The future of work was the most discussed topic in Anglo-Saxon media in 2017. Rightly so, because that year people had become increasingly aware of the consequences of artificial intelligence on human work, and not only thought leaders began to ask questions whose answers are not yet, or not easily, forthcoming. What is the future of work? When will it occur? How do you prepare your children for it? What education does the future of work require? This article attempts to summarize observations of the last decade and provides answers.
 
“The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” [Winston Churchill]
 
If we want to approach the topic of the future of work, it is necessary to take the so-called longitudinal perspective, because it is common to look only at the present and the recent history. In the longitudinal perspective, we look at a specific topic from its beginning to its imaginable end and thereby gain - loosely based on Winston Churchill - a better understanding of a possible future.
 
Work is, among other things, a subject of anthropology, which can be roughly divided into four major phases: that of hunting and gathering, that of agriculture triggered by the Neolithic Revolution, and that of mechanical production and electronic information processing, each triggered by the Industrial Revolution. Anthropology gives us an important first insight: homo sapiens has spent by far the largest part of his history as a hunter or gatherer, namely, depending on when one puts the Neolithic Revolution, until about 10,000 years ago. In particular, the changes of the past 250 years are an anomaly that may again be followed by a long period of continuity.
 

Work saves a man from three great evils: boredom, vice and need. [Voltaire]
 
Economists, on the other hand, have given us the commonly known image of the three-sector-hypothesis, which is limited to the last 250 years or so and divides labor into a primary sector of agriculture, a secondary sector of industry, and a tertiary sector of services. The three-sector-hypothesis is a now repeatedly falsified but extremely useful theory from the 1930s that differentiates the national economy into resource extraction, resource processing, and services.
 
The three-sector-hypothesis has helped to describe a transformation of the labor market caused by technological progress as such: The industrial revolution has increasingly eliminated the need for human labor in agriculture and absorbed this increasingly specialized labor in manufacturing industries. Progressive automation in turn led to the release of labor in industry, which was absorbed predominantly in the service sector. Germany, an economy with an exceptionally strong industrial base, reported the following shares in 2014: primary sector 1.5%, secondary sector 24.6% and tertiary sector 73.9%.
 
In summary, with regard to the three-sector hypothesis, economists, unlike anthropologists, describe a changing market rather than a human activity. Traditional economists are mainly interested in productivity gains and map them in the context of nation-states. Labor markets are therefore, on the one hand, much larger than the work environments observed by anthropologists, and on the other hand, they are limited to national territories and therefore contradict the globalization of the labor market, which has been significant since the 1990s at the latest.

With paid employment, economists also give us a concept that is very different from the definition of work before the industrial revolution. People participate in an anonymous labor market in order to make a living. Thus, economics bridges to sociology, which gives us a third perspective: that of interpersonal organization. The German sociologist Friedrich Tönnies introduced the differentiation between community and society, and thus demonstrated a central transformation for work as well. 
 
It is commonly assumed that human organizations were small communities until the Neolithic Revolution, and that only agriculture enabled the emergence of societies in the form of principalities, empires, and religions. Societies differ from communities in that they can bind a larger number of people and the larger these groups, the more anonymous they are. In particular, the increase in productivity due to agriculture freed up labor to be devoted to other activities such as specialized crafts (the precursor of today's industry, science and research), art and culture.
 
Through this ongoing enlargement of the organizational form, however, one thing above all has occurred: The work concentrated around a community has been alienated from the community and communities increasingly collapsed. If it was unthinkable for man for eternities not to contribute with his work to the survival of a community, with the emergence of society this contribution has significantly moved into the background – and again on a longitudinal perspective: almost abruptly. Covid-19 has revived something of this archaic idea of contribution with the concept of system-relevant occupations, even if it is still related to anonymous societies and thus not easy to understand psychologically.

By looking at the contribution made to the survival of a community, a fourth central perspective on the nature of work emerges, which is still not sufficiently emphasized: that of ecology. Work must make sense for oneself, for the community at large, and for the ecosystem as a whole. A look at the professions that are not relevant to the system shows how much work our meaningless societies generate and thus waste not only raw materials but also human resources unnecessarily.
 
