Elon Musk Says There Needs to Be Universal Basic Income:
Tesla CEO Elon Musk is stepping behind the universal basic income movement because of the potential rise of robots — in fact, he's working on one himself.
During a Thursday presentation on artificial intelligence (AI) hosted by Tesla, Musk said he is working on creating a "Tesla Bot" [...] But Musk recognized that the creation of this robot might take the place of jobs that people are currently getting paid for, which is why he said a guaranteed income will likely be necessary in the future.
"Essentially, in the future, physical work will be a choice," Musk said during the presentation. "This is why I think long term there will need to be a universal basic income," he added.
[...] [B]usinesses across the country have turned to automation rather than paying humans for work. For example, Insider previously reported that restaurants struggling to hire workers for months [have] turned to QR codes where diners can view menus, rather than having a waiter bring them one.
In addition, Cracker Barrel rolled out a mobile app that lets customers pay for meals; McDonald's started testing automated drive-thru ordering at 10 Chicago locations; and Dave & Buster's plans to expand its contactless ordering, effectively getting rid of many restaurant jobs humans once did.
If this trend continues, it's likely that universal basic income will become a larger part of the conversation.
Related Stories
Elon Musk Reveals Plans to Unleash a Humanoid Tesla Bot
Elon Musk reveals plans to unleash a humanoid Tesla Bot:
Tesla CEO Elon Musk ended a deeply technical AI Day event [(3h3m21s)] with a head-turning announcement: a humanoid robot.
After a dancing human dressed as a robot moved off stage at Thursday's invitation-only event in Palo Alto, California, Musk introduced Tesla Bot. It will be based on Tesla's Autopilot system and is essentially a humanoid form of the car. Musk considers the electric vehicles "fully sentient robots on wheels." So might as well make it a human-like bot!
The bot looks like a human with two arms (and two hands with five fingers) and two legs. It'll stand at 5 feet 8 inches and weigh 125 pounds. It can only run 5 mph, which Musk assured was slow enough for most people to escape if something goes wrong: "If you can run faster than that it’ll be fine."
Most importantly, Musk said it would be friendly ("of course") and operate dangerous, repetitive, and boring tasks as it "navigates a world built for humans."
Musk repeated that the humanoid would have a screen on its head and eight cameras, like on Tesla cars that can drive with assistance from Autopilot. "It's all the same tools we see in the car," he said.
Elon Musk Reveals Tesla Bot, a Humanoid Robot Utilizing Tesla's Vehicle AI
The story continues at c|net:
Elon Musk reveals Tesla Bot, a humanoid robot utilizing Tesla's vehicle AI:
Three slides detailed the robot's proposed specifications and Musk made sure he pointed out you could both outrun the Tesla Bot and "overpower" it. He has, in the past, rallied against the use of robots as weapons and warned of the risks AI might pose -- once calling it the "biggest risk we face as a civilization." I guess if they're your incredibly slow, easy-to-overpower robots, the dangers are reduced.
One particular slide said they would eliminate "dangerous, repititive, boring tasks" and Musk provided an example suggesting the robot could be told to "go to the store and get ... the following groceries."
A prototype would likely be ready next year, he said.
On Wednesday, the Future of Life Institute published an open letter on its website calling on AI labs to "immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4." Signed by Elon Musk and several prominent AI researchers, the letter quickly began to draw attention in the press—and some criticism on social media.
Earlier this month, OpenAI released GPT-4, an AI model that can perform compositional tasks and allegedly pass standardized tests at a human level, although those claims are still being evaluated by research. Regardless, GPT-4 and Bing Chat's advancement in capabilities over previous AI models spooked some experts who believe we are heading toward super-intelligent AI systems faster than previously expected.
See Also: FTC Should Stop OpenAI From Launching New GPT Models, Says AI Policy Group
Related:
OpenAI Is Now Everything It Promised Not to Be: Corporate, Closed-Source, and For-Profit (March 2023)
OpenAI's New ChatGPT Bot: 10 "Dangerous" Things it's Capable of (Dec. 2022)
Elon Musk Says There Needs to be Universal Basic Income (Aug. 2021)
Tesla Unveils Chip to Train A.I. Models Inside its Data Centers (Aug. 2021)
Elon Musk Reveals Plans to Unleash a Humanoid Tesla Bot (Aug. 2021)
Tesla Unveils its New Supercomputer (5th Most Powerful in the World) to Train Self-Driving AI (June 2021)
OpenAI Has Released the Largest Version Yet of its Fake-News-Spewing AI (Sept. 2019)
There's Still Time To Prevent Biased AI From Taking Over The World (May 2019)
The New Prometheus: Google CEO Says AI is More Profound than Electricity or Fire (Feb. 2018)
OpenAI Bot Bursts Into the Ring, Humiliates Top Dota 2 Pro Gamer in 'Scary' One-on-One Bout (Aug. 2017)
Elon Musk: Mark Zuckerberg's Understanding of AI is "Limited" (July 2017)
AI Software Learns to Make AI Software (Jan. 2017)
Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking Win Luddite Award as AI "Alarmists" (Jan. 2016)
Elon Musk and Friends Launch OpenAI (Dec. 2015)
Musk, Wozniak and Hawking Warn Over AI Warfare and Autonomous Weapons (July 2015)
More Warnings of an AI Doomsday — This Time From Stephen Hawking (Dec. 2014)
(Score: 2) by Revek on Tuesday August 24 2021, @06:14AM (1 child)
As soon as you are dirt poor it might considered.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @10:01AM
That's stupid.
Hilariously, it's stupid for almost as many reasons as there are words in it. Bravo?
First off - a doctor doesn't need to have cancer to treat it, a politician doesn't need to be an oil worker to abolish it.
Second off - UBI is not just for the poor. The 'U' there means something.
