Watch this tiktok of a Gen Zer explaining her generation’s approach to work:

https://x.com/StealthQE4/status/1715098015868805436?s=20

Here’s a transcript:

I think we need to talk about this because I am a Gen Zer who got her first like corporate in office adult 9 to 5 job this year and I was actually really excited about it because it was a marketing position in a healthcare company so I thought it was gonna be really great and I get that the company itself ended up being like horribly toxic but I also made the decision with only four months of working there that if I had to do this like corporate drone thing for the rest of my life because I did the math you couldn’t retire in this economy I just like would rather clock out entirely like there were people in their 40s at the company, making the same amount of money as me like still in the same struggling-to-get-by position and I was like, is this, this is it, this is life because I would rather just like tap out right now. I tried to keep pushing through with blind optimism, but it was like so so rushing that nine months and I just had to wake up and be like hey is this the life you want to keep living and the answer was like no I don’t wanna do this, so I had to leave for my own health reasons ironically i’ve sadly been happier doing odd jobs here and there, struggling to pay bills and just living life and having fun and everyone keeps asking like what’s your plan? What are you gonna do? I don’t know what the plan is but I know if I have to go back to that corporate office 9 to 5 like I won’t be alive a year from that date so say whatever you want about Gen Z, but we’re just finally putting our foot down about this corporate lifestyle where you waste most of your life sitting in an office doing little to nothing, I would rather just get my work done on my time and then get to go live my life. Gen Z to core takes the motto work to live, do not live to work very seriously and if corporations don’t start understanding that like it’s just gonna keep getting worse for everybody.

You hear the complaint that Gen Z is lazy and undisciplined, but such feelings are healthy when the system for which they are supposed to be disciplined is inefficient and corrupted. I see in this nihilism an unsustainable vacuum of purpose, and nature abhors a vacuum. The people need a new myth to believe in.

I'm currently enrolled in a European social philosophy class where we've been delving into social pathology, or societal dysfunction — understanding when society seems 'sick' or feels as though something is amiss. I never planned on taking this course, but it's become one of my most enlightening academic pursuits. We've discussed various philosophers and thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, and Émile Durkheim, but we’ve been talking about Max Weber the past couple weeks. Weber's central thesis revolves around the Protestant Ethic and its influence on the spirit of capitalism. He postulates that the Protestant work ethic, which emphasizes finding one's divine calling through work, plays a vital role in capitalism's foundation. The idea is that through work — work not just for money, prestige, or power — one can find salvation. This is living to work.

You can see this kind of ethic in those Silent/Boomer Generation types who genuinely love what they do, as well as in some of the more disciplined members of the techie crowd who have a sort of contemporary Franklinianism. These are the sort of people who want to work until the day they die. It's a modern iteration of the Protestant ethic, where one's chosen profession becomes their ultimate calling. The objective isn't always about monetary gain but about seeking a higher purpose.

The common question you get when meeting somebody (especially of older, more serious generations) is "What do you do?" or “What do you want to do?”. This is not just a pleasantry or a way to gauge one's economic status; what’s being asked, fundamentally, is what is your purpose in life? how are you finding salvation?

This is the hardworking, can-do spirit of America’s middle class, the descendants of the the humble carpenters and farmers of the Revolutionary period. This ethic fed the Industrial Revolution, a period when many parts of the world grappled with the disillusionment of rapid industrialization and mechanization; while Americans (at least some of them) found solace in labor's purifying aspects.

Still this era of rapid industrial growth and capitalism led to a loss of the sacred aspect of work, especially by the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Disillusionment set in and many then (like today) began to feel their work lacked purpose and meaning.

This was not a linear process of disillusionment, however, unlike how most talking heads and scholars discuss the issue today. They (and Marx) say that the more technological innovation, the more the worker is atomized in an ever-increasingly-complicated supply chain, the more disillusionment, the more the worker is alienated from his labor and from his species-being.