The fact that it is possible in modern societies to have a large number of people engaged in gainful employment that offers no added value for society can be explained by the detachment of the economy from ecology. Whereas in hunter-gatherer communities it was necessary to operate within a limited ecosystem, it is only now, as a result of the climate crisis, that we are slowly becoming aware that a global labor market alienated from the carrying capacity of the earth is just as unsustainable as an economy that does not subordinate itself to ecological framework conditions.

Human employment is in direct competition with automation. [Peter Joseph]
 
The world long thought that politics produces progress, but it is increasingly apparent that technology is the driving force of change in human labor, and that politics only follows technologically induced changes. Technology helps us to a fifth key insight: that the sectors of the labor market described earlier are each transformed and nearly eliminated by different technologies.
 
In the primary sector, the early industrial revolution through steam power, electricity, and mechanization replaced animal and human labor, so that in a modern economy only 2 percent of the labor force is employed in agriculture. Industry reached its climax in the West during WWII, when it employed as much as 50 percent of the labor force in some economies. Since then, it has been gripped by a mechatronic transformation that has replaced human labor with robots and, most recently, in "smart factories" with the Internet of Things.
 
The service sector, which was always seen as the salvation from mass unemployment caused by technological progress, has been experiencing miraculous growth since the invention of the computer, silencing all critics who did not persistently look into the technological future. Since the early 2010s, however, there it can’t be denied that the fifth wave of the industrial revolution will destroy the service sector to the same extent that agriculture and industry were previously destroyed.

While the imagination of screenwriters knows no bounds, the carrying capacity of the earth as an ecosystem shows us clear limitations and thus provides us with a framework within which we must design a future of work. The designer Friedrich Börries distinguishes between survival, security, social and self-design and declares design to be a political instrument. He believes that each of us has to take responsibility and pursue change by design instead of by disaster. In other words, in the face of the climate crisis, career choice and thus self-design becomes survival design.
 
Philosopher Thomas Vasek takes a more relaxed view of the question of the right job and assumes, with the spoiled perspective of a Central European, that one may wish for the ideal job. For Vasek, in comparison to Börries, it is less about fulfilling a duty through one's own work by contributing to the survival of the species and therefore taking up a system-relevant profession, but rather he sees a right to "good work", which in his opinion should fulfill the following parameters:

• It is in harmony with our values and feelings, so it enables us to live authentically.
• It enables us to have experiences that enrich us.
• It gives us recognition, not just financial recognition.
• It creates reasons for cooperation with other people, i.e. it promotes social bonds.
• It does not permanently overburden us, but it also does not permanently underburden us. It challenges us, so that from time to time we experience a flow, i.e. we become completely absorbed in our activity.
• It also contains freely available time, rest phases, elements of leisure. So it does not consist of just being active all the time.
• It creates habits, giving our lives a reliable framework.

 
Vasek's analysis should be enshrined in every constitution, but he overlooks a small detail: life is not about choice for the vast majority of humanity, which, for example, manufactures fast fashion in Bangladesh or Pakistan and thus participates in a global labor market that exploits people and planet. Thomas Vasek focus is the right to good work from a rather European world view, while Friedrich Börries emphasizes the duty to contribute to survival – a perspective which requires the understanding of the planet as a single and fragile ecosystem. 

The future of work, if it can and must be designed as Boerries thinks, thus is in a field of tension between ecological and social conditions, which a labor market that assumes paid employment and regards both the planet and humans as a resource to be exploited aggravates even further. The concept of the labor market is a product of capitalism, which needs a fundamental transformation in order to be able to design the future of labor in a meaningful way.

Visionary author Martin Ford has described this tension as a perfect storm, meaning that technological unemployment and environmental impacts develop roughly in parallel, reinforcing and perhaps even exacerbating each other. He sees the greatest challenge of our time in shaping a future that provides broad-based security and prosperity, and believes that understanding education as a public good that must not be influenced by competitive profit or power maximization is the key to finding that path.
 
In this context, it is worth mentioning the French economist Thomas Piketty, who showed, based on historical data, that the current concentration of wealth is back to where it was before the WWI. He explains that there is only one cause for this, namely that the return on capital is greater than economic growth and therefore, in simplified terms, leads to an increasing inequality of wealth distribution. Thus, Western capitalism, with its immanent rules, steadily extracts wealth from those individuals who can only contribute their labor. It sooner or later must lead to inequalities, which are enlarged by new technologies.