Third off - I'm confident that if Elon was broken on the street, you wouldn't be asking his thoughts on UBI.
Fourth off - UBI helps people who are financially constrained but not dirt poor too. Maybe you've somehow never known a parent who would like to feed their kids healthier foods.
Fifth - actually, nah. How about you just fuck off until/unless you decide to contribute in good faith instead of straight trollin.
TLDR: wow you look stupid saying things like that in public. Sit down and shut up.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @06:33AM (26 children)
In their view "UBI = trickle up economy"
The govt prints money that will end up being parked in the accounts of big corps, likely in fiscal paradises.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @07:25AM (4 children)
Have you looked at the wealth distribution lately? How much more paper do you think they think they need, exactly? The government literally funnels infinite money into their accounts on a whim, there is no want they are possible subject to.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @08:11AM (3 children)
Without having them selling something, the govt will eventually stop funneling money to them.
Without a population that has money to buy something, they will eventually stop selling something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday August 24 2021, @02:50PM (2 children)
They will always be able to sell bribes or political favors. You'll need a plan B.
Why would that happen even in the absence of UBI? There's a lot of economics that get ignored every time the robot meme comes up, such as the centuries of increasing automation that served to make human labor more valuable rather than less, counter to narrative. And the continuing failure of the demand-driven model to explain anything. Or the profoundly dysfunctional nature of using the power of the state to make human labor artificially expensive and then blaming that mess on automation and off-shoring.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 26 2021, @04:16PM (1 child)
That's wrong. Productivity decorrelated with wages in the 70's. "Benefits" packages are largely a joke and just a way to pilfer money, and they're the measure used to create the illusion of parity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 27 2021, @01:58AM
And yet, total compensation, which includes those "benefits" is the more accurate measure. When you do that, it turns out that productivity does track well [soylentnews.org] with total benefits, contrary to the narrative.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Opportunist on Tuesday August 24 2021, @07:40AM (17 children)
If it works as well as the trickle-down economy, the damage can't be that bad.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @08:15AM (16 children)
It will work better for a while, but it can't last long without becoming meaningless. Nothing that works on an upward exponential law can last in a finite Universe, much less in a finite Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:48AM (10 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:00AM (9 children)
Are you asking a question or just assert that I'm wrong and that's that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:40AM (8 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:32PM (7 children)
I'm not talking to Gods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @10:14AM (6 children)
You're also talking without theoretic nor empirical knowledge of economics.
Theoretically UBI doesn't lead to exponential inflation nor devaluation of currency nor devaluation of property.
Empirically we know that people overwhelmingly invest it in long-term wellbeing which reduces other societal externalities. Taxes paid don't go down - they very slightly go up. Employment rate stays about the same, but that masks the fact that people who want to work are enabled to (sometimes it takes new clothes, some retraining, an initial low pay trial period, enough $ to hire a babysitter to go to interviews, etc), and people who would do much better by not working work less (people with chronic pain, parents - but also honestly I'd rather the idiot in the office next door took $2k/mo to sit at home than to cost us time and energy with his low effort dragging).
I could go on but it's probably wasted breath. You provided no citations. I could cite Finland etc but why should I bother when you're arguing in bad faith?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 25 2021, @12:14PM (4 children)
When I read stuff like this [cnbc.com], I just have to disagree:
People can't be bothered to save for $1000 emergencies now, so what's going to change? My take is that money will just go to larger credit card bills for most people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 26 2021, @06:04PM (3 children)
You defeat your own point made here: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=44529&page=1&cid=1170338 [soylentnews.org]
And I can't find, for the love of me, the questionnaire they used to poll these people. If you're like me, and reasonably well educated, you know that the "same" question can elicit different answers. Framing is very important. I use a credit card for all of my purchases and an emergency would not be the exception. I do not on the other hand do it out of necessity.
“We have seen income stagnation for quite some time,” says Alexandrea Ravenelle, an assistant professor at Mercy College. “And even though incomes are finally back to where they were before the Great Recession, there’s still a perception for a lot of people that their income is just not hitting their expenses. Even if incomes are going up, expenses seem to be going up even faster.”
https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/side-hustles-survey-june-2019/ [bankrate.com]
Additionally, if you look at all the stimulus effects, there was a huge cascade of exactly the opposite of your conjectured outcome. People paid off debts in droves:
https://wolfstreet.com/2021/05/13/state-of-the-american-debt-slaves-fed-confounded-as-consumers-pay-down-credit-cards-other-high-interest-debt-and-helocs/ [wolfstreet.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 27 2021, @01:53AM (2 children)
Where did all that debt come from? I applaud this movement, but they wouldn't be in that situation in the first place, if they were growing their wealth. The first step is not to get a lot of debt in the first place (I'll grant for some key assets like a home, car, or possibly some capital for a business) and save more than you spend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 27 2021, @04:37PM (1 child)
How does an average person grow wealth (or debt!) other than home, car, and capital?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 27 2021, @05:11PM
A really common way is by investing in someone else's business.
A really common way is to buy stuff with credit cards. You don't have to buy anything concrete or wealth generating in order to acquire debt.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 25 2021, @01:53PM
Practically, the US govt will borrow money with a rate to support UBI, which will get to an exponential.
(even a well-reined inflation with no boom-bust cycles will amount for a 3%/annum - you still don't see an exponential here? We have it already)
If you read the title of this thread, maybe you'll get I'm expressing an opinion, maybe you won't.
Finland/Norway are pretty close to doing it the correct way - wealth redistribution, there is a wealth before the govt redistributes it.
US is in a "starve the beast, but milk it for MIC" stage. And I don't see Musk&Co offering to contribute anything from his wealth to an UBI pool; the attitude stinks of "oh, well, if you aren't gonna gimme directly, trickle it to them, otherwise I'll soon get to sell nothing".