We've observed the transformation of the labor system, which has evolved into more of a corporate ladder climb. Over time, it seems every system becomes vulnerable to corruption, much like historical precedents suggest. More recent generations, particularly the late-stage boomers, have shown a tendency to question or outright reject the Protestant work ethic. Many have sought to work just enough to retire, desiring a return to simpler times reminiscent of their college days, living in communes, smoking gonge and taking LSD. Such individuals often exploit the system for personal benefit, viewing work as merely a means to an end. This approach can yield material advantages for some but can disadvantage those who are marginalized, including impoverished individuals and minorities. Most importantly, however, does it suck the system dry until there is nothing left for future generations.

These younger generations have inherited a cynical perspective towards work. They’ve been told to do what they love, and yet they find nothing in their work worth loving. This growing skepticism combined with a distrust of capitalism leads many to believe the entire system is tainted. Yet, paradoxically, while many criticize and wish to dismantle the structure, they feel compelled to participate, trying to extract as much as they can from it. Those who do choose to partake often do so with reservations — they sell their souls — but they have to work harder than generation prior because the with resources scarce and rents high, the job market has become hyper-competitive. Many aim just to make a living and enjoy life, yet find themselves trapped in corporate hierarchies where they are baited with the lie of promotion and professional upward mobility.

Contrary to the belief that the Protestant work ethic has gradually eroded due to technological advancements, I argue that it (like all things) has come in waves with each peak and trough representing a unique evolution of its antecedent. The ethic’s first decline began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where industrial workers felt increasingly estranged from their labor and alienated from their species being. The individual void of purposelessness was filled with burgeoning nationalist sentiments. While this shift contributed to global conflicts and wars, it also facilitated some of humanity's most significant achievements. Individuals working within these large, purpose-driven machines found renewed meaning in their work. When one believes their efforts contribute to a larger, existential cause, even the most mundane tasks can possess profound significance; (this was examined in depth in Part I).

Some philosophers like Émile Durkheim offer education as a solution to the purposelessness of the worker: to inform them of the interconnectedness within society's divine supply chain. Education isn’t enough. To truly instill this understanding, there must be tangible, practical necessity. The purpose must be higher than mere subsistence and even higher than material prosperity. People should not be told, but should feel that their contributions are vital for the survival of their community or nation. This shared sense of purpose can reinvigorate one's perception of work and its value.

So, what does this imply for our contemporary world? How will the future of work evolve, especially considering that all these stuffy philosophers were talking about a a world with comparatively primitive technologies ? It's clear that not only have the motivations behind work shifted, but the very nature of work requires a fresh perspective. Let's delve deeper into this transformation.

In On Brock’s Powering Empire, there's a segment discussing how industrialization altered labor and our relationship with work. Early industrialists were titillated with the idea of creating machines that mirrored the ideal slave — completely disciplined, tirelessly efficient, and devoid of any autonomy. Such machines at first were less efficient than forerunner technologies, but the discipline they mandated from their human operators had a far greater productivity-gaining effect: it disciplined and machinated the workforce. By crafting machines in the likeness of slaves, humans became increasingly mechanical in their labor and therefore more slave-like.

Fast forward to today, and we find ourselves discussing the effects of artificial intelligence on work. Consider ChatGPT; it's designed to be the epitome of the perfect intern: always available, highly disciplined, compliant, and politically correct. This AI tool can automate many tasks but the notion that it will lead to a leisurely paradises where AI’s do all the work and we veg out on UBI is, like the socialist utopian visions of the late 19th century, a farce. Just as the industrial revolution didn't alleviate the labor force from work, AI won’t save us from work either.

While AI tools can handle most of a given task, they still require human operation. The issue is not regulation and oversight as the lazy left likes to talk about; it is that the human must plug into and become one with the AI in their labor, they must interact with and think like the AI. Soon, there will be educative courses for AI: how to use it effectively and efficiently, and then the worker will be expected to perform at the higher level of productivity, and any distinguishing expertise a professional once thought they had will evaporate. My friend (who uses GPT to do 80% of his workflow at a economic consulting firm) summed it up nicely: machines took are bodies, AI will take our minds.