Both may have arisen simultaneously in Japan as a result of the affinity for nature that persists in Shintoism as well as one of the world's highest rates of urbanization, and have found an inspiring expression in the half farmer / half x movement. Originally proposed by Naoki Shiomi in the mid-1990s, the concept is based on the premise that by determining their "X factor," people can leave behind the 20th century style of mass production, mass consumption, mass transportation, and mass waste disposal while striving for a happier life and a sustainable planet. Not only do rural dwellers embrace this lifestyle, but so do many people who grow food on balconies, rooftops, weekend plots, and in community gardens.
 
Shiomi recommends setting the bar as low as possible for people to start farming: People should do what they can, whether it's balcony gardening or rooftop gardening, in places they love. If you set loose rules, like 30 or 40 minutes a day to work with the soil and plants, it becomes easier for more people to start farming. I think a lot of people feel that getting into farming is too much of a challenge.
 
The half farmer / half x concept also helps us to take the thoughts of Friedrich Börries and Thomas Vasek to the next level, because there is no doubt that food or the contribution to food production is a contribution to survival and thus meaningful fulfillment of duty, which has the pleasant side effect in times of climate change that unnecessary greenhouse gases are avoided by the transport of food. The half x component reflects the right to occupy oneself with those things that perhaps serve self-fulfillment rather than fulfill a contribution to the community. In as such, Börries’ and Vasek’s ideas are aligned and define a future of work which has different dimensions and is most likely different from a 8-5 job.

Applied to the three-sector hypothesis, the half farmer/half x concept means that more people are again participating in the primary sector and thus in the extraction of raw materials. They no longer do this in paid employment, but rather in the form of a leisure activity and similar to flexitarians in freely chosen intensity, but through this time they not only receive food and an added health value, but also a direct confrontation with the ecological situation of our planet and thereby consciously or unconsciously increase their understanding of systemic changes such as climate change.
 
If half farmer / half x represents a future of work that is viable for many and in harmony with the carrying capacity of our planet, then the only question that remains to be answered is how the basic income required for this must be structured. Because one thing is certain, at least in an agriculture flooded by EU subsidies: the average citizen will not be able to earn his living with balcony gardeners, which gives him the opportunity to dedicate part of his time to x.

Martin Ford argues that a basic income should not be unconditional, but should imply certain obligations, especially those related to education. He shows that an unconditional basic income is a perverse incentive that leads to dropping out of education and thus deprives young people in particular of the motivation to strive for constant self-improvement. Basic income is thus not only the fulfillment of the social contract dreamed of by Rousseau, but also potentially a danger of turning well-fed but meaningless individuals into the emblem of postmodernism.
 
Learning therefore has an enormously important place in the discussion of the future of work, one that has received little interest to date. Indeed, learning will take up a large part of the duty that every citizen has to fulfill as a contribution to community and society. This leads however to a paradigm shift of a dimension not to be underestimated, which Martin Ford has already indicated: Education must not only be seen as a public good, but system-relevant education is - probably never ending - work of the individual for which he has to be paid.

We repeat the assumption that in a few years 70% or more of the jobs known today will be done better by machines or algorithms than humans can do and that only a few areas of today's labor market such as education and health will be spared from automation because machines cannot replace interpersonal contacts. We repeat the assumption that it is nevertheless more productive to replace humans with machines and that only a few workers will be paid because they still contribute to the productivity of an economy in a measurable way. What is to be learned under these changed conditions?
 
Philosopher Konrad Paul Liessmann discusses how the classical educational canon of the 19th century, i.e. the study of Greek, Latin, Schiller and Goethe, could be replaced by a normative European educational canon of the 21st century. His thoughts are extremely worthwhile reading - because educated - but they perpetuate the division of society into educated and uneducated and completely omit an economic and thus social, as well as ecological and thus sustainable dimension. Furthermore, the memory of a European educational canon is not sufficient in a global world. It is time to discuss a global educational canon.

Education must be a public good that minimizes social differences or at least creates a starting point for eight billion people, regardless of their social or ethnic background, to make a living without conflict with the limited resources of a finite world. The future of work is therefore a learning that can be well described with the Triple Focus: the focus on and understanding of one's own emotional inner life, the focus on and understanding of interpersonal relationships and the focus on and understanding of ecological relationships.
 