Finally, if you understood I was advocating against UBI in general, maybe asking "what the heck am I missing" instead of jumping the debate gun would have helped. If you read my initial translation you should note "in their view".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 24 2021, @03:30PM (4 children)
FatPhil is mostly correct. There's no reason that either trickle down or trickle up spending requires indefinite exponential growth. They're just wealth redistribution schemes. What does require said exponential growth are making unsustainable promises which are frequently associated with wealth redistribution schemes. It's far easier to promise wealth in the future than to take wealth from someone and deliver it today. Politicians have written a bunch of rhetorical checks they have little interest or capability in cashing. If somehow a long stretch of large, exponential economic growth were possible, say due to unicorns, we might be able to honor most of those promises, but not the new stretch that would then be issued.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:41PM (3 children)
Wealth redistribution done correctly - if you have wealth, then you can redistribute it. The population can use it for whatever they find fit.
The way it is proposed by Musk & co is "fiat money by govt taking debt (and thus getting on the upward exponential); it's OK if you trickle it up through the populace to consume, it will end up in our pockets because we are big enough to control the market".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 25 2021, @12:05PM (2 children)
Where does he say that? I see quote marks! /sarc
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 25 2021, @01:28PM (1 child)
I don't see Musk offering to pay more taxes and redistribute part of his wealth, so what else remains to constitute in the base for UBI?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 26 2021, @01:22AM
Well, there's that rich guy money you keep discounting. It's not rocket science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @09:50PM (2 children)
"Trickle up" is economics 101 and why stimulus spending.needs to be injected as low in the economy as possible to be effective.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @03:54AM (1 child)
Like many things which are Economics 101, they're not as universally useful guides as may seem. "Trickle up" depends extremely heavily on the preferences of the recipients of the injection, and they can effectively make those injections vanish into black holes - or in entirely unintended directions.
It sounds good, it feels good, it's tastefully anti-Reagan, it has all those crunchy-granola ideas, but it isn't a cure-all, nor even reliable. For examples, just look at where covid stimuli went; at first, a lot of it was hoarded or simply used to clear debt, which really annoyed banks which were already sitting on cash piles.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday August 25 2021, @12:18PM
Which was the right move for the economy at that time. This is actually counter evidence to my assertion [soylentnews.org] that most people wouldn't use such money well.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by surjeon on Tuesday August 24 2021, @06:35AM (2 children)
All the examples cited of automation replacing humans really sound like getting the customer to do the work instead of paying someone.
It's beginning to feel like going to a sit-in vending machine.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @03:02PM
> .. getting the customer to do the work instead of paying someone.
Yep, it's enough to get me to buy actual food, cook it and eat at home.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday August 24 2021, @08:47PM
Probably because parts of any automation that seamlessly replace humans (or animal) tasks makes the news for a day, sector news for a quarter (maybe a year), trade journals for probably a couple years, then it's infrastructure that starts to "crumble" in a couple decades. Those parts where the customer does the work continues to make the news because a human (or funny animal) is still involved.
I mean -- the general population really doesn't talk about anything that's completely automated, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @06:38AM (2 children)
Who you gonna listen to, must or the almighty AC?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:04AM (1 child)
You could be both an AC and Musky.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 27 2021, @01:54AM
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @06:48AM (3 children)
But not just yet. Certainly not for at least 20 years, probably not for 50, and possibly not for 100 or more. Cashiers, bank tellers, gas station attendants, telephone operators, welders, whatever. Looks like burger flippers (thanks, minimum wage increase!) and taxi drivers are on the chopping block next. Jobs get automated and new jobs replace them. We're still a long way from the time where all unskilled jobs are automated. When that happens, it'll be time for universal income.
But it's not going to be as utopian as it might seem. Most people will get bored, or fall down conspiracy rabbit holes, or fight with each other on Twitter. I'm not looking forward to this time at all, even though it's probably coming.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday August 24 2021, @01:50PM (2 children)
UBI will be a necessity then. It might be said that welfare is essentially a stupidly run UBI program.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @03:40PM
If UBI exists, is there even really an argument for government or capital? They simply become unnecessary hazards at that point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:05PM
UBI is a welfare program but whether or not it will be stupidly run remains to be seen. The critical factor is that by reducing paperwork and eliminating eligibility requirements overhead can be greatly reduced so that the majority of the money actually gets into the economy instead of being siphoned off by program management. We don't know yet how it will work out long term, both because economics in an inherently chaotic system and because politicians can mismanage anything, but with the continued elimination of unskilled labour (and increasingly skilled labour as well) by automation some sort of UBI or work program is going to be the only way that many people will be able to afford to eat. There are also long term psychological implications that we don't really understand yet either and it will probably take a generation or two to sort everything out.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 24 2021, @07:52AM (37 children)
Today, proles carry an EBT card to go shopping. With EBT, the proles will carry a different card, with a different logo on it. Maybe it will be a Visa or a Mastercard issued by the prole's bank. But it will work pretty much the same.
That "universal" part will confuse things. Everyone gets it, right? So, that will justify corporations seeking to lower the minimum wage. Whether that happens or not, corps are going to start cutting wages for everyone.
"Mr. Smith, you already get $xxxx from the government every month. You don't need #xx/hour to make ends meet. If you won't take a voluntary pay cut, we're going to have to let you go, and give your job to that kid willing to work for $0.75/hour."
Major readjustments are on the horizon, and I don't think many people are going to like how the adjustments work out. It's back to medieval peasants and privileged class, with a much smaller middle class that caters to the privileged class' desires.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Tuesday August 24 2021, @08:17AM (3 children)
Mr. Smith's answer: ”Sure, I've got my universal basic income, I can afford being out of job for a while. Good luck finding that kid you speak of; remember that everyone gets that UBI. So you better pay what the work is worth, or you'll not get anyone to do it for you.”
