RE: Universal Income and Automation in the Near Future
I could make some shitposts everyday, and ask for all the whales to upvote me for my universal basic income! ;0
I think that if the state controls the flow of money to you then they control you, it is a different kind of slavery. It may be a slavery that many people submit themselves to without realizing what it is, then when some tyrant gets into power and turns it into the Hunger Games or Terminator to kill off all the lazy good for nothings people will wonder "what went wrong" and say "it wasn't true Universal Basic Income".
Technocracy + something I am not sure of the term for.
But I think what really will happen, is that things go backwards to the times of people owning their own land and farming for their own food. It worked then and can work again! Think about that for a second, FOOD could be organic again and could have a bunch of people in the fields helping to tend their own food supply. It is on them to do something with it or they starve, the Amish do it pretty well and lazy people are ostracized out of their society. If everyone comes together to help a guy build a barn in a day, they all can be sure everyone else will help each other when they need their barn or something else built/fixed. Technology really alienates us from how we evolved due to helping each other, if we all just freeload and "pursue our own interests" I highly doubt society will last very long as people can be selfish as hell
I imagine a bunch of trust fund babies later in life wanting everything for free, that's what UBI would turn into i think, a bunch of spoiled brats with no responsibilities who do nothing but party.
Working ethics and ostracizing laziness are social pressures to make people work harder, but the ultimate goal of working is to produce valuable resources, that you can use yourself or sell to other people. If automation take completely over, you will not be able to compete with robots. You can go dig holes with shovel, but a robot will do it faster.
Yet the Amish still live just fine despite massive tractors and everything, and their products they sell are worth more.
It's a small community that produce organic products, but it's impossible to implement it country wide. Another question what is your goal, do you want technological development that will bring huge social changes or do you want traditional society where people have to work hard and productivity is very low?
The entire world used to be made of small communities that produced organic products, for you to say it is "impossible to implement country wide" is very odd.
Over 200 years ago, 90 percent of the U.S. population lived on farms and produced their own food to eat. But today, only two percent of the population produces food for the world to consume. That’s a large change in the amount of people associated with producing food and making sure that everyone has enough to eat.
I have no particular goal, just saying that people won't be sitting on their asses all day collecting money because money always runs out and governments will have 100% control over you if they control 100% of your money. It is literally a "benevolent dictatorship" that you would trust the government to not genocide everyone, it is fantasy thinking that is child like. Having a super majority do absolutely nothing and somehow get money will never happen.
check the world population 200 years ago. Traditional farming can't sustain almost 8 billion of people on this planet. Standards of living got much higher since 200 years ago and yes technology free us from physical labor step by step.
Ok, so in both scenarios you presented the population will die off. If robots take all jobs and people free load eventually the govt will kill them off due to them not being worth it(it always happens that way). If people can't farm for themselves they will die off once the robots take their jobs.
I am trying to point this out to you, that both of the things you say result in massive amounts of people dying. And "Traditional Farming" + today's modern tractors and tech sure could sustain most of the world population, there is plenty of unused land all over the world, so no I don't agree.
It's a complicated issue, if we continue to innovate, we might get the problem that there might be no jobs for average people( at the same time I might miss something in this prediction, there might appear new niche that I can't even imagine today, where majority of people will be able to work. For example we might develop pills that will make people smart on the PhD computer science student.) Or fertility rate will go drastically down as we see in most developed countries right now
People's jobs used to be to "survive" by farming their own food and they didn't do much else. There is always a "job" for everyone to do, it is called staying alive.
Our modern day society has us tricked into thinking there will be Universal Basic Income for doing nothing, I am telling ya that will not happen. A society full of people largely not doing anything isn't possible, no matter how much tech and AI you have running it. Eventually the AI will kill all humans because they are a complete waste of resources. Eventually the govt will kill all the free loaders because it is a waste of resources(and the govt has the power to and nobody can stop it). This happens throughout history and is constantly repeated.
LOL, but it wasn't true Universal Basic Income... it wasn't true communism...
Technocracy + scientific dictatorship ;)
Maybe owning land can happen, that requires governments, monarchs and lords to not tax us for having it ;)
First of all you're replying to a slippery slope nonsense rant that posits people who are disabled or anyone who isn't employed as working the land, when menial labor like growing food can be accomplished organically in aeroponic grows by a handful per hectare and indeed growing food on much larger scales could be accomplished by automation more effectively the larger the scale. I don't think you'd have a leg to stand on if you're arguing about morality to jokingly remark that moral truth wasn't truthful enough, but you can jeer at what time will bring, a mass redundancy which you can see peeking over the horizon. The rich and confused such as your self will be confronted soon enough with either Civil War, begat of the suffering of unemployment, as the catalyst for the declaration of independence did coming closer and closer to a quarter millennia ago or develop the known and time proven art of Taxing the gluttony of man for the benefit of people, which without, the gluttonous wouldn't have to harvest, as the good old racist faggot evveridt harharhared over "a fools soon parted with his money". The problem is not going to fix itself with a "propose a piece of land for everyone", and it would behoove people to look back to exactly what free trade meant in the days of the unprecedented prosperity of Colonial Script and the genius unmatched that said:
because land was involved.
And not to mention this:
Fuck the rich, proper, they used to be taxed PROPER -AT-93PERCENT, o wait I'm sounding like a wealth inequality who is against progress and industry and you know what, that's why monopolized money, monopolized technology and monopolized industry, health care and education, monopolized telecommunications and monopolized service and monopolized real estate is the reality, because excess is applauded as the inhumane treatment of the people by theses monopolized sectors is equated to "freeloaders who deserve nothing of their country, and who's country could care less what they do, the can die in a ditch like Ira Hayes when they're consumed and "retired" while progress only churns out almost exclusively profit motivated obsolescence or profit hobbled innovation, like the war on hemp, in a free trade world... Harhar, progress, not if it hurts the bottom line. Capitalism is monopolized world, and not taxing the rich is probably the worst thing that we can do, because like it or not, redundancy ain't going to come with "propose a piece of land"
It wasn't enough UBI they said, those freeloaders.