstructure.
Economic base: Land cultivation, subsistence farming, low mobility, local trade.
Economic base: Mechanized production, wage labor, urbanization, national markets.
Economic base: Knowledge work, digital networks, globalized services, rapid innovation.
These are *ideal types*—pure models that help us see patterns. Real societies are always messy hybrids. For example, an industrial society retains agricultural moral residues (religious communities, family loyalty), and an information society often still prizes industrial virtues (discipline, productivity). The lists describe dominant emphases, not absolute replacements.
Thank you for those excellent lists. Now I have a greater challenge for you. It involves speculating about the future. We’ve looked at a typical agricultural society -- after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution, industrial society -- industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc, and information society -- computer revolution has happened and the society has computers and the internet, but we haven’t looked at the next revolution -- AI. Let’s speculate that a future society exists where AI has developed to the point where the intelligence of AI exceeds the intelligence of humans, and as a consequence, the labor market for humans has gone away -- automated by AI. From here, I’d like you to describe the moral codes for 2 distinct scenarios -- let’s call them Scenario A and Scenario B. In Scenario A, there is Universal Basic Income (UBI), and in Scenario B, there isn’t. Let’s use 15% as the approximate cutoff point where people can survive from other means of income -- from investments like stock dividends, intellectual property royalties, or whatever. So 15% of the population have income. In Scenario A, the lower 85% have Universal Basic Income. In Scenario B, there is no Universal Basic Income, so the bottom 85% are left to fend for themselves. My question for you is: What do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario A will be, and what do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario B will be?
Here are two speculative moral profiles, treating each scenario as a sociological ideal type. The premise—that human labor becomes economically worthless while AI superintelligence manages production—represents a more radical break than the previous three transitions, because it dissolves the “work ethic” that has organized human moral life since the Neolithic.
Economic base: AI owns the means of production. The 15% control the surplus. The 85% receive guaranteed subsistence from the state or the owning class. Human wage labor is extinct.
Because starvation and homelessness are off the table, the moral crisis shifts from scarcity to significance. The society must answer the question: If I do not need to work to exist, why do I matter?
Commonly Accepted Moral Values:
Underlying tension: A quiet moral split persists between the 15% (who still inhabit a world of ownership, strategy, and legacy-building) and the 85% (who inhabit a world of leisure and self-actualization). The shared moral language is one of gratitude, but the power asymmetry means the 85% are always one policy change away from precarity.
Economic base: AI produces everything. The 15% control all surplus. The 85% receive nothing. They must survive outside the formal economy.
Without a survival floor, the moral order fractures into two hostile hemispheres. There is no longer a single “commonly accepted” code; instead, two dominant moral universes emerge, each shaped by the same structural fact: human beings are economically useless but physically present.
Moral Values of the 85% (The Obsolete Majority):
Moral Values of the 15% (The AI-Protected Elite):
Underlying tension: Scenario B is structurally unstable. The two moral hemispheres cannot coexist indefinitely; either the 85% organize a redistributive revolution, the 15% exterminate or enclose the 85%, or the 15% are eventually forced to create something like Scenario A. The moral values listed above are therefore *transitional*—they describe the ethics of a society living in the brief, violent interval before one side prevails.
The most striking difference between the two scenarios is not the presence or absence of money, but the presence or absence of dignified idleness. In Scenario A, the 85% are allowed to be useless without being punished for it; the moral system invents new reasons for humans to matter. In Scenario B, uselessness is punished by starvation, and the moral system responds by either sanctifying suffering (among the poor) or sanctifying control (among the rich). The AI revolution does not just change what people do; it forces a civilization to decide whether a human being has intrinsic worth when they have no economic function.
Hi. I am interesting in exploring the relationship between a society’s economic structure (agricultural, industrial, or information society) and its commonly accepted moral values. What I’d like are 3 lists: 1. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical agricultural society (after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution), 2. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical industrial society (industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc), and 3. List of commonly accepted moral values of a typical information society (computer revolution has happened -- the society has computers and the internet).
Here’s a concise, research-based breakdown of commonly accepted moral values in each type of society, based on historical and sociological studies of economic structures and cultural evolution.
(Post-Neolithic Revolution, pre-Industrial Revolution)
Key Characteristics:
Commonly Accepted Moral Values:
(Industrial Revolution, pre-Computer/Internet Revolution)
Key Characteristics:
Commonly Accepted Moral Values:
(Computer/Internet Revolution)
Key Characteristics:
Commonly Accepted Moral Values:
Question for you: Would you like me to refine any of these lists further, or explore how these values might conflict or overlap in modern hybrid societies?
Thank you for those excellent lists. Now I have a greater challenge for you. It involves speculating about the future. We’ve looked at a typical agricultural society -- after agricultural revolution but before industrial revolution, industrial society -- industrial revolution has happened, but no computers/internet/etc, and information society -- computer revolution has happened and the society has computers and the internet, but we haven’t looked at the next revolution -- AI. Let’s speculate that a future society exists where AI has developed to the point where the intelligence of AI exceeds the intelligence of humans, and as a consequence, the labor market for humans has gone away -- automated by AI. From here, I’d like you to describe the moral codes for 2 distinct scenarios -- let’s call them Scenario A and Scenario B. In Scenario A, there is Universal Basic Income (UBI), and in Scenario B, there isn’t. Let’s use 15% as the approximate cutoff point where people can survive from other means of income -- from investments like stock dividends, intellectual property royalties, or whatever. So 15% of the population have income. In Scenario A, the lower 85% have Universal Basic Income. In Scenario B, there is no Universal Basic Income, so the bottom 85% are left to fend for themselves. My question for you is: What do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario A will be, and what do you think the commonly accepted moral values of a typical society in Scenario B will be?
Here’s a speculative but logically grounded exploration of the moral codes that might emerge in each scenario, based on economic incentives, social structures, and human psychological responses to scarcity or abundance.
(85% receive UBI; 15% have independent income; AI handles all labor)
Key Characteristics:
Commonly Accepted Moral Values:
(85% have no income; 15% control resources; AI handles all labor)
Key Characteristics:
Commonly Accepted Moral Values:
Key Differences Between Scenarios A and B:
| Theme | Scenario A (UBI) | Scenario B (No UBI) |
|---|---|---|
| Human Value | Intrinsic (creativity, growth) | Instrumental (utility to the elite) |
| Social Cohesion | High (shared abundance) | Low (scarcity-driven conflict) |
| Innovation | Open, collaborative | Underground, subversive |
| Power Dynamics | Decentralized, democratic | Centralized, authoritarian |
| View of AI | Partner, servant, or steward | Tool of control or oppressor |
| Moral Flexibility | High (exploration of ethics) | Low (survival justifies extreme actions) |
Question for Reflection:
In Scenario B, do you think the 85% would eventually organize to demand UBI or other systemic changes, or would the 15% find ways to suppress such movements indefinitely? How might AI itself influence the moral evolution of either scenario?