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @02:54PM (2 children)
The basic mistake you make is that people are negotiating at the workplace. Men are negotiating in the market of sex. Women will only pick those who have better earnings than UBI and that will keep the proles on toe. Anyone who points this out will be labeled misogynist and banned from participating in society by financial and political and social institutions.
Just like now.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:39PM (1 child)
Serious incel alert! Plenty of women marry men that do not have great career prospects. Get back under your rock and think about your life choices!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @10:23AM
Can confirm. Pre-pandemic my ex offered to wed, based on my ability to think, talk, cook and fuck. She doesn't know the degree to which I have savings, and she pulls low six figs while I scrape by, working just enough to eat.
Now, I spend my spare time doing things that interest me, and that attracted her; she knew that if we had kids, that I'd be a good dad; it helps that I fuck ok, she was never unsatisfied (that I knew of); I also wasn't gold-digging, and didn't want her money (though did insist on going dutch since I didn't have her disposable income, and she wanted to eat out more than me). And I'm less attractive than her for sure.
We had other issues, which is too bad, because house hubby with her would've been decent otherwise.
Treat women like equals and the good ones don't mind splitting bills. Don't be a bum - cook, clean, etc - and lots of great women won't mind if your income isn't hefty. On the other hand, be an entitled, foolish, arrogant, loudmouthed, demanding manchild, and expect dates to evaporate as soon as you aren't paying for what is only your pleasure.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Mykl on Tuesday August 24 2021, @08:21AM (18 children)
It doesn't work that way in civilized countries.
Those who work are covered by minimum wage. Only those out of work qualify for UBI. UBI is lower than minimum full-time wage, but is actually enough to live off (not slave labour like the US minimums or unpaid internships).
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday August 24 2021, @08:50AM (1 child)
> Those who work are covered by minimum wage.
How do you incorporate part-time work? Existing social security schemes (what you are calling "UBI") in UK are broken because it is very challenging to support part time work in these systems...
One attractive model for UBI is that people choose their working hours according to how much more they want than UBI provides.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:09AM
In Oz, you can earn up to a certain amount, I think it is $150/fortnight, without losing any benefits. Earn more than that and they start reducing the benefit by half what you earn. i.e earn $250 and they reduce the benefit that fortnight by $50.
Typically, if the work was casual or part-time the prole would keep claiming the benefit until they had a permanent job even if the actual payment was reduced to zero. You'd have to report the amount earned each fortnight, but it saved the bother of cancelling and re-applying if the work stopped.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:00AM (12 children)
Disagree. That leading U? It stands for Universal.
That's the theory, yes. I'm yet to see a practical example that's as universal as the U suggests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Mykl on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:24AM (11 children)
The fact that it has the word Universal in it doesn't mean that everyone, employed or otherwise, has to receive it. What is means is that everyone is eligible for it provided their income is low enough.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:42AM (9 children)
Do you realize that the cost of managing who is entitled to UBI will be in excess of UBI itself after a while? Especially in a scenario where the workforce displaced by automation makes a non-trivial part of the society. Look at the heath care admin costs in US for where this path leads.
If UBI is implemented as a form of "redistribution of enough exiting wealth", why would one try to "make work" for it? Just to create another "UBI bureaucracy class" for it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Funny) by crafoo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:34AM (6 children)
Imagine being an owner of a robot production factory that realizes a rising population of UBI parasites only means more confiscation of his wealth. They produce nothing. They only consoooom and play their Nintendo switch and jack it to hentai.
Time to arm the robots and make some fertilizer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:50AM
Nintendo Switch Pro gonna be lit tho
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @12:28PM
So, you have to kill them because you're jealous of their lifestyle?
(Score: 5, Touché) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday August 24 2021, @01:20PM (1 child)
Now that all those people are fertilizer, who exactly is going to buy the owner's robot-built goods? Other robots?
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 25 2021, @01:41AM
If the robot don't need the owner to produce goods for other robots, how long 'til the owner is eliminated from the equation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 24 2021, @05:39PM (1 child)
Now and then one of you solipsistic sociopaths will accidentally break cover and say something out loud that reveals the depth of churning, poisonous evil in what passes for your hearts. This is one of those times. Holy shit. Even worse is that it doesn't even occur to you 1) what it is you're revealing about yourself and 2) why any normal, decent person would be utterly disgusted by it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @08:34PM
Agreed. The cringeworthy "Uncle Ruckus" screed is just one recent example of it. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @10:32AM (1 child)
...what?
You are using the USA's medical system as reference for efficiency?! It's not even a state-run system!
Look at Canada. Overhead for unemployment insurace is so low that the scheme turns a profit year over year (https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/reports/monitoring2015/chapter2.html) and the extraction is under 1% of income.
And that isn't univeral - there's more per capita overhead than for a UBI.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 25 2021, @01:32PM
Inefficiency.
Point: if you get UBI into "means-tested and granted only if to those without other means" you're growing a bureaucracy class whose job is in "made work".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:53AM
Now you're saying "What is means is that everyone is eligible for it provided their income is low enough."
Which again needs correction. You clearly haven't got a clue what UBI is. It's universal. No qualification required. Universal. Please stop spouting nonsense, in particular since you've already been corrected once.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @05:35PM
You're confusing "welfare" with "universal basic income".
The moment that it's means tested, it is no longer universal, which means that you're dealing with a welfare state. See the difference?
(Score: 2) by srobert on Tuesday August 24 2021, @06:08PM (1 child)
"Only those out of work qualify for UBI."
What does the U stand for then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @05:03AM
"Unemployed", obviously. c0lo has tried to educate them. But it is not working: see? "not working"= "Unemployed".
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:11AM
You wish. The "corporate/conglomerate feudalism" is more nightmarish.