Let me clarify that I am not making a normative judgement of AI or its effects on work: I am not saying AI is good or bad (what a boring question that is anyway!). I am attempting to (from a genealogical/sociological perspective) examine the trends of things as they were and as they are. Most are capable of doing this sort of detached analysis, realize the kind of changes that are occurring, but then vitriolically reject the change and go write for a asceticism-promoting publication that denounces the innovation. What little courage do these present-day theologians have! If they were better historians they would realize that they are trying to hold back the inevitable. So let’s find our courage, leave these whiny ascetics behind, and proceed into the future.

I want to delve into the transition from the cynical and atomizing interwar period to the resolute and collectivizing WWII period. How did we transition from a system of estranged wage-slavery to one where your toil was part of the grand unified effort of the nation? This transition phase of history often feels overlooked or inadequately documented, with many accounts from the boomer generation either dismissing it or presenting nationalist myths as a silly delusion. But, I want to genuinely understand this dynamic because I think it will happen again.

You can feel that we are heading towards one of these breaking points in history: periods when individuals feel devoid of meaning in their work, lose jobs due to escalating automation, feel strained under increasing economic pressures. These are the high societal temperatures that make a chemical combustion more likely. Currently, many find themselves in roles where they are forced to mirror AI functions — to be efficient, ultra-productive, and unquestioning. Often, these roles reside within a privileged professional class overseeing massive operations. These are the contemporary equivalents of blue-collar workers from earlier eras. My frustration with finance internships stems from this very dynamic. Interns are expected to execute tasks without questioning their purpose or efficacy.

So, how do we restore genuine utility and purpose to our roles? It begins with dismantling the existing monopoly held by a professional class, aided by regulations, political ties, and financial tools. We must redefine success, moving beyond superficial rewards like EDM concerts and Sunday brunches to more meaningful, accessible accomplishments.

This won’t be a bottom-up revolution (or rather it will be one where the top and bottom become unified in their purpose). Imagine a future where existential threats or conflicts necessitate the break-up of professional monopolies in order to combat hyperinflation. We would have to both dismantle the old, bloated paper-pushing system of the establishment (our ancien regime) while also building a new, dynamic digitally-native system that is able to adapt to and defeat our external enemies.

Such a scenario would democratize access to roles and resources, with spots opening up within the military and the broader economy to anyone who can effectively use AI to code and create. Young enthusiasts could be trained to conduct cyber-attacks or use 3D printers to create drones or code the VR for the pilots of those drones. Augmented reality (AR) could be used by soldiers in the field for navigation and target acquisition. The generals and the statesman will aggregate all the government’s data, all the observations from soldiers and drones in the field into one centralized platform where they can analyze the war from a bird’s eye view and give orders and see them carried out in real time. The battlefield will start to look like a COD match, the sky like a violent version of Microsoft Flight Simulator, and the world like a game of Civ. Meanwhile, the legacy media will be unseated by the TikTokers and YouTubers who will run the propaganda campaigns and ignite the public sprit.

The shift would also involve traditional tech giants like Apple, Google, and Facebook, who (when dissuaded from their selfish, stockholder-fattening interests) could offer immense innovation. See Apple creating VR glasses for soldiers, Google mapping out the warfront, and Facebook channeling the public discourse. Imagine Amazon harnessing its supply chain expertise to produce essential war supplies. We could limit consumer purchases to prioritize war efforts, requiring citizens to prioritize essential goods over luxuries (echoing the rationing systems seen in England during World War II). An agile, real-time adjustment to production and supply based on current necessities would be implemented. Imagine a new distributed, e-commerce-like supply chain where mothers and children on the homefront pack provisions for the soldiers or put some pieces of a drone together, acting as one appendage of a long domestic assembly line.

This would be a total mobilization, a mobilization of every facet of the economy — the ecommerce, the digital, the agricultural, the financial — that would leverage the collective talents of everyone from the basement-dwelling gamer incel to the unskilled migrant laborer. The only class I see losing is stubborn members of the professional class who cling like a breastfeeding ten-year-old to the teat of legacy institutions.

