6 ms·

If I were Sam A. instead of (or in addition to) funding UBI, I would fund R&D projects which enable people to live as off grid and self-sufficiently as possible

by jpao79 9y ago

If I were Sam A. instead of (or in addition to) funding UBI, I would fund R&D projects which enable people to live as off grid and self-sufficiently as possible with all the comforts of urban/suburban living without all the costs. Basically strive to enable Amish style living but instead of trying to maintain an complete early 19th way of life, include elements which are near free due to automated manufacturing. You supply the land (lot in an exurban area near a major metro with a temperate climate) and labor and the rest is available at a minimal recurring cost. 1.) Housing - Permit ready Ikea like house with mail order pre-cut 2x4 and panels 2.) Energy - Solar charged battery/heating/cooling 3.) Transportation - 4 wheeled e-mountain bike 4.) Clothing - Target/Walmart 5.) Food - Self grown heirloom tomatoes, quinoa with store bought supplements such as cheap corn, meats, etc. 6.) Telecom - Long Range Wifi Receiver or Internet Cafe 7.) Education - Khan Academy, home schooling 8.) Entertainment - Youtube by DVD The first two minutes of this video are pretty interesting/inspiring (not that I'm ready to drop everything to start a farm or anything...yet): Urban Farmer Curtis Stone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHls2HEFudw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHls2HEFudw TLDR - Farming can teach you a lot about yourself.

Suncho 9y ago
> If I were Sam A. instead of (or in addition to) funding UBI, I would fund R&D projects which enable people to live as off grid and self-sufficiently as possible with all the comforts of urban/suburban living without all the costs. This would be a mistake. Self-sufficiency is very inefficient. By pooling our resources, we can live much more sustainably and prosperously. If everybody in the world tried to live like the Amish, we'd destroy the planet in no time. That lifestyle was only sustainable when there were far fewer humans.
- contingencies 9y ago
  Self-sufficiency is very inefficient. By pooling our resources, we can live much more sustainably and prosperously. Let's draw a parallel to cloud computing versus standalone computing, for the sake of familiarity. While you sure can get reliable and scalable storage services for less money from a fat cloud provider, they're not equivalent to personally owned storage. For example access times and performance differ, mutually shared human language and the communications infrastructure become critical. Let's draw a parallel to a windmill for flour production or a castle for military defence within a small community. What you wind up with is a de-facto political hierarchy emerging from centralization with its own dangers and overheads. In summary perhaps nature has shown us that population-wide specialization is inefficient in the long term, and we should encourage diversity to survive black swan events... there is a middle ground between total self-sufficiency and totally shared infrastructure. The important thing is that we preserve a mix of approaches.
  - jpao79 9y ago
    Great analogy. To take it further, what happens if/when Amazon and Google are the only providers of any sort of cloud computing technology because all of the independent computing providers are defunct and no one knows how to make servers/disk drivers/SSDs except those two companies. Will they benevolently keep the price of computing storage low? How about once Jeff Bezos and Larry Page are no longer founders? Then apply that thinking to Monsanto, Tyson, Archer Daniels and their pricing power on food staples.
- jpao79 9y ago
  I think the main thoughts/focus areas are: 1.) Remove the pricing power on the primary drivers of inflation (urban land, oil&gas, electricity, non-staple food crops, education, unnecessary luxury novelties) so that people are not indebt 2.) When everything in life is automated/delivered via Amazon drone, people especially those living in a rural areas and/or those not technically inclined for remote SW work) a low cost, sustainable reason to get going in the morning. To me, urban farming fits the bill. If done right, after a small startup cost/environmental impact, the long term steady state inputs and outputs are biodegradable. If you are busy with your tomatoes then you are less likely to channel your energy to less productive pursuits (mindless consumerism, illegal activities, discontentment) 3.) Always on fiber optic video conferencing in public spaces in rural townsquares so that there's less fear of missing out on urban/suburban life.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    The driver of inflation is the government printing money in excess of the wealth in the economy. The dollar is subject to the forces of supply & demand just like everything else.
- carapace 9y ago
  > By pooling our resources, we can live much more sustainably and prosperously. This is a very good point, and the basis of a lot of Bucky Fuller's work. He phrased it as being the most efficient when working for the good of the most people, and so accordingly all his design had global context. At one point he designed cities with domes over them!
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Self-sufficiency is inefficient, but specialization has enabled greater and greater consumption rather than reduced impact. If everybody lived like the Amish we might need to farm more land, but for example there wouldn't be much in the way of fossil fuel exploitation or mineral extraction.
gamblor956 9y ago
You've just described the SoCal suburbia...but with backyard farms and solar rooftops and worse internet.
- jpao79 9y ago
  Yup, but with the important distinction being that it is achieved without piles of student loan debt, home mortgage debt and monopoly utility bills (Comcast cable, PG&E), etc. Plus since you're busy farming, you're too busy to go to the mall and therefore don't need a fancy car and latest wardrobe.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    Sends like I've heard of that before... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent-down_youth?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent-down_youth?wprov=sfla1
    - jpao79 9y ago
      Fair point. I think the main thought is can the concept be revisited? Definitely using a market driven pull model versus a forced pushed model of course. Does the advent of the following change the equation: 1.) Amazon on-demand self driving delivery 2.) Free, fully automated production of consumer staples 2.) Lower cost broadband with low cost education like Khan academy and free crowdsourced entertainment like Youtube 3.) Cheap renewable energy/batteries 4.) Other solutions from Sam A/YC funded startups
longerthoughts 9y ago
This speaks to me personally but think about what happens if you try to practically apply this beyond an experimental phase. When members of some of these communities start to see others that have developed more favorably, they're likely to converge on them, resulting in heavily populated urban centers and decreasingly populated rural areas like have now.
- jpao79 9y ago
  The concept would be to specifically fund projects and startups which specifically accelerate the process of making lower cost of living places like Pittsburg, Detroit, Fresno more enjoyable places to live (farmers markets, food trucks, etc.) so that people don't get stuck in overpriced coastal cities due to fear of missing out. Kinda of like what PG describes here. http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html

by jpao79 9y ago

Suncho 9y ago

> If I were Sam A. instead of (or in addition to) funding UBI, I would fund R&D projects which enable people to live as off grid and self-sufficiently as possible with all the comforts of urban/suburban living without all the costs. This would be a mistake. Self-sufficiency is very inefficient. By pooling our resources, we can live much more sustainably and prosperously. If everybody in the world tried to live like the Amish, we'd destroy the planet in no time. That lifestyle was only sustainable when there were far fewer humans.

contingencies 9y ago
Self-sufficiency is very inefficient. By pooling our resources, we can live much more sustainably and prosperously. Let's draw a parallel to cloud computing versus standalone computing, for the sake of familiarity. While you sure can get reliable and scalable storage services for less money from a fat cloud provider, they're not equivalent to personally owned storage. For example access times and performance differ, mutually shared human language and the communications infrastructure become critical. Let's draw a parallel to a windmill for flour production or a castle for military defence within a small community. What you wind up with is a de-facto political hierarchy emerging from centralization with its own dangers and overheads. In summary perhaps nature has shown us that population-wide specialization is inefficient in the long term, and we should encourage diversity to survive black swan events... there is a middle ground between total self-sufficiency and totally shared infrastructure. The important thing is that we preserve a mix of approaches.
- jpao79 9y ago
  Great analogy. To take it further, what happens if/when Amazon and Google are the only providers of any sort of cloud computing technology because all of the independent computing providers are defunct and no one knows how to make servers/disk drivers/SSDs except those two companies. Will they benevolently keep the price of computing storage low? How about once Jeff Bezos and Larry Page are no longer founders? Then apply that thinking to Monsanto, Tyson, Archer Daniels and their pricing power on food staples.
jpao79 9y ago
I think the main thoughts/focus areas are: 1.) Remove the pricing power on the primary drivers of inflation (urban land, oil&gas, electricity, non-staple food crops, education, unnecessary luxury novelties) so that people are not indebt 2.) When everything in life is automated/delivered via Amazon drone, people especially those living in a rural areas and/or those not technically inclined for remote SW work) a low cost, sustainable reason to get going in the morning. To me, urban farming fits the bill. If done right, after a small startup cost/environmental impact, the long term steady state inputs and outputs are biodegradable. If you are busy with your tomatoes then you are less likely to channel your energy to less productive pursuits (mindless consumerism, illegal activities, discontentment) 3.) Always on fiber optic video conferencing in public spaces in rural townsquares so that there's less fear of missing out on urban/suburban life.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  The driver of inflation is the government printing money in excess of the wealth in the economy. The dollar is subject to the forces of supply & demand just like everything else.
carapace 9y ago
> By pooling our resources, we can live much more sustainably and prosperously. This is a very good point, and the basis of a lot of Bucky Fuller's work. He phrased it as being the most efficient when working for the good of the most people, and so accordingly all his design had global context. At one point he designed cities with domes over them!
sliverstorm 9y ago
Self-sufficiency is inefficient, but specialization has enabled greater and greater consumption rather than reduced impact. If everybody lived like the Amish we might need to farm more land, but for example there wouldn't be much in the way of fossil fuel exploitation or mineral extraction.

gamblor956 9y ago

You've just described the SoCal suburbia...but with backyard farms and solar rooftops and worse internet.

jpao79 9y ago
Yup, but with the important distinction being that it is achieved without piles of student loan debt, home mortgage debt and monopoly utility bills (Comcast cable, PG&E), etc. Plus since you're busy farming, you're too busy to go to the mall and therefore don't need a fancy car and latest wardrobe.
- mcguire 9y ago
  Sends like I've heard of that before... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent-down_youth?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent-down_youth?wprov=sfla1
  - jpao79 9y ago
    Fair point. I think the main thought is can the concept be revisited? Definitely using a market driven pull model versus a forced pushed model of course. Does the advent of the following change the equation: 1.) Amazon on-demand self driving delivery 2.) Free, fully automated production of consumer staples 2.) Lower cost broadband with low cost education like Khan academy and free crowdsourced entertainment like Youtube 3.) Cheap renewable energy/batteries 4.) Other solutions from Sam A/YC funded startups

longerthoughts 9y ago

This speaks to me personally but think about what happens if you try to practically apply this beyond an experimental phase. When members of some of these communities start to see others that have developed more favorably, they're likely to converge on them, resulting in heavily populated urban centers and decreasingly populated rural areas like have now.

jpao79 9y ago
The concept would be to specifically fund projects and startups which specifically accelerate the process of making lower cost of living places like Pittsburg, Detroit, Fresno more enjoyable places to live (farmers markets, food trucks, etc.) so that people don't get stuck in overpriced coastal cities due to fear of missing out. Kinda of like what PG describes here. http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html