The ecological and social framework of the Anthropocene therefore dictates that we no longer speak of a labor market, but rather of a world of work in which we have recognized that the compulsory learning content of the industrial age is obsolete and what was once considered complementary has become compulsory: empathy for oneself, others, and the planet constitute a new global educational canon, while the STEM-heavy content of our current curricula are complementary subjects - for which no basic income should be paid. 
 
By making education about emotional resilience, empathy, and neighborhood responsibility compulsory, we are not only preparing children and youth for the challenges of climate change, but also initiating a paradigm shift that is once again changing the nature of work. Management philosopher Peter Drucker has described just such a change in work as an event that may transform civilization like no other, which is undoubtedly exactly what we need right now.

Very few events have as much impact on civilization as a change in the basic principles of organizing work. [Peter F. Drucker]
 
A renewed and final look at the longitudinal perspective shows us a non-obvious connection between demographic development and the principles around which mankind has organized work. A highly simplified attempt to classify the changes shows that since the Neolithic Revolution, work has become increasingly organized by an orientation towards power and profit, and as a result, more and more people have lost the joy in their work.
 
The ecological turning point that we have undoubtedly reached could herald a post-industrial understanding of work, which on the one hand is again more self-organized, but on the other hand takes the worker into responsibility and asks him to organize his work according to social and ecological impact. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, our planet offers enough to satisfy the needs of every human being, but not their greed.
 
The change from hunter-gatherer, to farmer, to worker, to information worker, could therefore really result in a "half famer / half x impact worker": a person who, within a healthy economic framework, must ask himself where he can meaningfully contribute to strengthen the local community and the global ecosystem. This change will be a long-term one, as indicated at the beginning, marking a new stage of cultural evolution in which work may once again be understood as a playful vocation - not only by a happy few but by the majority of mankind.

Further reading:

• Andrew McAfee, What will future jobs look like?
• David Richard Precht - Jäger, Hirten, Kritiker: Eine Utopie für eine digitale Gesellschaft
• Friedrich Börries, Weltentwerfen – Eine politische Designtheorie
• Thomas Vasek, Work-Life-Balance Bullshit: Warum die Trennung von Arbeit und Leben in die Irre führt
• Martin Ford, Rise of Robots – Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future
• Thomas Piketty, Capital in the 21st Century
• Japan’s Growing Trend: Part Time Farmers
• Interview with half farmer / half x founder Naoki Shiomi on Insitute of Studies in Happiness, Economics and Society website
• A New Key Phrase for a New Age: half farmer / half x.
• Andy Couturier, The Abundance of Less
• Konrad Paul Liessmann, Bildung als Provokation
• Daniel Goleman, Peter Senge, The Triple Focus – A New Approach to Education
• Peter F. Drucker, The Essential Drucker
  

there is too much negativity in our world. although i have stopped reading daily newspapers many years ago. it is difficult to seal oneself off. climate change and social disruption are problems which permeate all levels of society and one needs to be blind to not see their effects without following news outlets.

we are in a deep consciousness crisis. there is no doubt about this. but we need to find a positive narrative to get out of this dead end. it has to be a personal narrative which connects to a larger collective narrative, in which nationality, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. don't matter anymore; one in which we simply are children of one large family which lives in a single home. this is a narrative in which the original meaning of economy and ecology make again sense: the law of the house and the teachings of how to organize that house.

i have started yesterday a new 21 day experiment on changing (mental) habits and call it the rainbow board. Every evening i reflect on the past day and write down 3 good moments. As a proficient trello user who puts down & executes every day 3 MIT (most important tasks), i use trello also for this exercise. the inspiriation came from from a review of two books on positive thinking (see references).

I am usually not much in favor of life coaching because it tends to overlook the systemic realities which are the root cause for the maladies which we experience in our world. About 5 years ago I embarked a third time on a PhD project looking into the causes for growing mental illness around the globe. One of the sources I looked into was Learned Optimism by the father of positive psychology, Martin Seligman. He promotes cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to pessimistic and depressed people.

I already then came to the conclusion that Seligman has certainly a point in shifting one’s mind towards a positive outlook on life; but its essentially a perspective and therapy which only works for members of the affluent West. An Indian farmer who is part of a nationally and globally oppressive agricultural system cannot make use of CBT. He needs a miracle or commits, like it is the sad reality in far too many cases, suicide.