There's also a cultural dimension; individuals not contributing to the war effort, whether by not producing essential items or by indulging in luxuries, might face societal ostracism. The COVID-19 pandemic has offered a precursor to this, limiting luxury consumption either because of affordability or societal judgment. Regulations might be introduced to curtail luxury spending, which could drastically affect businesses catering to such demands. Redirecting the workforce from the service industry and luxury sectors to more essential production will be essential.

But see how everyone under these circumstances will find a role, will find a way to, in the name of the societal being, rediscover their species being. What fulfillment will the people who contribute to this great, historic, collective effort feel! Will they not feel that, as a part of this beautiful striving, even in death they will finally feel alive?

To summarize, we currently exist in a moment where work feels devoid of meaning. People, much like the industrial workers before them, are evolving to resemble the very tools they use, resulting in dehumanization and a loss of purpose. This trajectory is unsustainable. Contrary to the belief that automation will lead us to a utopian stasis, the solution might lie in further accelerating our dependence on technology. We should integrate the population with advanced tools like AI, AR, and VR. This would entail complete dependence on technology, especially when confronting existential threats. To combat inflation, we need to eliminate luxury and excessive consumption and the professional class with which they are associated, replacing individualistic displays of wealth with a technologically-adept, merit-based creative class. This class would be responsible for creating tools essential for defense, warfare, and war production. New supply chain models will emerge where homes double as factories, where production, by necessity, rapidly decentralizes. Major profit-driven companies would have to pivot their innovation towards the singular goal of winning the war. Inordinately wealthy individuals not contributing to the effort will be taxed until they are no longer deca-billionaires and shamed for any continued ostentation. For those searching for purpose beyond their mundane jobs, this new structure would offer them a life role, whether it's performing the most mundane data input to participating in advanced strategic planning. The direction we're headed towards will involve a great collective effort, not to enrich a few plutocrats, but as a genuine public service. Organizers and participants alike would rally behind a collective purpose. Although the journey would be fraught with challenges, it could represent the most significant revolution in history, an event that future generations will recall with admiration and respect.

Oh, and this is the rest of the meme:

Watch this tiktok of a Gen Zer explaining her generation’s approach to work:

https://x.com/StealthQE4/status/1715098015868805436?s=20

Here’s a transcript:

I think we need to talk about this because I am a Gen Zer who got her first like corporate in office adult 9 to 5 job this year and I was actually really excited about it because it was a marketing position in a healthcare company so I thought it was gonna be really great and I get that the company itself ended up being like horribly toxic but I also made the decision with only four months of working there that if I had to do this like corporate drone thing for the rest of my life because I did the math you couldn’t retire in this economy I just like would rather clock out entirely like there were people in their 40s at the company, making the same amount of money as me like still in the same struggling-to-get-by position and I was like, is this, this is it, this is life because I would rather just like tap out right now. I tried to keep pushing through with blind optimism, but it was like so so rushing that nine months and I just had to wake up and be like hey is this the life you want to keep living and the answer was like no I don’t wanna do this, so I had to leave for my own health reasons ironically i’ve sadly been happier doing odd jobs here and there, struggling to pay bills and just living life and having fun and everyone keeps asking like what’s your plan? What are you gonna do? I don’t know what the plan is but I know if I have to go back to that corporate office 9 to 5 like I won’t be alive a year from that date so say whatever you want about Gen Z, but we’re just finally putting our foot down about this corporate lifestyle where you waste most of your life sitting in an office doing little to nothing, I would rather just get my work done on my time and then get to go live my life. Gen Z to core takes the motto work to live, do not live to work very seriously and if corporations don’t start understanding that like it’s just gonna keep getting worse for everybody.

You hear the complaint that Gen Z is lazy and undisciplined, but such feelings are healthy when the system for which they are supposed to be disciplined is inefficient and corrupted. I see in this nihilism an unsustainable vacuum of purpose, and nature abhors a vacuum. The people need a new myth to believe in.

