The Automation Paradox: Rethinking Work, Dignity, and AI’s Role in Society
Artificial Intelligence is often regarded as a force of disruption and a technological revolution. However, its real ability lies in exposing deep-seated flaws in our societies. It carries a paradox—one that simultaneously threatens employment while offering an opportunity to redefine human work. The tension between automation and employment is not merely a matter of job displacement but of a larger philosophical inquiry: What is work for? What does a dignified life entail?
The Inevitable Displacement: Are All Jobs Worth Saving?
It is an uncontested reality that AI will take away jobs. World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report indicates that it will displace 9 million jobs over the next five years. In fact, figures such as Elon Musk have remarked that AI will, at some point, perform all jobs. This often stokes fears of widespread unemployment and societal instability. However, the central question is not whether AI will replace human labour—it is which jobs it will replace and whether those jobs were ever meant for human dignity in the first place.
Most of the jobs that AI is set to eliminate – routine data entry, repetitive spreadsheet management, and mechanical labour such as cleaning, housekeeping, assembly line work are designed solely to secure a livelihood. They fail to inspire the human intellect or spirit. These are jobs that do not foster creativity, problem-solving, or a sense of purpose. They exist as relics of industrial-age economics, where labour is seen as a means of survival rather than a pathway to fulfilment. Amartya Sen speaks of capabilities, emphasizing that development should be assessed not merely by economic growth but by the expansion of human freedom and the capacity to lead lives of dignity. If AI can liberate humans from undignified labour, should we not embrace that shift?
The Myth of Unemployment: A Question of Dignity, Not Just Jobs
The Chief Economic Adviser of India recently remarked that policymakers must reconsider their strategies if young people are not seeking jobs due to welfare schemes. The reality is that young people are not protesting on the streets because of these welfare measures. Many are forced into low-paying, unfulfilling jobs simply to make ends meet. For most Indian families, economic stability is paramount. Any job, even one that pays ₹10,000 a month in a multinational company with an eight-hour shift, is seen as a success—not because it provides dignity, but because it ensures survival. By that logic, one could argue that there is no real unemployment in India, only a crisis of meaningful employment. AI’s disruption will not create unemployment in the conventional sense; rather, it will compel us to confront a deeper issue—the dignity of employment itself.
AI and the New Social Contract: The Role of Government and Society
The widespread adoption of AI will force governments and citizens alike to rethink economic structures. The focus should not be on resisting automation but on upskilling individuals and fostering professions that remain shielded from AI. Jobs that require human creativity, empathy, and ethical judgment—scientific research, arts, social work, and education—will not only persist but gain prominence.
Take, for example, three distinct jobs: a security guard, a software engineer, and an academic. If advanced AI-powered surveillance systems replace security guards, the question arises—what happens to those displaced? Without access to quality education, these workers may find themselves rendered obsolete, unable to transition into new roles. It will force them to hold their political leaders accountable and then economic wellbeing will become a truly political issue. At least in India, it is evident that many individuals do not pursue careers out of passion for their fields but out of economic necessity. Engineering, for instance, is often a pathway to financial security rather than an expression of scientific curiosity. If AI, as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman predicts, replaces entry and mid-level coders, it will at least force software engineers to reconsider whether they truly enjoy what they do. For academics, AI presents a different challenge. Those who genuinely love their work will need to constantly reinvent themselves, focus on original research, and push beyond mediocrity. AI is already capable of basic teaching, but it lacks the ability to engage with students on a human level. In all probability, AI will never be sentient—it will not replicate the intellectual curiosity that drives real scholarship.
Rather than resisting AI, we must harness it to elevate human potential. It may herald a new era, one that prioritizes creative, purposeful, and fulfilling work over mechanical, soul-crushing labour. If AI can remove undignified jobs while encouraging human beings to pursue work that fills their souls, then its impact will not be a net loss but a profound transformation. The AI revolution, then, is not a technological question—it is a societal one.
Will we seize this opportunity to rethink the meaning of work, or will we let automation merely reinforce existing inequalities? The answer will define the 21st century.
Prof. H.M. Desarda is Professor Emeritus, Mahatma Gandhi Mission University, Aurangabad and former Member of the Maharashtra State Planning Board, India. He is a distinguished economist, researcher, and public intellectual known for his contributions to sustainable development, agrarian reform, and ecological economics. With over five decades of academic and policy engagement, he has been a leading advocate for rainfed farming, micro-watershed development, and an inclusive, Gandhian approach to economic growth.
The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of EU-VALUES Network.