“The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.”— Voltaire

It is fascinating how relevant this quote still is today.

Especially now, in the age of AI and robotics.

Some billionaires and technologists seem convinced that artificial intelligence will soon replace most human labor. Robots will build the products. AI will write the code. Autonomous systems will transport the goods. Machines will grow the food. The poor, they imagine, will simply become unnecessary.

But there is one enormous problem with this vision:

The monetary system of today cannot function without humans.

Not just a few humans.
Billions of humans.

Especially poor and middle-class humans.

Because the monetary system is not merely a production system.
It is a human exploitation system.

It requires workers.
Renters.
Borrowers.
Taxpayers.

Consumers.
People competing for jobs.
People needing and using money to survive.

Without that pressure, the system breaks down.

A robot does not need a salary and does not pay for goods or services.
AI does not pay rent.
A machine does not take a mortgage.
A warehouse robot does not dream of buying a larger TV or a luxury SUV.

Machines can produce.
But they do not participate in monetary circulation.

And that changes everything.

The Great Contradiction

Many billionaires now dream of a future where a tiny elite owns the AI systems while the rest of humanity becomes increasingly irrelevant.

But irrelevant to what?

If millions lose their jobs due to automation, who buys the products?
Who pays the rents?
Who services the debt?
Who keeps consumption going?

The current system still only recognizes human beings as “capital.”
Not machines. Machines can do the work but not pay for the goods.

And that means the system quietly depends upon vast numbers of ordinary people remaining economically dependent.

The monetary system and advanced AI doing most or all productive labor simply cannot coexist long-term.

Voltaire understood this centuries ago. The rich needs the poor.

Extreme wealth only exists relative to inequality. There must be a big supply of poor and middle class consumers to uphold the rich.
A billionaire is only a billionaire because millions of others possess comparatively little.

The pyramid requires a base.

Without a large population beneath the wealthy:

• labor collapses
• consumption collapses
• debt expansion collapses
• monetary circulation collapses

The rich do not float above the system.
They depend on it completely.

The Overpopulation Misunderstanding

This is why many discussions about “overpopulation” completely miss the deeper issue.

Of course humanity must live sustainably.
Of course population must stabilize voluntarily through education, security, and well-being.

But many people speak as if humanity itself is the problem.

As if fewer humans somehow automatically solve everything.

Yet the current monetary system itself depends upon massive populations participating in it.

A world of only a few hundred million people with advanced AI and robotics would not resemble modern capitalism at all. The logic of wages, labor competition, endless growth, and mass consumption would begin to dissolve.

Because what happens when technology can increasingly produce abundance with minimal human labor?

The entire logic of money starts breaking apart. The monetary system cannoy exist without humans.

And that leads us to an uncomfortable but unavoidable conclusion:

Our only real choice is to replace the monetary system itself.

What other choice is there?

If fewer and fewer people are needed to work because AI and robotics can increasingly produce what humanity needs, then eventually there are not enough people participating in the monetary system to keep it functioning.

Not enough people working = no monetary system.

And no monetary system while humanity still depends entirely upon it for access to food, housing, healthcare, and survival = no stable Earth with billions of people.

That is the real danger.

Not technology.

Not AI.

But clinging to an outdated system that no longer matches technological reality.

Which means humanity faces a profound transition.

We can continue trying to preserve a system based upon scarcity, competition, ownership, debt, and wage dependency.

Or we can begin designing what might be called a truly humanitarian system. The Humanitary system.

A system where advanced technology serves humanity, nature and the planet directly.

A system where access replaces artificial scarcity.

A system where the wealth of society is measured not by how many billionaires exist at the top, but by how secure, free, healthy, and fulfilled ordinary human beings are.

A World of “Billionaires”?

Ironically, that could create the first true world of “billionaires.”

Not billionaires in monetary terms.

But billions of human beings living with abundance, security, dignity, and access to the necessities of life. Living lives with just as much, or maybe even more, time and access as the billionaires of today.

Advanced technology will eventually force humanity toward a completely different realization.

Not that everyone can become a billionaire in monetary terms.