I'm currently enrolled in a European social philosophy class where we've been delving into social pathology, or societal dysfunction — understanding when society seems 'sick' or feels as though something is amiss. I never planned on taking this course, but it's become one of my most enlightening academic pursuits. We've discussed various philosophers and thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, and Émile Durkheim, but we’ve been talking about Max Weber the past couple weeks. Weber's central thesis revolves around the Protestant Ethic and its influence on the spirit of capitalism. He postulates that the Protestant work ethic, which emphasizes finding one's divine calling through work, plays a vital role in capitalism's foundation. The idea is that through work — work not just for money, prestige, or power — one can find salvation. This is living to work.

You can see this kind of ethic in those Silent/Boomer Generation types who genuinely love what they do, as well as in some of the more disciplined members of the techie crowd who have a sort of contemporary Franklinianism. These are the sort of people who want to work until the day they die. It's a modern iteration of the Protestant ethic, where one's chosen profession becomes their ultimate calling. The objective isn't always about monetary gain but about seeking a higher purpose.

The common question you get when meeting somebody (especially of older, more serious generations) is "What do you do?" or “What do you want to do?”. This is not just a pleasantry or a way to gauge one's economic status; what’s being asked, fundamentally, is what is your purpose in life? how are you finding salvation?

This is the hardworking, can-do spirit of America’s middle class, the descendants of the the humble carpenters and farmers of the Revolutionary period. This ethic fed the Industrial Revolution, a period when many parts of the world grappled with the disillusionment of rapid industrialization and mechanization; while Americans (at least some of them) found solace in labor's purifying aspects.

Still this era of rapid industrial growth and capitalism led to a loss of the sacred aspect of work, especially by the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Disillusionment set in and many then (like today) began to feel their work lacked purpose and meaning.

This was not a linear process of disillusionment, however, unlike how most talking heads and scholars discuss the issue today. They (and Marx) say that the more technological innovation, the more the worker is atomized in an ever-increasingly-complicated supply chain, the more disillusionment, the more the worker is alienated from his labor and from his species-being.

We've observed the transformation of the labor system, which has evolved into more of a corporate ladder climb. Over time, it seems every system becomes vulnerable to corruption, much like historical precedents suggest. More recent generations, particularly the late-stage boomers, have shown a tendency to question or outright reject the Protestant work ethic. Many have sought to work just enough to retire, desiring a return to simpler times reminiscent of their college days, living in communes, smoking gonge and taking LSD. Such individuals often exploit the system for personal benefit, viewing work as merely a means to an end. This approach can yield material advantages for some but can disadvantage those who are marginalized, including impoverished individuals and minorities. Most importantly, however, does it suck the system dry until there is nothing left for future generations.

These younger generations have inherited a cynical perspective towards work. They’ve been told to do what they love, and yet they find nothing in their work worth loving. This growing skepticism combined with a distrust of capitalism leads many to believe the entire system is tainted. Yet, paradoxically, while many criticize and wish to dismantle the structure, they feel compelled to participate, trying to extract as much as they can from it. Those who do choose to partake often do so with reservations — they sell their souls — but they have to work harder than generation prior because the with resources scarce and rents high, the job market has become hyper-competitive. Many aim just to make a living and enjoy life, yet find themselves trapped in corporate hierarchies where they are baited with the lie of promotion and professional upward mobility.

Contrary to the belief that the Protestant work ethic has gradually eroded due to technological advancements, I argue that it (like all things) has come in waves with each peak and trough representing a unique evolution of its antecedent. The ethic’s first decline began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where industrial workers felt increasingly estranged from their labor and alienated from their species being. The individual void of purposelessness was filled with burgeoning nationalist sentiments. While this shift contributed to global conflicts and wars, it also facilitated some of humanity's most significant achievements. Individuals working within these large, purpose-driven machines found renewed meaning in their work. When one believes their efforts contribute to a larger, existential cause, even the most mundane tasks can possess profound significance; (this was examined in depth in Part I).

Some philosophers like Émile Durkheim offer education as a solution to the purposelessness of the worker: to inform them of the interconnectedness within society's divine supply chain. Education isn’t enough. To truly instill this understanding, there must be tangible, practical necessity. The purpose must be higher than mere subsistence and even higher than material prosperity. People should not be told, but should feel that their contributions are vital for the survival of their community or nation. This shared sense of purpose can reinvigorate one's perception of work and its value.