However, being an individual part of the system at large, I need to start with myself and concentrate good vibes in my hands. There is only this much I can do; and I need to start in my immediate environment. Our social reality tends to direct our focus in regard to both problems and solutions to the far away corners of the world. Everything is better in New Zealand than back home and war in Ukraine turns into a tragedy which happens right before our own house. The truth is though that our media supported focus on these far away conditions undermines our mindful awareness of what we could improve in the here and now – and what we ought to be grateful for.

the rainbow board is my new magic wand to initiate a shift in perception.

Further reading/watching:

• On Procratination and the Enlightened Playground
• Wie wir die Welt sehen
  
• Lo and Behold
  

Much has been written about Covid-19 and little I read was of value. The nearsightedness of politicians and the tunnel vision of scientists is deprived of interdisciplinary systems awareness and what Buddhists call the connection between phenomena and noumena: the reflection of moral problems in the material world.

There is however one outstanding quote by Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, which hits the bull's eye: "Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew." The 2nd bubonic plague triggered the end of the dark ages and the emergence of Renaissance. Recurrences of the 2nd bubonic plague gave way to the enlightenment movement and the 3rd bubonic plague to the 19th century revolutions which led to the decline of Empires and Aristocracy.

Some day soon a book will be written like the one above right which will not be titled "The Black Death and the End of the Dark Ages" but "Covid-19 and the End of Modernity". Humanity is at the brink of another major transformation which might rejuvenate a decaying democracy through technological decision making and extend spheres of justice from a few wealthy nations to a united mankind. It might also produce an enlightened absolutism in which Xi Jinping continues the tradition of enlightenment kings like the Prussian Frederick the Great (1740-1772). Who can say for sure? The only thing that is certain about the future is that it will be different.

The wide spread admiration for authoritarian and thus industrial solutions to Covid-19 in the outbreak country China reflects however that large parts of the population support an industrial solution to a multi-layered problem which connects nature with culture. The crisis we experience is at the root one in consciousness of everything being interconnected, one which shows us that the exploitation of people and planet is not any longer sustainable.

Regulations on compulsory vaccinations like the one introduced in Austria on Feb 1 are the product of societies which are not ready to embrace diversity and tolerance. They are fascist in nature and repeat a cultural phenomenon which has materialized in our cultures over the course of history in various forms: the inquisition of the catholic church, the final solution in regard to European Jews, the genocides committed by Tutsis and Hutus, the recurring wars between Israelis and Lebanese, etc.

Courageous Chinese netizens shared at the beginning of the Covid-19 outbreak a clip from Victor Hugo's Les Miserables on wechat and pointed at the  nontransparent top-down approach of the government. Courageous Austrian citizens demonstrate these days in many cities against a regulation which ignores human integrity for the sake of keeping industrial working and schooling conditions in place.

Covid-19 has laid bare an essential characteristic of our contemporary societies and has shown that democratic nations converge under the pressure of systemic challenges like this pandemic episode with authoritarian regimes which have not yet gone through enlightenment movements and bourgeois revolutions. They reveal power structures and power interests which are in contraction with what Fritz Schumacher postulated in Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered.

The future might not be known, but in the words of Peter F. Drucker, the only thing that we know about the future is that it will be different. The best way to predict the future is however to create it.

Occasionally I would just wish I could forget the frame conditions under which we live, engross myself in Chinese New Year celebrations or be amused by US blockbuster movies. But we can’t truly change how our minds operate. It is as if they have been built as special purpose machines with a mission to accomplish. Darwin wrote about himself in a similar manner in his autobiography. Like him I would love to be able to enjoy music, but my mind is on a mission to unravel a problem which we sooner or later all need to face.
 
Saturday night, I finish in a second attempt director Adam McKay’s film Don’t Look up. I felt compelled to turn off in a first attempt after only 30 minutes. Don’t Look up is Netflix’ second highest grossing production. It’s a cash cow. One which is described as dark comedy, a satire of government, political, and media indifference to the climate crisis. I couldn’t find the comedy aspects in it. The way it has been made reflects how sick our hedonistic societies are. And it made me literally sick.

The day after we consume this piece of cinematic art, the sun shines and I decide to take the family on a little trip into the outskirts of town. Temperatures are up 8˚C from -1 a day earlier to +7. A storm brushes the landscape and makes driving our van challenging to my wife. Our first stop is an approximately 200 year old tilia cordata, the only nature monument of this species in town. I exchange a few words with the owner,  and we measure the tree’s grith at an impressive 450 cm.
 
