By this point, one may conclude that civilized society is inherently unsustainable, if not impossible; having gone so far as to change the nature of humanity to the limits of what it is to be human, one still observes failure by virtue of its autonomy. Such autonomous faculty results in inevitable conflict between citizens, due to either citizens’ incapability to sustain the economy or disagreement over social contract terms. Moreover, such autonomy is largely redundant, as the majority of any given economy is comprised of insentient labour, which does not require autonomy to be completed. One begins to question whether attempting a solution is even worthwhile, as dissidents will only uncivilize society by opposing it and infringing on their autonomy would only worsen this. Given such belligerent circumstances, one may concede that humanity is incapable of civilization due to its very nature; humanity’s ambition and endeavour always comes at the cost of autonomy, whether enforcing an economy onto the inadequacy of human nature or discarding it for its unnecessary sentience.

This end is unsatisfactory however, and civilization is, among other things, a measure of satisfaction. To attempt civilization by first inducing its opposite, uncivilization, is clearly impossible. That said, no social contract examined has been able to solve the problem of conflicting autonomies, which is to say, they share a common fault; this fault is likely that which one already suspects, that requiring and coercing citizens to participate in insentient labour under the burden of the economy is inappropriate and contentious, given that sentience is an unnecessary trait for one attempting such labour. That such a demand was ever placed on humanity at all was due to a lack of alternatives, leaving only fundamentally uncivil contracts as the only viable option of sustaining an economy.

Thus, a truly civil contract must provide terms that allow citizens access to sentient labour only, while finding adequate sources to fulfil insentient labour and maintain productivity. To this end, one is tempted to suggest automation as, by definition, it is insentient and so fulfils the necessary conditions of insentient labour, removing issues of autonomy from the insentient portions of an economy while ensuring it is preserved. Thus, if implemented correctly, one may find such a suggestion to be the means of a truly civil society.
The Emancipation of Humanity Thus, to sincerely attempt civilization, one must arrange automation to perform insentient labour that simultaneously preserves the economy and autonomy of the citizenry. Doing so requires identifying the means of sustaining each, the insentient elements of which then require insulation or isolation from autonomy itself; to

achieve civilization, these elements must be pervasive enough that absolute isolation of sentient labourers is possible, otherwise risk imposing on autonomy. As such, one must establish an insentient economy, capable of sustaining itself and the citizenry dependent on it; any requirement of a sentient economy to sustain the citizenry introduces the issues previously presented, the contention and redundancy of autonomy in an insentient economy. The means of sustaining autonomy are then any, and all means of sustaining human nature, the physical, mental and autonomous faculties of humanity. To be certain, it is assumed that these means all entail insentient labour; if not, then the means of sustaining autonomy requires some degree of sentient labour, which risks conflicts of autonomy. Any society attempting such a civil contract is adopting an extensive regime, where insentient labour provides for the citizenry in every regard; established or neoteric, all societies attempting such will likely face similar challenges in implementation. unnecessary
The scale of such automation will undoubtedly require transitionary periods, where sentient labourers will need to perform insentient labour to automate the necessary economic elements. These periods are likely to be prolonged due to the need for the incumbent insentient economy to be self-sustained, in order to be completely isolated from autonomy. This can be achieved through renewable energy sources, for powering the labour; however, maintaining these systems will need resources for, and means of, repair, all of which must be completed with insentient labour. In addition, this automated economy would require transport, to deliver all products of insentient labour to its recipient, extending insentient labour to include transportation industries. The viability of such a contract is thus dependent on how accomplished and technologically proficient the society is, as well as how open the citizenry is to such changes.

Once established, the exchange and collaboration between sentient and insentient economies are dependent on the supplementary terms of the civil contract. Obviously, given the extent one has gone to isolate autonomy from insentient labour, the contract must complement these terms; labour and capital expenditure by citizens on insentient labour must be ceased, at least in formally economic matters. This poses a particular problem for transitionary periods, where citizens must break this stipulation in order to establish an insentient economy, and after accomplishing the automation, be given adequate means of solvency. The most productive means of retaining solvency would be to induct redundant citizens into other sentient industries undergoing automation, to increase the rate of said automation. Beyond this, the economics between sentient and insentient economies will be at the behest of the citizenry and their leadership, but in the

interest of civilization, will require that the isolation of insentient labour from autonomy be maintained.

A contract of this sorts represents an effective emancipation of humanity; a process that suffers dispute in societies operating under converse social contracts. Political and cultural subterfuge stemming from dissidents opposed to the introduction of these terms is as likely to stall the process as much as logistical issues it is susceptible to. The source of their disagreement is likely to be the loss of labour, capital or otherwise some advantage they hold under the current social contract; this complicates the matter depending on the exact form of the advantage, but nonetheless, the greater the asset, the larger the issue. Greater fortunes amount to more leverage, with which concession scales proportionally. Indeed, given enough leverage, implementing such emancipation becomes futile as it is sabotaged beyond use before it has begun, and the failure is counted against the attempted contract, rather than the saboteur. Despite this, the specifics of the advantage depend entirely on the terms being repealed and would likely require terms of equivalent or greater advantage for dissidents to consider agreeing.

To conclude, a truly civilized society requires a social contract that identifies the issues of sentient labour being inappropriately tasked to an insentient economy; the inadequacy of human nature, and dissension arising from it, is incompatible with roles within an insentient economy, requiring an insentient labour force to sustain a citizenry where said citizens cannot. However, forming an automated insentient economy requires the overhaul of a society that has been functioning so, and the logistical challenges that presents. What is more, the agreement of beneficiaries of the current contract needs to be ensured, particularly those in power; a precarious arrangement, considering transitory periods are likely vulnerable to sudden changes in interest. A contract that accomplishes and preserves these criteria finally achieves civilization and fulfils the role of a civil contract.