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: 5, Funny) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday October 15 2018, @07:39AM (20 children)
I don't know... When I see my cat living its life blissfully unaware of how the food gets in its bowl with perfect regularity, how the electronic catflap keeps on working, and why it has a warn bed to cuddle onto every night, I find the thought of letting myself be turned into a pet by the state strangely appealing.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @08:14AM (8 children)
The difference is your pets don't get to vote and their reproductive rights can be regulated/removed by you.
As long as you can in theory vote the government out, stand for election etc you are not a pet.
That said, if the economy isn't good enough, reproductive rights might eventually need to be regulated[1] - can't keep breeding for indiscriminate breeders. It might never become a big enough problem to regulate though.
[1] As long as you're a pet of the state, you can't have more than X children, unless other people donate their quota to you or you get sponsors to pay upfront the entire total costs of supporting your extra kids.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:02AM
The perfect designation for career welfare recipients.
However, as with abandoned pets, the alternatives are either inhumane, or a danger to the public.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 15 2018, @09:17AM (3 children)
If you live long enough, you realize that both of them are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things we call life - you can no longer do first and, for the second, it doesn't bring any change you think to be good.
Now, get off from my lawn (large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:56AM (2 children)
Isn't that backwards? You can no longer do the second (or never were able to) while the first is taken away from you.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 15 2018, @10:18AM (1 child)
I... can't remember, it may well be.See, the mind is the second thing to go (grin)
Have you gotten off from my lawn yet? (large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @01:47PM
First, they went for my reproductive organs and I was a bit upset over that.
Then the dumb ones got removed from power and they went after my brain. Things worked out smoothly after that.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday October 15 2018, @05:40PM (2 children)
Statistically speaking, the breeding problem is solved by making birth control extremely available. Most people have at least some understanding that parenting is a job. If for whatever reason you can't hold a paying job and need to rely on UBI, you probably aren't looking to pick up a non-paying job that's really hard to get fired from. And if you are holding a paying job, you probably don't have the time to pick up a non-paying one.
When pregnancy is an optional result of sex, it turns out that few people opt in. Those that do tend to limit themselves to between 1 and 3.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:41PM (1 child)
We evolved to have some restraint. This kept us from diverting resources to adopted kids. Also, it barely mattered, because there was no birth control.
Now the environment has changed. Evolution hasn't caught up yet, but it will. Birth control is the primary influence on genetic fitness. Those who overcome birth control, by any means, will pass on their DNA.
Today, a tiny portion of the population is having large families. Pretend all the other people don't exist; they are going extinct anyway due to low birth rates. That tiny population will grow exponentially until it hits hard resource limits.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:02PM
What is that, the Idiocracy hypothesis? If you don't have any science to back up your claims, all you're doing is perpetuating speculative pseudoscience. Would you please stop? This kind of unsubstantiated bullshit being passed off as science makes creationists think their "theory" is just as valid as evolution.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:51AM (7 children)
Your cat is your slave. It is your property, you own it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:07AM (6 children)
If you'd ever "owned" a cat, you'd realize it's the other way round.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @01:27PM (3 children)
Only at the most superficial level. It is your property, and you are responsible for it in every meaningful way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @02:06PM (2 children)
That's not how cats see things, their "owner" is a source of food and warmth. Cats and dogs domesticated themselves. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @02:49PM (1 child)
The cat's opinion such as it stands is irrelevant. It is your property by law, and you bear legal responsibility for it, both for its actions and its welfare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @04:43PM
Your opinion such as it stands is irrelevant to my cat. Cats are not slaves, they domesticated themselves in what remains a mutually beneficial relationship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @01:58PM (1 child)
I have owned cats before (mostly manx). If your pet owns you, you are a weak person which is believable.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 15 2018, @07:10PM
No, it's not the pet who owns him. It's the parasite that owns both the cat and the human. The toxoplasma gondii has actually domesticated both felines and humans, and carefully structured a dependency between the two species.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/08/18/crazy-cat-love-caused-by-parasitic-infection/#ixzz20qtNR465 [time.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.