But that the very need for billionaires may disappear.

Because if AI, robotics, automation, renewable energy, and intelligent resource management can provide abundance directly, then humanity no longer needs to organize society around artificial scarcity and survival-based competition.

In such a world, we could all become “rich” in the ways that actually matter:

Abundant access to:

• secure housing
• healthy food
• healthcare
• education
• technology
• creative freedom
• free time
• meaningful contribution
• safety and stability

Not because everyone owns billions of dollars.

But because access itself becomes abundant.

That is the direction technology is quietly pointing toward.

The real question is whether humanity continues trying to force this new technological reality into an old monetary framework designed for scarcity, competition, and wage dependency.

Or whether we finally begin designing a system that reflects the abundance now becoming technically possible.

The Real Crisis

Perhaps the real crisis is not overpopulation.

Perhaps the real crisis is that we are trying to preserve a monetary system that increasingly contradicts technological reality itself.

A system where human beings must constantly struggle for money in order to access resources that modern technology could increasingly provide with minimal labor.

A system where endless consumption and economic growth are required simply to keep people employed.

A system where pollution, waste, planned obsolescence, inequality, and artificial scarcity become structural necessities.

And now, as AI and robotics rapidly advance, the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.

Because once machines can do most productive labor, the monetary system starts losing the very human dependency it was built upon.

Which leaves humanity standing before a profound choice:

Continue trying to preserve the old system through increasingly desperate financial mechanisms.

Or begin creating a new one.

A world where advanced technology serves humanity, nature, and the planet directly.

A world where wealth is no longer measured by how many humans stand beneath you.

But by how well we manage to make life work for everyone.

Want to explore a future where humanity has moved beyond this outdated world of money, ownership, and artificial scarcity and made everyone a “billionaire”?

Then follow the former billionaire Benjamin Michaels into the world of Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity.

👉 Discover the book here.

And please share this article if it resonates. The more who reads this, the bigger chance we have of creating this new world…

A joke, of course.

But perhaps not as far from reality as we would like to think.

We live in a world increasingly obsessed with monetization.

Monetize your passion.
Monetize your hobby.
Monetize your spirituality.
Monetize your attention.
Monetize your relationships.
Monetize your identity.
Monetize your time.

Monetize your family.
Monetize yourself.

And if you can’t monetize yourself directly, then at least build a brand around yourself somehow.

Political philosopher Wendy Brown argues that neoliberalism is not merely an economic system, but a way of thinking that gradually transforms human beings into what she calls “human capital” — economic actors competing in an endless marketplace.

In such a system, almost everything slowly drifts toward monetization.

Not only labor.
But life itself.

And once you begin noticing it, you see it everywhere.

Children becoming influencers.
Meditation becoming subscription services.
Spirituality becoming branding.
Friendships becoming networking.
People turning every hobby into a side hustle.

Even simple peace of mind increasingly feels packaged and sold back to us.

But are we really just human capital?

A baby?
Your mother?
You?

When did human worth become so entangled with economic value?

Why do so many people feel pressure to monetize the very things they love the most?

When you play piano because it moves your soul… should that immediately become a business model?

When you walk in the forest… should that become content?

When you meditate… should that become a subscription service?

And perhaps most importantly:

Why does modern life increasingly make us feel guilty for doing things that are not economically productive?

Now, before we turn this into a simplistic attack on people trying to make a living, let’s be fair.

Most people are not greedy.
They are desperate.

People are struggling.

AI is beginning to replace jobs.
Costs keep rising.
Economic pressure keeps intensifying.
And so naturally people start scrambling for security wherever they can find it.

Monetize the hobby.
Start the channel.
Become a coach.
Build the brand.
Sell the course.
Try to survive.

The irony is that many people participating in this are deeply sincere human beings simply trying to navigate a system where access to life itself is tied to money.

That is why I do not believe the problem is fundamentally human greed.

I believe the deeper problem is systemic.

We are not drowning in money.

We are suffocating in the demand for it.

