Expendable

Expendable

Written on 10 September 2026.

A person can have a functioning life and still be unnecessary to the system around him. He can have money, a house, routines and people to talk to. Everything can look quite normal. But what actually depends upon him being there?

I remember encountering the idea of being expendable through Rambo: First Blood Part II. Rambo explains it through the example of a party. A GQ interview with Sylvester Stallone recalls the line this way:

“Expendable means someone has a party, and if you don't show up, no one cares.”

That stayed with me. You can be invited and still make no difference to whether the party takes place. Your participation is possible, but it is not required.

Expendable and superfluous do not mean exactly the same thing. Something expendable can be used and sacrificed. Something superfluous is unnecessary. But the party example brings the two ideas close together: things proceed whether you are there or not.

From replacing the person to removing the role

Suppose you apply for a job and the employer says, “If you don't want to work here, it doesn't matter. We can find someone else.”

The employer needs somebody to do the work. He just does not need you specifically.

This is nothing new. A hundred years ago, a farmer could die and his son could take over the farm. The particular farmer was replaceable, even if replacing him was difficult. But somebody still had to farm the land. His death did not remove the need for human work.

Automation introduces another possibility. Instead of saying, “We can find someone else,” the employer can say, “We don't need to employ anyone to do this anymore.”

That is the change I am interested in. The individual was already replaceable. Now the human role itself can disappear.

Earlier machines replaced forms of physical labour while people remained necessary to design, operate, repair and improve them. Digitalization removed another layer of work. AI raises the possibility of extending this further into intellectual work, including parts of the work involved in developing technology itself.

If a machine can perform a task that previously required a human mind, replacing the departing worker may no longer mean finding another person.

This does not establish that all human work will disappear. Automating one task is also not the same as automating an entire occupation. But it does raise a question about direction. How much human participation could become unnecessary while the surrounding system continues to function?

Functioning and being needed

I remember hearing someone many years ago say that functioning was what mattered to him. But functioning and being necessary are different things.

A person can function quite well inside a system that does not depend upon him. Money arrives, the shops open, electricity is supplied and entertainment is available. He participates in all of this, but his individual absence would make very little difference to its operation.

That does not mean his existence makes no difference anywhere. Being unnecessary to a particular system is not the same as being unnecessary to another person, or having nothing of his own to do.

This may be one reason people place such importance upon certain relationships. Perhaps they find somewhere that they are wanted specifically. An employer can replace an employee, but another person may want that particular human being in his life.

So somebody can be expendable to the system and still have what looks like a full life. These conditions can exist together.

But losing a role that actually required you can also have consequences. Work and responsibility give people reasons to get up and do things. Contact with others often comes through those responsibilities. When the need disappears, the routine and the contact may disappear with it.

I think this can be particularly difficult for older people. Employment ends, children become independent, and people who depended upon them may die. They may still be capable of doing things, but fewer things require them.

Being given something to occupy your time is not necessarily the same as having something that depends upon you. Nor does somebody else's need automatically make a relationship good. A person can need your labour while treating you badly. Being needed and being treated well are separate questions.

When Jacob died

Jacob provides a concrete biblical example of a person's presence affecting what happens around him.

And when Joseph's brethren saw that their father was dead, they said, Joseph will peradventure hate us, and will certainly requite us all the evil which we did unto him.

— Genesis 50:15, KJV

While Jacob was alive, his sons understood their situation one way. After he died, they feared that Joseph would act against them. Jacob's absence changed their expectations.

This does not prove that Jacob had actually been restraining Joseph. Joseph's answer shows that their fear was not what governed his intentions:

And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God?

— Genesis 50:19, KJV

But Jacob's death was still consequential. The world continued, yet the circumstances within his family were different. The question is not whether the entire world stops when somebody dies. It is what changes because that particular person is gone.

A system that needs fewer people

After encountering Astra, I found myself returning to the Terminator movies. I think the connection was the increase in technological ability. What happens when the machinery becomes capable enough that people are less necessary to its continued operation?

It is a bit like becoming a table in an apartment instead of the person who owns it. The table may be useful and carefully maintained, but it does not decide what the apartment is for. The comparison is about the person's position within the system, not the worth of a human life.

A future like this would not necessarily require a hostile Skynet. Perhaps governments and companies would maintain the machines because they were useful. The system could become less dependent upon human participation through being improved and kept running.

There would still be questions of ownership, authority, maintenance and what people wanted the technology to do. I am not claiming those questions have disappeared. But increasing capability makes the distinction between a useful tool and a replacement for human participation harder to ignore.

An employer saying “We can find somebody else” still needs a human being. An automated process may not need another person at all.

That is what makes the old Rambo example take on a different meaning for me. The invitation remains, but increasingly the work behind the party may continue without the guests.

References

• Rambo is Expendable , https://youtu.be/3-l_Ofo7gNE

AI Disclosure: Parts of this page may have been created, edited, or assisted by artificial intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT or other language models). All AI-assisted content is reviewed by a human before publication. For questions, contact the site administrator.