So, what does this imply for our contemporary world? How will the future of work evolve, especially considering that all these stuffy philosophers were talking about a a world with comparatively primitive technologies ? It's clear that not only have the motivations behind work shifted, but the very nature of work requires a fresh perspective. Let's delve deeper into this transformation.

In On Brock’s Powering Empire, there's a segment discussing how industrialization altered labor and our relationship with work. Early industrialists were titillated with the idea of creating machines that mirrored the ideal slave — completely disciplined, tirelessly efficient, and devoid of any autonomy. Such machines at first were less efficient than forerunner technologies, but the discipline they mandated from their human operators had a far greater productivity-gaining effect: it disciplined and machinated the workforce. By crafting machines in the likeness of slaves, humans became increasingly mechanical in their labor and therefore more slave-like.

Fast forward to today, and we find ourselves discussing the effects of artificial intelligence on work. Consider ChatGPT; it's designed to be the epitome of the perfect intern: always available, highly disciplined, compliant, and politically correct. This AI tool can automate many tasks but the notion that it will lead to a leisurely paradises where AI’s do all the work and we veg out on UBI is, like the socialist utopian visions of the late 19th century, a farce. Just as the industrial revolution didn't alleviate the labor force from work, AI won’t save us from work either.

While AI tools can handle most of a given task, they still require human operation. The issue is not regulation and oversight as the lazy left likes to talk about; it is that the human must plug into and become one with the AI in their labor, they must interact with and think like the AI. Soon, there will be educative courses for AI: how to use it effectively and efficiently, and then the worker will be expected to perform at the higher level of productivity, and any distinguishing expertise a professional once thought they had will evaporate. My friend (who uses GPT to do 80% of his workflow at a economic consulting firm) summed it up nicely: machines took are bodies, AI will take our minds.

Let me clarify that I am not making a normative judgement of AI or its effects on work: I am not saying AI is good or bad (what a boring question that is anyway!). I am attempting to (from a genealogical/sociological perspective) examine the trends of things as they were and as they are. Most are capable of doing this sort of detached analysis, realize the kind of changes that are occurring, but then vitriolically reject the change and go write for a asceticism-promoting publication that denounces the innovation. What little courage do these present-day theologians have! If they were better historians they would realize that they are trying to hold back the inevitable. So let’s find our courage, leave these whiny ascetics behind, and proceed into the future.

I want to delve into the transition from the cynical and atomizing interwar period to the resolute and collectivizing WWII period. How did we transition from a system of estranged wage-slavery to one where your toil was part of the grand unified effort of the nation? This transition phase of history often feels overlooked or inadequately documented, with many accounts from the boomer generation either dismissing it or presenting nationalist myths as a silly delusion. But, I want to genuinely understand this dynamic because I think it will happen again.

You can feel that we are heading towards one of these breaking points in history: periods when individuals feel devoid of meaning in their work, lose jobs due to escalating automation, feel strained under increasing economic pressures. These are the high societal temperatures that make a chemical combustion more likely. Currently, many find themselves in roles where they are forced to mirror AI functions — to be efficient, ultra-productive, and unquestioning. Often, these roles reside within a privileged professional class overseeing massive operations. These are the contemporary equivalents of blue-collar workers from earlier eras. My frustration with finance internships stems from this very dynamic. Interns are expected to execute tasks without questioning their purpose or efficacy.

So, how do we restore genuine utility and purpose to our roles? It begins with dismantling the existing monopoly held by a professional class, aided by regulations, political ties, and financial tools. We must redefine success, moving beyond superficial rewards like EDM concerts and Sunday brunches to more meaningful, accessible accomplishments.

This won’t be a bottom-up revolution (or rather it will be one where the top and bottom become unified in their purpose). Imagine a future where existential threats or conflicts necessitate the break-up of professional monopolies in order to combat hyperinflation. We would have to both dismantle the old, bloated paper-pushing system of the establishment (our ancien regime) while also building a new, dynamic digitally-native system that is able to adapt to and defeat our external enemies.