Money is demanded before access to almost everything:
Housing.
Food.
Healthcare.
Education.
Transportation.
Security.
Even time and peace of mind.

And when every gate requires money, society naturally begins pressuring people to monetize more and more of themselves simply to breathe inside the system.

The strange thing is that technologically, humanity should theoretically be moving toward greater freedom.

We have automation.
Artificial intelligence.
Advanced production.
Global communication.
The ability to produce abundance with less human labor than ever before.

Yet psychologically, many people feel more economically trapped than ever.

Why?

If technology increasingly reduces the need for labor, then why does human worth still seem so tightly tied to economic productivity?

And yes, the irony is not lost on me.

Here I am, offering a book for money while questioning a world obsessed with monetization.

But that is precisely the point.

We are all inside the system. Is there no escape?

Even those imagining alternatives must still navigate a world where access to life is tied to money.

Perhaps the real question is not whether individuals monetize things.

Perhaps the real question is:

What kind of system pressures human beings to monetize more and more of their existence simply to feel secure?

And perhaps an even bigger question:

Wouldn’t it be beautiful to live in a world where we could fully enjoy music, art, meditation, creativity, nature, learning, and human connection… without the constant pressure to turn every meaningful moment into economic value?

What if human beings are something more than human capital?

What if we are not here merely to compete, produce, consume, and survive… but to live?

That is one of the core questions explored in my novel Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity.

What if another way of organizing human society is possible?

If you want to get a glimpseinto a future where humanity has made the choice to live as human beings rather than human capital follow Benjamin Michaels into this  future.

👉 You can discover the book here

And if this article resonates, please share it. I thank you.

So you think my book and proposal are unrealistic?

Good!

Most things that ever became anything in this world were.

“That’s unrealistic.”

“Humans will never change.”

If you’ve ever tried to describe a better future for humanity, you’ve likely heard some version of this.

Not disagreement. But dismissal.

The moment you step outside what is considered “realistic,” the conversation often ends before it begins.

Part of the reason is simple:

The world feels overwhelming.
Too many problems.
Too many variables.
Too much to hold in one mind.

War.
Conflict.
Crime.
Pollution.
Disease.
Topsoil erosion.
Environmental collapse.

The list goes on.

And then comes a proposal:

One new system that can solve all of this?

Hahaha… yeah, right.

So what does the mind do?

It narrows it down.
Simplifies.

“It’s just too many people.”

Clean. Simple. Manageable.

But also… an oversimplification.

Yes, overconsumption and inequality play a huge role.
But then what?

What is the actual solution?

Cull half of humanity?

Or redesign the system that produces these outcomes in the first place?

Because it is the system.

The monetary system demands constant consumption and profit just to keep running.
It has to keep extracting.
It has to keep producing.
It has to keep polluting.

Because if it stops… the jobs stop.
The income stops.
And the system itself begins to collapse.

Of course, population should be stabilized—voluntarily, through education and awareness.

But we cannot realistically reduce humanity back to 1950 levels just to keep an outdated system running at full speed.

We can make this work.

But only if we are willing to rethink the system itself.

And wake up—just a little bit.

When things feel overwhelming, the mind looks for relief.

It reaches for the simplest explanation.
A single cause.
A single answer.

Something that makes the chaos feel manageable.

And once it finds that… it holds onto it.

Not just because it’s true.
But because it brings a kind of rest.

So when a new idea appears—something that expands the picture instead of simplifying it—it doesn’t feel like help.

It feels like more to carry.

And the fastest way to deal with that… is to reject it.

Call it naïve.
Call it unrealistic.
Call it childish.

End of discussion.

Because it’s not really about the idea.
It’s about what people believe is possible—and what they feel they can handle.

But here’s the interesting part:

We’ve seen this exact reaction many times before.

The Pattern We Keep Forgetting

Again and again throughout history, the same pattern appears:

1. A new idea emerges — often simple, often human
2. It is dismissed as naïve, unrealistic, or dangerous
3. The majority rejects it
4. A minority persists
5. Conditions begin to shift
6. The “impossible” becomes reality
7. And eventually… it becomes normal

Then we forget it was ever considered impossible in the first place.