Imagine the battles of medieval Europe but within the teritorry of the same cities - because market segmentation and industry specialization don't allow a single entity to be defined/cofined by a geography nor a single entity can cater to all the needs of the people in a given geography (e.g. two agri-conglomerates may "compete" to feed the same city, the energy corporation may already have eliminated the competition).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:56AM (8 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:32AM (7 children)
No that dream is the government not interfering with the total exploitation of the peasant.
It's more a libertarian nightmare, where the peasant can tell you "up yours" if you don't pay enough for their workforce since you can't gang press them into it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:43AM (6 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 24 2021, @05:50PM (5 children)
Then you must have noticed that so do essentially all the self-proclaimed "libertarians" on this site do too, no? Because what *they* say boils down to "fuck you, got mine, fuck the laws saying I should give a shit about anyone but myself." That is rather a different viewpoint than the dictionary definition...and yet...?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @06:36PM (3 children)
Care to cite or point to which "laws" those are that "say[ing] I should give a shit about anyone but myself"? Which laws are you referencing?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:11PM (2 children)
Progressive/bracketed taxation, OSHA, anything even approaching a social safety net, etc etc etc. Are you stupid or just evil?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 25 2021, @06:40AM (1 child)
It's almost as if societies were set up to be social. I don't understand the backlash against that.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @10:36AM
Right, exactly!
You're ignoring what stares you in the face. Your first statement implies it. The backlash is literally antisocial.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 25 2021, @06:55AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:31PM (1 child)
Wages for the working poor are already so low that they need government assistance to keep food on the table. Wallmart helps new employees sign up for food stamps because they've already reduced wages enough that their employees need it just to survive and the paperwork is complex enough that many of them need the help to navigate the system. Yes, that means that welfare becomes corporate welfare, but all working welfare becomes that in the end. Giving UBI to the middle and upper classes won't make much difference for them but it makes a huge difference for the poor in the amount of time and energy they have to put in to stay on the dole and the reduced management cost will more than pay for the increased number of recipients.
A really good example is school lunch programs: Some schools qualify for 'free lunch'*, which means that any and every student can walk into the cafeteria and get lunch with nothing more than their school ID. Schools that don't qualify are required to charge students who don't meet federal requirements.
In the first case some students get fed for 'free' who can afford to pay for it but every student gets fed.
In the second case students who aren't on the voucher system have to pay so they don't get fed if they forget their money. Students who can't afford it need to have their parents obtain and fill out forms each year or they don't get fed either. For many that lunch is the best (and in some cases only) meal they get every day. To top it off the school spends more money on the point of sale system than their entire food budget, never mind the paperwork costs.
So tell me, which system is better?
*Actually paid from school taxes.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:02PM
Things aren't quite that bad. If/when my boys showed up without money, they were fed. I would get a notice in the mail at the end of the month, informing me that I owed the school money for whichever days the charged. They have computers and stuff to take care of that kind of thing.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday August 25 2021, @04:34AM (1 child)
If the robots are doing all the "work" why should anyone do anything Mr. Bossman wants them to do? Doesn't he have robots enough to satisfy his wants? Sounds lie you are stuck on the old "rulers and slaves" model. Don't you think it's maybe well past time to be starting to evolve beyond beyond that mindset.
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 26 2021, @02:31AM
Not as long as we can't do it. If you want a unicorn-driven utopia, you need to start with unicorns. You want a post-scarcity economy, you need to start with the technology and infrastructure to support it.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday August 24 2021, @08:57AM (19 children)
Once upon a dark age, something like 97% of people worked in the fields: weeding, harvesting, threshing etc.. Not highly skilled labor, and now largely handled by machines under human guidance. A few menial jobs remain, but proportionally not very many.
Then, in a slightly less dark age, millions worked on assembly lines. Add part A to part B, turn screw C. Over and over again. Some training required, but not a lot. Now largely handled by machines, under human guidance. A few menial jobs remain, but proportionally not very many.
Today, it's burger-flipping robots and ordering kiosks that are replacing some jobs. In 10 or 20 years time, most fast-food restaurants will be highly automated. Truly nothing more than sit-down vending machines, run under human guidance. A few menial jobs will remain, but proportionally not very many.
Which brings us to the future: education is key. I don't mean college degrees - that's a different topic. I mean learning practical skills. There's still plenty to do. As the global standard of living continues to increase, new types of jobs appear to replace the old ones lost to automation. The thing is: they *all* require some degree of training and education. There are fewer and fewer places for people with no useful skills, and who refuse to acquire such skills.
Here's the question: why is this my problem? I'm not against a social safety net for people who really need it. Maybe they're injured. Maybe they lost their job in a dying industry and need retraining. Maybe sh!t happened, because it does. But a permanent UBI, for anyone and everyone, with no requirement that they at least *attempt* to contribute to society? That would be a hard "no".
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @09:35AM (8 children)
it's your problem because if half the people on the planet are without food and shelter, they will do everything in their power to take it by force.
are you blind and deaf? what right do people hunted by the taliban have to leave afghanistan? and yet they leave, and they end up in other people's countries.
in the long term, it will be a choice between giving away some form of UBI, or fighting those who need the UBI (or paying guards/police/soldiers to do the fighting).
your opinion on whether or not this is your problem doesn't matter, it WILL be your problem (or your kids problem, whatever).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:11AM
When you get hungry enough, Eat The Rich becomes literal.
"Table for the Donner party"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 26 2021, @02:52AM (6 children)
"IF". I'll note that we're moving the opposite direction right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 27 2021, @01:32AM (5 children)
Right now, yes. But that is a result of several independent trends. Total wealth is increasing, "rising tide lifts all boats" etc, but income disparity is also increasing, and at an increasing rate. If automation accelerates the disparity trend enough the bottom portion could easily start trending down again.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 27 2021, @01:45AM (4 children)
"IF". I don't think disparity or automation by themselves is going to deliver on this. Bad government regulation/corruption OTOH has a great deal of potential.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 27 2021, @03:23AM (3 children)
Automation disproportionately displaces lower paid/lower skilled workers. The more of them out of work, the lower basic wages go. Automation's ability to increase income disparity should not be underestimated.