Our next stop is a same size tilia platyphyllus a few kilometers south from where we start a three hour hike. The wind makes it occasionally difficult to walk. The kids think its fun, I think it’s a manifestation of climate change since I can’t remember such frequent storms from my childhood. How the trees must suffer under such a storm. We cross under the A1, the country’s main highway, in a tunnel and encounter loads of trash on both sides. The signs of a closeby service area with restaurant and gas station where drivers discharge their waste on the parking lot.
 
A rolling landscape opens the view to the snow-covered northern Alps and after another half an hour we enter a forest which I identified on the satellite map as the main attraction on this route. I am however first disappointed then even horrified as we get deeper into the forest. The storm is ear deafening, making it hardly possible to talk to each other and the spruce monoculture has created an acidic soil which is poison to most understory plants.
 
Austria is considered to be a green country, one in which nature protection is a priority, but where once mixed broad leaf forests covered the surface, capitalist forestry has supplanted oaks, wild cherries and limes, with this ugly spruce monoculture with no tree older than thirty years. We follow a little creek and after another half an hour I notice a hidden fault line in the forest landscape which turns away from the forest trail which has been recently used by heavy machinery.
 
We walk north and discover a probably 150-year-old beech which nestles in a line with an approximately 200-year-old oak along this old path. East and west the spruce monoculture extends as far as the eye can see and looks not much different from the Malaysian palm oil plantations which I still have in my long time Asian memory. Why did film maker Werner Boote back in 2017 shoot The Green Lie in Malaysia, if there is so much more to discover back home?
 
Not far from the beech the forest has been partially cleared and about two dozen twenty-meter-high spruces have given way to the force of the storm. Like a game of Mikado they are scattered on the ground and lean against adjacent trees. A picture of disaster which reminds me of our 2020 visit to Japan were we saw a three dozen century old trees having been destroyed by a storm only a few days earlier. Can there be something like a graveyard for trees? Did the ditches in Srebrenica look any different?

Don't look up.

Isaac Asimov's bathroom metaphor is famous and as Aldous Huxley once said: A fact doesn't disappear by ignoring it. Western nation states however pretend that population growth does not impact the democratic model while it slowly declines right before our eyes.

Donald Trump's presidency and the attack on democratic institutions like the one on the US Capitol last year, a dictator-like regime in Austria from 2017-2021 under the youngest ever chancellor Sebastian Kurz and two successors since then seem like manifestations of what Ken Wilber once called aperspectival madness. In fact these events follow the laws of nature and show that we need a new form of governance.

The grand master of the exponential function, Al Bartlett, wrote a short and readable article about the connection between the democratic decline, techological advancement and population growth which quotes Asimov in lucid manner.

Bill Moyers: "What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species
if this population growth continues at its present rate?"

Isaac Asimov: "It will be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor: If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, Then both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want, Stay as long as you want, for whatever you need. And everyone believes in Freedom of the Bathroom; It should be right there in the Constitution.

But if you have twenty people in the apartment and two bathrooms, Then no matter how much every person Believes in Freedom of the Bathroom, there's no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, You have to bang on the door, 'Aren't you through yet?' And so on."

Asimov continues with what could be one of the most profound observations of the 20th Century: "In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation; Human dignity cannot survive [overpopulation]; Convenience and decency cannot survive [overpopulation]; As you put more and more people into the world, The value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies,
The more people there are, the less one individual matters."

Read this and you will understand why the threat to democracy does not originate in authoritarian China, but in our elites' unwillingness to reform democratic decision making. China's own overpopulation problem can teach the democratic West that another form of governance - if not a totalitarian - is inevitable - no matter whether we praise China's absolutism or work on more humane alternatives.

Writing a blog on the future of work on education, I should mention that this condition extends to labor markets and education systems: the more people there are the more unequal and unfair the frame conditions will be.

We have two routes which we can take from here:

One leads to the decimation of population through war and disease and is in the interest of the small number of people who own the majority of wealth and assets on this planet.

The second route leads to a new form of sharing and education in which finite resources and the need to allocate them fairly are precondition for genuine growth and the true unfolding of human potential.

Peter Drucker forsaw already many years ago that "if the 21st century will show one thing, then it is the futility of politics." We have chosen route one already a few times. How about taking a different turn this time?