I like to do this though experiment sometimes. Let's assume some sort of Basic Income is enacted. A standard livable amount for all adults, that will scale wit

I like to do this though experiment sometimes. Let's assume some sort of Basic Income is enacted. A standard livable amount for all adults, that will scale with inflation, and even with number of dependents. Some people will still work. Will still pursue hard working jobs that contribute to society, that push our capabilities as a species forward, and add value (important). But think about most of the world and people that you know...I'd imagine that on average, people would elect to not choose to - for lack of a better term - "work hard" to boost their income if their basic needs are covered. Some folks would just love to let others take the wheel, and enjoy their netflix and soylent in peace. This needs proof of course, but I believe that's an assumption we can make for sake of discussion. Now...we all know that automation is coming. Already we see many of the tasks that humans depend on for survival and prosperity being done faster and more efficiently with artificial intelligence and robotics. Things like harvesting natural resources, agriculture, production of goods, and even building infrastructures. The responsibility of these tasks is shifting away from the people, and into the hands (clamps?) of specialized machines. So, assuming 1) we have individuals who are having their needs provided for, but not making a measurable contribution to the survival of the species/system and 2) we are trending toward automation and hyper optimization for all the processes that we depend on for survival...when do AI and/or algorithms start to find that certain people are not worth being provided for? Who manages these systems? Someone that we elect? An artificial entity? I'd honestly love to hear others thoughts on this. I know I would rather fight and claw for survival than pray to someone that they don't choose me to shoot off into space.