REFLECTION – ALGORITHMIC EQUITY
Distributive Justice in a Post-Work World
We are living through a silent yet profound historical transition. Industrial automation, algorithmic systems, and artificial intelligence are reshaping production, labor, and, consequently, the way society organizes income, dignity, and social belonging. Unlike previous technological revolutions, this one does not replace merely physical effort, but also cognitive, administrative, and creative functions. The result is an increasingly plausible scenario of a post-work world, in which the majority of people will no longer be necessary for traditional economic production.
In this context, the question becomes inevitable: how can material existence, human well-being, and freedom be guaranteed when work ceases to be the organizing axis of social life?
Contemporary authors such as Yuval Noah Harari have insisted that the answer cannot be merely moral or cultural, but structural. The emergence of an economically “dispensable” human mass demands new distributive arrangements. It is at this point that proposals such as universal basic income reemerge with force, curiously defended by liberals, social liberals, Keynesians, social democrats, and even conservative currents¹.
However, although necessary, universal basic income presents clear limits. It guarantees a floor, but does not adequately address real differences among people. Treating everyone equally does not mean treating everyone justly. Individuals with disabilities, complex medical histories, expanded family responsibilities, or marked by historical inequalities do not start from the same point. It is precisely in this space that the concept I propose emerges: Algorithmic Equity.
Algorithmic equity is grounded in a fundamental distinction between equality and equity. Equality distributes the same; equity distributes what is necessary. In a post-work world, insisting solely on equality may become a new form of injustice. What is proposed here is a universal mechanism for calculating and distributing income and services, based on common rules, yet sensitive to human particularities.
In simple terms, it is a system that combines:
-
a universal floor of existence, ensuring basic survival;
-
categorized credits (education, health, housing, mobility, culture);
-
and personalized adjustments, carried out by transparent algorithmic systems that consider objective and contextual needs.
Educational credits, for example, would not be limited to formal institutions. They could be applied to any initiative directly or indirectly aligned with education: open courses, mentoring, technical training, intellectual production, or professional requalification. Likewise, health credits would not be restricted to traditional treatments, but would encompass physical exercise, prevention, nutrition, and comprehensive care².
A decisive aspect of this proposal is relative freedom. The system does not determine how a person must live, but establishes categories and ethical limits within which the individual chooses. This preserves the dynamics of human nature, the sense of merit, creativity, and autonomy, without placing basic existence at risk.
Another central element is the model of provision. Algorithmic equity does not require a single type of State. More centralizing States could operate direct public systems. Liberal States could allow private companies, cooperatives, startups, and philanthropic organizations to act as providers of income and services, provided they adhere to shared basic rules. Citizens would choose their provider. Resources would be distributed according to the number and profile of users, encouraging competition, innovation, and continuous improvement.
This hybrid design avoids both total planning and social abandonment. It recognizes that different political models may adhere to the broader concept, without the need for ideological homogenization³.
Naturally, serious objections arise. One concerns the risk of authoritarian use: what if a future autocracy were to use this system to control, silence, or persecute dissidents? This objection cannot be ignored. However, the possibility of future abuse does not invalidate ethical use in the present. Every significant technology—from writing to money, from the printing press to the internet—has been susceptible to oppressive instrumentalization. The appropriate response is not the rejection of technology, but the construction of institutional safeguards, algorithmic transparency, the right of appeal, and plural governance⁴.
Another frequent objection, especially in religious contexts, associates global systems of economic control with the idea of a “world system of the Antichrist.” As a theologian and a man of faith, I understand this fear. Even so, it is necessary to distinguish between symbolic eschatology and concrete historical responsibility. Technological advancement is inevitable. Ethical omission in the face of it is not neutrality, but abandonment of care for one’s neighbor. Using technology well today does not legitimize its misuse tomorrow⁵.
Algorithmic equity also does not eliminate merit. On the contrary, it creates real conditions for merit to exist. No one competes fairly when starting from hunger, illness, or structural exclusion. By guaranteeing the basics and adjusting inequalities at the point of departure, the system allows individual contribution to have meaning and recognition.
In terms of governance, this is a transnational, but not totalitarian, model: a system of shared principles with local implementation, independent audits, and social participation. Not a world government, but a common ethical infrastructure, suited to an interconnected world.
The value of this idea lies not merely in its potential monetization, but in its civilizational potential. It may generate consultancies, research, pilot projects, and technological development, but above all it offers a new grammar for thinking about social justice in the twenty-first century.
Algorithmic equity is not a closed utopia. It is a historical hypothesis. An invitation to debate. An essay on how to preserve dignity, freedom, and responsibility in a world where work ceases to be the center of human existence.
Explanatory Notes
-
Universal basic income is defended by authors from distinct fields, such as Milton Friedman (negative income tax), Keynesian economists, social democrats, and contemporary thinkers such as Rutger Bregman and Philippe Van Parijs.
-
This expansion of the concept of health dialogues with the notion of integral well-being and prevention, not merely the treatment of diseases.
-
The model avoids imposing a single state arrangement, allowing adherence by both centralizing States and liberal States.
-
Algorithmic transparency, independent auditing, and the right to contest are indispensable elements to prevent abuses.
-
The theological critique here does not deny eschatological risks, but rejects ethical paralysis in the face of concrete human suffering.
Editorial Note
Text written with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence resources, based on the author’s original ideas, with conceptual organization, theoretical curation, and final revision carried out entirely by the author.
Author
Manoel Gonçalves Delgado Junior is a Doctor of Ministry (D.Min), Public Theologian, and columnist for the Horizontes Verticais Blog. His work focuses on the ethical, theological, and social implications of contemporary transformations, particularly those arising from technological advancement, economic restructuring, and questions of justice, dignity, and human responsibility in the twenty-first century.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)