North of the Border

I just sent my friend Kevin an article served up to me by Apple News. The article comes from New York Magazine, not exactly the gold standard in reporting. I prefer relying on the Economist or perhaps the Financial Times or even the Times or Post, but this was an interesting piece that got me thinking. It was an article about what parents should be considering about the future of their young children in the face of the AI revolution underway. There are many things to worry about on behalf of our children’s future, as I’m sure has been the case in almost every era. I’ve often wondered what my mother was thinking in October 1962 when JFK starred down Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The comment in the article that jumped out at me was when the mother of three kids (4, 9 and 11) said that “I feel a bit like we’re preparing children to be good blacksmiths or shoemakers in 1750 when the factory is coming,” There is a great debate underway of a financial nature about whether. AI is worth all the multiple hype being generated that is being used to justify the massive capital investment going into the AI infrastructure needed to turn AI from a great concept into a financial powerhouse. I think this may be one of those debates that is seemingly important, but is really quite meaningless. I also read about the Erie Canal recently and the startling impact it had on the development of the United States during the era of expansion in the first half of the Nineteenth Century. It’s unclear that the Erie Canal was a financial success by today’s standards. It took 10 years to pay back the initial capital outlay, an outlay that took 8 years to construct. But despite the fact that the Canal was displaced by a combination of the steamship and the railroad, its impact of westward expansion was enormous. The combination of the overall economic impact, the regional formation and growth and the population movement west, far exceeded the proper direct fee impact of the Canal. I suspect the same will be the case with AI. I am one of those people that believe it will change everything.

There are already signs that the old formula of doing well in school and getting into a good college to drive forward to a prosperous professional career is being up-ended. The manner and value of education is in flux and it is unclear exactly what skills and capabilities will succeed in the new reality of AI. When 23-year olds are being paid $100 million sign-up bonuses and AI recruiting firms are getting valuations of $15 billion, that’s a sure sign that no one fully understands where this AI juggernaut is heading in terms of how it will impact the 8-9 billion people of the world. What we can be sure of is that in times of great change, mankind has always seen big increases in the need for migration. Migration, throughout history, has been driven by a combination of “push” and “pull” factors, starting with economic factors, which have always been the most common driver. People move seeking better jobs, higher wages, more fertile land, or escape from poverty and unemployment. This includes everything from the great rural-to-urban migrations during industrialization to modern labor migration. Then there is environmental and resource pressures that were the original migration motivators and have always spurred movement—drought, famine, soil depletion, natural disasters, and climate changes have forced people to seek more hospitable lands. This drove many historical migrations, from ancient peoples following game and water to the Dust Bowl migration in 1930s America. Also, since ancient times, conflict and persecution have played a big role, creating refugees and displaced populations. Wars, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, and political oppression have generated massive migration waves throughout history, from the Jewish diaspora to Syrian refugees in recent years.

Political changes like the collapse of empires, new border drawings, or changes in governance can trigger migration. The partition of India in 1947, for example, caused one of the largest mass migrations in history…both to the west (Pakistan) and to the east (Bangladesh) for Muslims, not to mention in the opposite direction for Hindus. Social and cultural factors matter too—people follow family members and established communities (chain migration), seek religious freedom, to pursue education, or to escape restrictive social conditions. Defined in the broadest sense, technological changes can also enable migration by making travel easier and cheaper, or disrupt traditional livelihoods and push people to move. Most major migrations involve multiple overlapping factors rather than a single cause. People typically move when opportunity elsewhere significantly outweighs the risks and costs of leaving home. Today’s migrations are less focused on the environmental, social or cultural and much more on the economic and conflict/persecution. But I suspect that AI will change that, and it is likely to do so far faster than environmental concerns will force migration.

Human migration is absolutely a natural phenomenon—it’s one of our species’ defining characteristics. Humans evolved as mobile hunter-gatherers. Homo sapiens originated in Africa and then migrated across the entire planet over tens of thousands of years. Migration is literally how humans came to inhabit every continent except Antarctica. And it has always been the same—seeking resources (food, water, shelter), avoiding danger (drought, famine, conflict, natural disasters). It’s built into our nature. Humans are uniquely adapted for long-distance travel—we’re endurance walkers, we can survive in diverse climates, and we have cognitive abilities to navigate and adapt to new environments. But what has changed is that we now have national borders and immigration systems, legal frameworks around migration (when they are even followed) and constant political debates about who can move where as we stoke out natural fear of others.

AI could and is absolutely influencing migration patterns, though whether we’d call the results “natural” or “artificial” becomes philosophically murky. The ways AI might reshape migration follows the same pattern as the underlying causes of migration. There’s economic displacement, which includes automation eliminating jobs in certain regions → people move to where work exists, AI creating new tech hubs → migration toward those centers (we’re already seeing this), and remote work enabled by AI tools → “reduced” need to migrate for work. AI could also lead to improving climate modeling and resource allocation might reduce crisis-driven migration, but that seems like wishful thinking. It’s more likely that AI will create predictive algorithms that might determine visa approvals or asylum decisions. Then again, AI tools could also help migrants find optimal routes, opportunities, or avoid dangers with some degree of nefarious AI-powered misinformation potentially manipulating migration decisions. With AI advantages concentrating in certain nations like the U.S. and China, the “brain drain” could intensify (though recent University governance and grant funding have thrown a monkey wrench into that possibility).

If AI concentrates wealth and opportunity in a few cities or countries, migration toward those places would follow classic patterns (moving toward resources and opportunity)—that’s still “natural” human behavior, just responding to AI-created conditions. The deeper question is whether AI will enable remote work so effectively, that physical location becomes irrelevant, or if AI will eliminate the need for human work on a wholesale basis…creating more migration out of desperation towards theses AI hubs like the U.S..

While humans have “touched” or “influenced” most of the planet, the actual area where we live and build is surprisingly small. We’re a remarkably concentrated species despite our global spread. There are compelling reasons why humans cluster so tightly despite having explored the whole planet. There’s resource concentration, economic gravity (think urbanization), and the fact that we actually don’t need a lot of space to live…so why would we spread out more? We’re like most species—we inhabit our ecological niche intensely rather than thinly spreading everywhere. The difference is our niche just happens to span the whole planet, even if we only densely occupy the most favorable parts. That’s why Elon Musk’s thoughts of colonizing Mars are not taken seriously by many knowledgeable people. Earth at its worst beats Mars at its best.

My friend Kevin thinks we will not need people for labor in the AI world. But the rest of the world is desperately trying to figure out how to either attract labor or export it for employment without running afoul of the patchwork immigration laws. It’s yet another sign of the AI confusion. One thing for sure, inflexible notions like nationalism will not fare well in an AI world. In fact, flexibility way be the only lesson we can’t teach our grandchildren as they work to navigate the new world of AI.