Here are some “impossible” examples from history:

Ending Slavery

In the late 1700s, a small group of abolitionists in Britain began campaigning against the slave trade. They were mocked and dismissed. How could an empire built on global trade suddenly abandon one of its most profitable systems?

William Wilberforce stood in Parliament year after year, proposing abolition bills that were voted down repeatedly. Outside, activists gathered evidence, told stories, and exposed the brutality many preferred not to see.

It took decades. But in 1807, the British slave trade was abolished. Later, slavery itself was outlawed.

What was once considered economically impossible… was ended by persistence.

Women’s Rights

In 1893, New Zealand became the first country to grant women the right to vote.

Before that, the idea was ridiculed. Women were said to be too emotional, too irrational, too unsuited for politics.

Kate Sheppard and others organized petitions—one of them so long it had to be rolled out across Parliament. Thousands of women signed their names, demanding a voice.

The law passed.

What was once “unnatural”… became the beginning of a global shift.

Humans Flying

In 1903, two bicycle mechanics took a fragile wooden machine to a windy beach in North Carolina.

The Wright brothers had no institutional backing, no advanced degrees—just a stubborn belief that controlled flight was possible.

Their first flight lasted 12 seconds.

Short. Fragile. Easy to dismiss.

But it worked.

Within decades, humans were crossing oceans through the air.

Leaving Earth

In 1969, a human being stepped onto the Moon.

Neil Armstrong climbed down the ladder and placed his foot on a surface no human had ever touched before.

Just a few decades earlier, this belonged entirely to science fiction.

And yet there he was.

Looking back at Earth.

A species that once struggled to leave the ground… had left the planet.

World Connected

In 1969, a message was sent between two computers in California.

The system crashed after two letters: “LO”.

It was the beginning of ARPANET.

At the time, no one imagined a world where billions of people would carry devices in their pockets, instantly connected to nearly all human knowledge.

What started as a fragile experiment… became the internet.

Peaceful Enemies

In 1950, just five years after World War II, France and Germany were still defined by centuries of conflict.

Then came a radical idea: instead of competing over coal and steel—the resources needed for war—countries would share control of them.

The European Coal and Steel Community was formed.

Former enemies became partners.

Over time, cooperation replaced rivalry.

One of the most war-torn regions in history moved toward lasting peace.

So What About Today?

Today we hear:

“A world that works for all is unrealistic.”

“Humans are too selfish.”

It’s too many of us.

“It will never happen.”

But history whispers something else:

We have said this before.

Every time we stood at the edge of a new possibility.

The Real Question

Maybe the question is not:

Is it possible?

History has already answered that.

Maybe the question is:

What are we calling impossible today…

that future generations will see as obvious?

Hard Facts

Let’s step out of opinion for a moment and look at the latest available data:

• Global population (2024/2025 est.): 8.3 billion people
• Food production capacity: enough to feed approximately 10 billion people
• Food waste (FAO): 1.3 billion tonnes per year (≈33% of all food produced)
• Undernourished people (FAO 2023): 735 million people
• Homeless (UN est.): 150 million people
• Empty homes (global est.): over 200 million vacant properties
• Wildlife decline (WWF Living Planet Index): 69% average decline since 1970
• Recoverable nature: Despite this decline, vast ecosystems still remain and have shown the ability to recover when protected and restored

These are not small gaps.

They are structural mismatches.

If we already have:

• enough food
• enough space
• enough knowledge

…and still fail to meet basic human needs,

then the question is no longer simply how many we are.

The question becomes:

How are we organizing what we already have?

A Personal Note

A world that works for all once felt impossible to me too.

Unfamiliar. Hard to imagine.

But the idea wouldn’t leave me.

So I explored it.

And eventually, I wrote it.

So that you too could imagine the impossible…

Step Into That Possibility

If you want to experience a future where humanity has made that leap — where we’ve moved beyond the limitations we take for granted today — follow Benjamin Michaels into that world.

👉 Discover the story here.

Please share this article if it resonates. I thank you.