SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Think of it: The government prints more money or perhaps — god forbid — it taxes some corporate profits, then it showers the cash down on the people so they can continue to spend. As a result, more and more capital accumulates at the top. And with that capital comes more power to dictate the terms governing human existence.
UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers.
Meanwhile, UBI also obviates the need for people to consider true alternatives to living lives as passive consumers. Solutions like platform cooperatives, alternative currencies, favor banks, or employee-owned businesses, which actually threaten the status quo under which extractive monopolies have thrived, will seem unnecessary. Why bother signing up for the revolution if our bellies are full? Or just full enough?
Under the guise of compassion, UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers. Once the ability to create or exchange value is stripped from us, all we can do with every consumptive act is deliver more power to people who can finally, without any exaggeration, be called our corporate overlords.
No, income is nothing but a booby prize. If we're going to get a handout, we should demand not an allowance but assets. That's right: an ownership stake.
https://medium.com/s/powertrip/universal-basic-income-is-silicon-valleys-latest-scam-fd3e130b69a0
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Unixnut on Monday October 15 2018, @08:20AM (2 children)
While modded troll, I am going to assume you weren't actually trolling.
So, yes, pets seem to have a very comfortable life, with all the core things provided. However in return for that, pets lose their freedom. While cats in particular seem to have an air of being the master and you the servant, the reality of the matter is that the pet owner has complete control over the pets destiny.
From what type of food it eats, when (if) it goes out, to what kind of bedding and amenities it gets, to whether it gets castrated or not, to even whether it lives or not. Everything, from reproduction to feeding to life is completely controlled by the third party, which is why we are called "pet owners".
Pets are there to provide pleasure to their owners, and if the owner ceases to derive pleasure or usefulness from the pet, it is disposed of, usually by being killed (either by the owner via the vet, or via a pet sanctuary). For every pet happy in a home and well taken cared for, there are probably 100 that end up killed because nobody wants them, and many more treated poorly or abused.
That is quite a high price to pay for a bit of comfort and regular meals, however pets are generally accepted to not understand the consequences of their predicament, plus they don't necessarily know of any alternative.
As for humans, In such a world as you describe, it is far more likely that we would be livestock, rather than pets. Perhaps a very small number would be "pets" to the elite, I guess they would select for whatever physical or other traits they find desirable, perhaps keep breeding programs, and maybe even have "human fancier" events, where they show off their breeds.
The other 99.9% would be treated like livestock, which in many ways is exactly what slavery was back in the day, except that rather than belonging to the state, you belonged to whoever bought you from the market, and how well you got treated was completely based on who bought you.
I can't speak for others, but I know I sure would not want to have that life. I would rather have a less comfortable life, but one I can control and direct as I wish, vs a comfortable prison.
Judging by the number of pets who go feral and find it hard to adjust back to their previous pet lives, it seems that if given the choice, other animals have similar opinions to me on the matter.
(Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @01:53PM (1 child)
I think you're off by a couple orders of magnitude. Among other things there would be a much larger abandoned pet problem than there actually is, and yes, I have an inkling of how many feral animals there are out there. For example, in the US there are thought to be around 90 million [statista.com] pet dogs in the US. We would notice if there were 9 billion feral dogs (which would be a pack of 25 dogs for every person in the US). They'd be eating people in the streets.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday October 15 2018, @06:00PM
The thing is, I am not talking about there being 100 feral animals per pet out there roaming, just that 100 of a type of animal are killed for every one that is made a pet.
This number includes feral ones captured and killed, feral ones killed due to neglect or accidents, pets that are killed by owners because they are too much of a burden to take care of, pets that are abused and left to die chained up somewhere, pets that are donated to pet sanctuaries (where most end up dead. The rate of rehousing pets is pretty poor), etc...
Admittedly I don't have the numbers, so I cannot say exactly how many are killed per single pet cared for, so thanks for giving some insight into the question.