When a factory that used to employ 300 people now has one owner, 2 accountants, 2 engineers, 6 robot techs and 12 store people you now have 277 people out of work. Given that there are now 277 out of work people who could do their job, do you think the store-person wage is going to even keep up with inflation?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 27 2021, @04:06AM (2 children)
And yet they still get employed at higher total compensation.
The problem here is that reality isn't following the narrative.
You have 277 people freed to go to more productive work. And they do. I think instead we need to look at the obstructions to employing these people and their needs. The more we can lower the non-wage costs of employing people or the more we can lower cost of living, the better they will be with more income relative to their needs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 27 2021, @06:40AM (1 child)
If you are referring to your past claims that "total compensation" is increasing because medical expenses are covered I would dispute that. Claiming that a ridiculously expensive medical/insurance scam is part of your wages is bad enough when you actually have coverage. A large percentage of bottom tier workers and a majority of unemployed do not even have that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 27 2021, @09:50PM
Disparity and automation doesn't explain that. I'm going with "bad government regulation/corruption" as the source.
All those benefits, no matter how inflated or scammish you think they are, still cost the employer and still have similar value to the employee (else they would be taking wages in their place). Disregarding them is foolish.
I'll note that large parts of the world don't have the US's problems. It's time to look at what works rather than embrace narratives that haven't come true in centuries of prediction.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:18AM
“We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat. That’s dynamite!" [medium.com]
Education on lifetime paid loans only go that far, once a person gets educated s/he'll will find ways to screw the people with money in more ways than they can ever imagine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Opportunist on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:36AM (5 children)
You kinda ignore the problem that intelligence is distributed on a gauss curve. And the jobs that require an IQ below room temperature are on the way out. What do you do with people who cannot be trained to do the jobs that are left?
The intelligence requirements get higher and higher. What are you going to do with those that simply cannot be retrained to a new job because they simply don't grasp what's required to get a job in the future?
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday August 25 2021, @04:54AM (1 child)
You seem to think ignorance can't be fixed. Intelligence is actually having information and tools.
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday August 25 2021, @07:35AM
Ignorance can be fixed. But with some people it isn't just ignorance. They really don't understand.
You have to accept that people are not fungible. You cannot make someone into something they are simply and plainly incapable of. For the longest time I tried to learn how to play the guitar. I just can't do it. I spent countless hours trying and practicing, and still it ain't something you'd want to hear. Fortunately for me, this isn't exactly a skill that is in high demand by our industry, but if it wasn't my hands but my brains that are incapable, I'd be fucked.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 26 2021, @02:58AM
Is "intelligence" of the sort distributed on a Gauss curve of use to anyone?
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday August 27 2021, @06:44AM (1 child)
Assuming you are an American talking Fahrenheit, I think you are still understating the case. Jobs with an IQ lower than a Texas summer afternoon are going away.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday August 27 2021, @08:38AM
Well, I sure ain't talking Kelvin. Else Mr. Hawking would have had trouble holding down a job.
(Score: 0, Troll) by crafoo on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:43AM (1 child)
100% agree. UBI is simply communism rebranded for the new young and dumb.
The lack of basic economic knowledge on this thread so far is about what I expected. Not a single person has even mentioned where they think the “money” for UBI Will come from. Someone else not them of course. Listen up dumb farm animals, once you eat the rich you go straight to the work camps. You will meet the daily quota or you will be shot.
I have no pity for you stupid domesticated parasites. Your culling will be horrific, brutal, and well deserved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @05:23PM
Your post says a lot about you and no one else.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @05:46PM
Yeah, and they only spent 150 days or so working for someone else (in most cases) and the remainder they were left to work for themselves. And the structure was different, they weren't constantly under the gun having some middle manager who had a chain of command of 2 dozen other wholly useless branches of management screaming and hollering that the toy car quota needed to go up. If Graeber is correct in his assertions, most of this work was done sporadically, at high pace with hard work, and then rest which today would be called slacking and merit discipline. It was also confined to the sun cycle, that's noteworthy considering that shiftwork is a killer - literally. And it's enabled by technology and a particularly wanton desire to maximize production, and is often not compensated despite either the higher production or the risk involved. It's also tracked, these days, to the resolution of seconds. And with obscene surveillance through metrics and technologies. And if you consider the unaccounted costs of increased need for medical treatment as a product it's probably a net negative, and especially when you consider the disparity between compensation and inflation; especially inflation of medical costs. I've heard postulations that the DuPont schedule, also known as the 28-day rotation, was deliberately designed to kill people before they could draw pensions.
The human expense of mechanization is huge, you're absolutely blind if you don't consider the profound importance of meaningful labor. You're absolutely blind if you think production is the apex of design. Even historians that push textbooks narrate the changes from the previous mode of labor to the current as a painful transition. It also pressured prices and thus labor to the point that it destroyed multi-generational labor arrangements and with it the communities they supported. This moved humanity away from itself, which was quite probably furthered by the way debt was structured, moving from a community system to an institutional system. This was never even allowed to be questioned.
As far as automation is concerned, it's fairly evident you're incorrect. Despite the free-market fairy tale most people espouse there are a litany of wholly inefficient positions in nigh-every supply chain. Middle managers that "organize" self-organizing staff, for example. The secondary education administrative staff that have been ballooning out of control for decades in public... And even moreso in private institutions. And this goes all the way up to executives. Uber did fine when the C-suite was vacant, for example. Many of these low-product roles could be eliminated outright or very simply automated without any meaningful impact, other than distributing the wealth down that is... Some roles have net-negative outcomes, like telemarketing. Employment can neither be too high, nor too low. Too high and the proles get leverage to demand higher wages, too low and they lose leverage, lose wages, and so companies lose consumer demand and thus profit. On the political side, reducing employment in any regard is seen as a damnable sin regardless of context which creates the perverse feedback loop. Creating employment, however pointless the positions, is seen universally as one of the highest achievements, so long as it doesn't press the labor market into sell side favor.
