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: 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?