4 ms·

Yet being part of society is something that people desire deeply, so it's possible that they'll just make their own work. I found Tim O'Reilly's musing on Eco

Yet being part of society is something that people desire deeply, so it's possible that they'll just make their own work. I found Tim O'Reilly's musing on Econtalk last year (link - http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/10/tim_oreilly_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/10/tim_oreilly_on.html) to be persuasive - he posited that in a potential future where a min income is necessary, humans will spend a lot more time entertaining each other. Hey, Harry Potter was written while JK Rowling was "on the dole" and a lot of my favorite Twitch streamers (who have raised Street Fighter to both art and science) also seem to be awfully unoccupied Brits... I actually wrote an album during a brief unemployed period - see moneyhousegold.bandcamp.com - so I tend to imagine a society without need of work as a potential creative Golden Age in the making.

harryh 10y ago
Why won't the people doing all that work to entertain each other earn an income for doing so, thus making it so a min income isn't necessary?
- undersuit 10y ago
  Then there is no safe way to fail. It would discourage innovation. You would have to stay with what works; even if you don't like it, it's getting harder to iterate, or there is a solid wall in the near future that you know you can't cross.
  - harryh 10y ago
    Well now you've significantly lowered the benefit of a UBI in our fully automated future. Before it was "if we don't do this then 90% of people will literally have no money and won't be able to live." You've changed it to "innovation among entertainers will be discouraged." I think you might be able to get people on board to support the first justification. The second one is going to be a lot harder to sell.
    - undersuit 10y ago
      I did no such thing. I only countered one specific scenario that you proposed. Both justifications exists, along with an multitude more justifications.

harryh 10y ago

Why won't the people doing all that work to entertain each other earn an income for doing so, thus making it so a min income isn't necessary?

undersuit 10y ago
Then there is no safe way to fail. It would discourage innovation. You would have to stay with what works; even if you don't like it, it's getting harder to iterate, or there is a solid wall in the near future that you know you can't cross.
- harryh 10y ago
  Well now you've significantly lowered the benefit of a UBI in our fully automated future. Before it was "if we don't do this then 90% of people will literally have no money and won't be able to live." You've changed it to "innovation among entertainers will be discouraged." I think you might be able to get people on board to support the first justification. The second one is going to be a lot harder to sell.
  - undersuit 10y ago
    I did no such thing. I only countered one specific scenario that you proposed. Both justifications exists, along with an multitude more justifications.