--
Freud, Civlization and its Discontents:
"There is an added factor of disappointment. In recent generations the human race has made extraordinary advances in the natural sciences and their technical application, and it has increased its control over nature in a way that would previously have been unimaginable. The details of these advances are generally known and need not be enumerated. Human beings are proud of these achievements, and rightly so. Yet they believe they have observed that this newly won mastery over space and time, this subjugation of the forces of nature – the fulfilment of an age-old longing – has not increased the amount of pleasure they can expect from life or made them feel any happier. We ought to be content to infer from this observation that power over nature is not the sole condition of human happiness, just as it is not the sole aim of cultural endeavours, rather than to conclude that technical progress is of no value in the economy of our happiness. By way of objection it might be asked whether it is not a positive addition to my pleasure, an unequivocal increment of my happiness, if I can hear, as often as I wish, the voice of the child who lives hundreds of miles away, or if a friend can inform me, shortly after reaching land, that he has survived his long and arduous voyage. Is it of no importance that medicine has succeeded in significantly reducing infant mortality and the risk of infection to women in childbirth, and in adding a good many years to the average life-span of civilized man? We can cite many such benefits that we owe to the much-despised era of scientific and technical advances. At this point, however, the voice of pessimistic criticism makes itself heard, reminding us that most of these satisfactions follow the pattern of the ‘cheap pleasure’ recommended in a certain joke, a pleasure that one can enjoy by sticking a bare leg out from under the covers on a cold winter’s night, then pulling it back in. If there were no railway to overcome distances, my child would never have left his home town, and I should not need the telephone in order to hear his voice. If there were no sea travel, my friend would not have embarked on his voyage, and I should not need the telegraph service in order to allay my anxiety about him. What is the good of the reduction of infant mortality if it forces us to practise extreme restraint in the procreation of children, with the result that on the whole we rear no more children than we did before hygiene became all-important, but have imposed restraints on sexual life within marriage and probably worked against the benefits of natural selection? And finally, what good is a long life to us if it is hard, joyless and so full of suffering that we can only welcome death as a deliverer?."
Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London:
"I believe that this instinct to perpetuate useless work is, at bottom, simply fear of the mob. The mob (the thought runs) are such low animals that they would be dangerous if they had leisure; it is safer to keep them too busy to think. A rich man who happens to be intellectually honest, if he is questioned about the improvement of working conditions, usually says something like this:
‘We know that poverty is unpleasant; in fact, since it is so remote, we rather enjoy harrowing ourselves with the thought of its unpleasantness. But don’t expect us to do anything about it. We are sorry for you lower classes, just as we are sorry for a cat with the mange, but we will fight like devils against any improvement of your condition. We feel that you are much safer as you are. The present state of affairs suits us, and we are not going to take the risk of setting you free, even by an extra hour a day. So, dear brothers, since evidently you must sweat to pay for our trips to Italy, sweat and be damned to you.’"
--
But yes, do prattle on about how corporate lawyers are contributing to society. How C-suite parasites are doing 1000x the work of their actual producers. How middle management creates value. Wax poetic about the contributions that the MIC makes every time the US decides to fire off a missile at some goatherd in a mudhut an ocean away. How our unaccountable representatives produce so very much organizing our government against we the people while collecting sizeable sums of money and pensions and power and newer better jobs. Tell me about how people in the financial sector do so much good with their unfettered power. Do go on, friend.
Or we could acknowledge that this absurd hierarchical organization has completely crushed itself by growing to monstrous proportions. That some 30-40% of workers could very well be doing what is quite literally pointless as they collectively input whole lives worth of manhours everyday to no end. That real streamlining could diminish the workday on a grandiose scale and massively improve the whole condition of the world simply by the dint of saying "You don't need to commute an hour every day." by saying "You have time to cook." by saying "You've got the wherewithal to watch your own children." by saying "You can cancel therapy." And it could be done while offering people decent income.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:17AM (19 children)
UBI is a half assed ideological attempt to keep the abused working class from disturbing the status quo.
A much better solution would be violent extermination of finance, merch and military/enforcement/intelligence communities and other career criminals, who created the current status quo and profit from peoples suffering.
And by "better", i mean an actual solution and not continuuous removal of symptoms.
With UBI, the exploitation, lack of responsibility for the fellow man and lies of the "modern" societies will continue.
No wonder they push it it all over as an actual alternative we should debate.
It is not a solution to any problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:20AM (17 children)
Enlighten us, oh mighty AC, what that "actual solution" entail?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @10:55AM (16 children)
Can't you read, man?
Let me paraphrase it so you understand:
Those who profit from current human societies want to continue to abuse others and will propose any solution except those that can work.
Mainly because the only workable solution is to remove them and their ideological descendants (from positions where they do no work and take all the profit).
Something that these people understand very well.
You can not fix that kind of stupid that says "i have a god given right to rule/manifest destiny/i'm better" etc.
No amount of wingnuttery or debate will suffice.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:02AM (7 children)
Impossible with UBI, as the "others" can simply opt out of any deal that they don't like the sound of. That's the whole point of UBI.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:21AM (5 children)
The problem is not poor having too little power and money, the problem is rich and powerful cementing people in their situations, something that UBI will make even worse...
And think of all the wonderful side effects, everyone needs to receive cash, so now they need a bank account and an electronic identity... Oh, someone cheated with UBI, lets implement AML/KYC...