Such a scenario would democratize access to roles and resources, with spots opening up within the military and the broader economy to anyone who can effectively use AI to code and create. Young enthusiasts could be trained to conduct cyber-attacks or use 3D printers to create drones or code the VR for the pilots of those drones. Augmented reality (AR) could be used by soldiers in the field for navigation and target acquisition. The generals and the statesman will aggregate all the government’s data, all the observations from soldiers and drones in the field into one centralized platform where they can analyze the war from a bird’s eye view and give orders and see them carried out in real time. The battlefield will start to look like a COD match, the sky like a violent version of Microsoft Flight Simulator, and the world like a game of Civ. Meanwhile, the legacy media will be unseated by the TikTokers and YouTubers who will run the propaganda campaigns and ignite the public sprit.

The shift would also involve traditional tech giants like Apple, Google, and Facebook, who (when dissuaded from their selfish, stockholder-fattening interests) could offer immense innovation. See Apple creating VR glasses for soldiers, Google mapping out the warfront, and Facebook channeling the public discourse. Imagine Amazon harnessing its supply chain expertise to produce essential war supplies. We could limit consumer purchases to prioritize war efforts, requiring citizens to prioritize essential goods over luxuries (echoing the rationing systems seen in England during World War II). An agile, real-time adjustment to production and supply based on current necessities would be implemented. Imagine a new distributed, e-commerce-like supply chain where mothers and children on the homefront pack provisions for the soldiers or put some pieces of a drone together, acting as one appendage of a long domestic assembly line.

This would be a total mobilization, a mobilization of every facet of the economy — the ecommerce, the digital, the agricultural, the financial — that would leverage the collective talents of everyone from the basement-dwelling gamer incel to the unskilled migrant laborer. The only class I see losing is stubborn members of the professional class who cling like a breastfeeding ten-year-old to the teat of legacy institutions.

There's also a cultural dimension; individuals not contributing to the war effort, whether by not producing essential items or by indulging in luxuries, might face societal ostracism. The COVID-19 pandemic has offered a precursor to this, limiting luxury consumption either because of affordability or societal judgment. Regulations might be introduced to curtail luxury spending, which could drastically affect businesses catering to such demands. Redirecting the workforce from the service industry and luxury sectors to more essential production will be essential.

But see how everyone under these circumstances will find a role, will find a way to, in the name of the societal being, rediscover their species being. What fulfillment will the people who contribute to this great, historic, collective effort feel! Will they not feel that, as a part of this beautiful striving, even in death they will finally feel alive?

To summarize, we currently exist in a moment where work feels devoid of meaning. People, much like the industrial workers before them, are evolving to resemble the very tools they use, resulting in dehumanization and a loss of purpose. This trajectory is unsustainable. Contrary to the belief that automation will lead us to a utopian stasis, the solution might lie in further accelerating our dependence on technology. We should integrate the population with advanced tools like AI, AR, and VR. This would entail complete dependence on technology, especially when confronting existential threats. To combat inflation, we need to eliminate luxury and excessive consumption and the professional class with which they are associated, replacing individualistic displays of wealth with a technologically-adept, merit-based creative class. This class would be responsible for creating tools essential for defense, warfare, and war production. New supply chain models will emerge where homes double as factories, where production, by necessity, rapidly decentralizes. Major profit-driven companies would have to pivot their innovation towards the singular goal of winning the war. Inordinately wealthy individuals not contributing to the effort will be taxed until they are no longer deca-billionaires and shamed for any continued ostentation. For those searching for purpose beyond their mundane jobs, this new structure would offer them a life role, whether it's performing the most mundane data input to participating in advanced strategic planning. The direction we're headed towards will involve a great collective effort, not to enrich a few plutocrats, but as a genuine public service. Organizers and participants alike would rally behind a collective purpose. Although the journey would be fraught with challenges, it could represent the most significant revolution in history, an event that future generations will recall with admiration and respect.

Oh, and this is the rest of the meme: