3 ms·

Humans are bad at doing nothing. Something like basic income will definitely be needed in the future, but there's something to be said for the "dignity of work.

Humans are bad at doing nothing. Something like basic income will definitely be needed in the future, but there's something to be said for the "dignity of work." Even if it's something like "10 hours of community service per week in exchange for basic income," contributing something to their tribe or society is an important part of a complete human being.

chii 8y ago
> contributing something to their tribe or society is an important part of a complete human being. contribution can be made via arts and science, rather than making up pointless work or work the person cannot enjoy.
- CptFribble 8y ago
  I agree, but it's not either/or. Some people will probably earn their basic income+extra doing science/engineering/etc, some will do art, and some will do the bare minimum. If we successfully decouple work from sustenance, I'm pretty sure there will be a non-negligable percentage of humans who would just take the basic income and passively consume. However, letting a person consume without any "skin in the game," I think would create a sense of entitlement among the bottom tiers, and resentment among the productive segments of society. Also, there will still probably be a bunch of stuff that needs to get done cheaply (i.e. 100% automation is not practical), but not enough people want to do, like picking up trash, or cutting the grass, or sorting files at a courthouse. I just don't see a world where everyone does exactly what they want to do at all times forever, unless we build personal VR universes for everyone. Also, I've spent a good deal of time thinking recently about how to quantify art and other "indirect" contributions to society under a basic income system. Like if there's any work requirement, even if it's minimal, how much art qualifies? A couple of doodles? Could I just randomly scribble some blotches on canvas and call it a week of work? Could there be enough qualified art judges to determine if everyone who will inevitably try to phone it in has contributed "enough?" I don't know. This came out kind of rambly, but there's a lot of non-binary, non-obvious aspects to basic income, and I've struggled to find answers to a lot of the questions I've come up with. Ultimately, I agree with you. The system should support people contributing in the way the enjoy the most.
  - chii 8y ago
    > Could I just randomly scribble some blotches on canvas and call it a week of work? if you had to qualify your art with somebody to receive the benefit of the basic income, then it's not basic income. Art should be for art's sake - the artists themselves know if they are making art (they can't lie to themselves). There should really be no obligation to work, and if those who don't feel like working (to produce anything, art included), they should be free _not_ to. Basic income should cover the bare minimum of living expenses. The incentive to work/produce should be an innate desire for more than the basic income. Society should encourage it, but not force it.

chii 8y ago

> contributing something to their tribe or society is an important part of a complete human being. contribution can be made via arts and science, rather than making up pointless work or work the person cannot enjoy.

CptFribble 8y ago
I agree, but it's not either/or. Some people will probably earn their basic income+extra doing science/engineering/etc, some will do art, and some will do the bare minimum. If we successfully decouple work from sustenance, I'm pretty sure there will be a non-negligable percentage of humans who would just take the basic income and passively consume. However, letting a person consume without any "skin in the game," I think would create a sense of entitlement among the bottom tiers, and resentment among the productive segments of society. Also, there will still probably be a bunch of stuff that needs to get done cheaply (i.e. 100% automation is not practical), but not enough people want to do, like picking up trash, or cutting the grass, or sorting files at a courthouse. I just don't see a world where everyone does exactly what they want to do at all times forever, unless we build personal VR universes for everyone. Also, I've spent a good deal of time thinking recently about how to quantify art and other "indirect" contributions to society under a basic income system. Like if there's any work requirement, even if it's minimal, how much art qualifies? A couple of doodles? Could I just randomly scribble some blotches on canvas and call it a week of work? Could there be enough qualified art judges to determine if everyone who will inevitably try to phone it in has contributed "enough?" I don't know. This came out kind of rambly, but there's a lot of non-binary, non-obvious aspects to basic income, and I've struggled to find answers to a lot of the questions I've come up with. Ultimately, I agree with you. The system should support people contributing in the way the enjoy the most.
- chii 8y ago
  > Could I just randomly scribble some blotches on canvas and call it a week of work? if you had to qualify your art with somebody to receive the benefit of the basic income, then it's not basic income. Art should be for art's sake - the artists themselves know if they are making art (they can't lie to themselves). There should really be no obligation to work, and if those who don't feel like working (to produce anything, art included), they should be free _not_ to. Basic income should cover the bare minimum of living expenses. The incentive to work/produce should be an innate desire for more than the basic income. Society should encourage it, but not force it.