Why do you refuse to see where this road leads?
And the other thing, Roman Empire have tried it with bread and circuses, it did not help them.
Why do you think that American Federal Empire can be different this time, with UBI and federal censorship of the "cyberspace"?!
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:40AM (4 children)
Actually the whole panem et circenses spiel kept the empire running for quite a while, at least as long as they had colonies to exploit. So if you can keep the US military power able to exploit the rest of the world, you should be fine.
Which is of course harder to pull off if you can't get people to "volunteer" for your army because they have no other chance to dig themselves out of the poverty hole, I give you that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:53AM (3 children)
But that is what i mean exactly! "If you can keep the US military power able to exploit the rest of the world, you should be fine." - how can such level of barbaric brutality ever be represented as fine, unless one is a heartless demon from hell?
Even if one profits from such an arrangement, one is still guilty by association...
Not implying you are,at all, just trying to illustrate that the problem with UBI is not economics or sociology, its this.
It makes abolition of state impossible.
And look whos twatting about it, its the Pavlik Morozov 2 :D
( for those living in a tank, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov [wikipedia.org] )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @03:25PM
Not living in a tank, but had only a vague memory of the
> Pavlik Morozov
story.
The Wikipedia article gives several different interpretations of the story--which do you believe?
+ The kid was initially a Hero of the Communist state
+ "What a little swine, denouncing his own father," is one remark attributed to Stalin.[2]
+ More recently,
> While not saying it outright, Druzhnikov hints that Pavlik was killed by a GPU officer, whom Druzhnikov met while doing his research.
And several others that contradict each other. Sounds to me like stereotypical Russian behavior--if at first you aren't confused, spread some more rumors! For the luls!!
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday August 24 2021, @05:46PM (1 child)
At this point, though, it is entirely unsustainable to even think about giving the whole world the living standard the average American enjoys. I hope I don't have to point out that we are even in this situation we're now already using more resources than the planet can regenerate. Quite seriously, if China used resources like the US did, we could all literally start our SUVs once more and then park them forever. Because then we're done with fossil fuels.
And the same is true with food, power, water, everything.
So what's your solution?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 27 2021, @03:59AM
There is one way, but it could be harsh. If you could get Russia on board and issue a joint declaration that says "All country borders as they are now are considered sovereign and unchangeable. All military assets in foreign countries are to be repatriated immediately. As of 30 days from now, any military unit in any country not their own will be grounds for a nuclear attack on both the unit and the capital of their home country."
Everyone everywhere could drastically cut their military spending and resource waste.
Heinlein proposed something similar (minus Russia) back when only the USA had atomic weapons. He called it "Pax Americana"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:25AM
"others" can simply opt out of any deal - yes, and then the government declares you a terrorist and closes your bank account.
What do you do now?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:43AM (7 children)
Ok, you want to get rid of the abusers of society ... and replace them with what?
Looking down human history and the revolutions that swept away tyrants, I can't really say the track record of them being replaced with something far better is really that convincing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @11:59AM (1 child)
It's a continuous process, part of societal dynamics. I'ts not meant to stop or provide a perfect solution, as humans adapt and devise new strategies to corrupt the existing institutions.
I'd say the current status quo is unnatural, and one should not be afraid of things changing radically.
A forest fire would be an apt comparison. It destroys, so that new things may grow.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday August 24 2021, @05:42PM
The problem is that after the forest fire the forest doesn't get to regrow naturally but instead some other forest ranger comes around and plants his favorite trees to replace the ones that burned down. It's not like this does improve the overall forest climate, it's just replacing one crappy system with another one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @12:44PM (4 children)
Why do they need to be replaced? Neither I nor my neighbors need government forcing us to do the right thing or be good people. Rather, government enables evil psychopaths to leech and exploit society for their own gain.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @12:59PM (2 children)
hehehe, mainly because one of your neighbors or you yourself will become the next brigade leader once you have accumulated enough cultural or financial capital.
It's built in into the human monkey, the group->village->city->province->state->empire progression, known as "state building".
The re-production will happen, or you willl interbreed with whoever conquers you.
Rejecting this is not an option (as far as i know).
And there is nothing else in human existence, its either reproduction or rejection...
Its not about having a stable or super-unstable society, its about something called "criticality".
The capacity for rapid change, fast.
In governance-crazy societies, where there is very little criticality (due to surveillance, identities, automated punishment and misdirection and lies), dare i say there is no life, merely existence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @06:18AM (1 child)
That is not in fact state building, there are examples of egalitarian states that transcended the need of state (Indus Valley Civilization). To further refute that, there are still peoples to this day who are isolated. Your conjecture that government is innate is wrong. You're also pressing a historicist narrative, past performance does not predict future results. Spell that out for me. We've been in a new era for a long time, we've never been in a state so capable of rejecting governance.
The larger the system the greater the inertia. It's part and parcel of why we see the continuous decrement to life in America. Maybe someone can elucidate us on if that was the intentions of succession, lobbing off states as they hit some watermark, like grown children.
Criticality is a red herring when you're operating with imperfect information, one false move and the state comes tumbling down. Highly adaptive and diverse, that's what you don't get out of China. That was what America once was, it's also what we've lost. Homogenized thought, public education, secondary ed is highly uniform, business is "professionalized", tow the line or be struck from the list of those viable until you learn your lesson.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @07:34PM
When you need an issued credential to work... you work at the pleasure of whoever controls the credentials.
Credential requirements have increased rampantly in America over the past few decades.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday August 25 2021, @06:47AM
You might wanna try out Somalia, it seems to be quite the utopia you're looking for.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 24 2021, @05:03PM
I take it you're volunteering to put yourself at the head of that list? /sarc
I have a much better solution. How about we not do that? My bet is that people implementing murder lists would be way ahead of the exploitation cooties for problems that need to be removed from society.