7 ms·
Universal Basic Income + Automation + Plutocracy = Dystopia
- ambicapter 7y agoThe alternative to UBI + all jobs automated away is just all jobs automated away. I don't see how UBI is the problem here.
- notus 7y agoIt's how people will morally justify the situation saying it's "good enough". Even though their quality of life could be much better. The alternative is no UBI which creates more glaring problems if people can't meed their physical needs and a less complacent population.
- mdorazio 7y agoBut in an automation-heavy future how could it be better without some combination of revolution and full-blown socialism?
- ambicapter 7y agoSo once the problems are more glaring, what remedy will you suggest? Cancel automation?
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago> It's how people will morally justify the situation saying it's "good enough" This is a logical fallacy. It can be claimed that any human right can make the population complacent: 5 days work week, public healthcare and so on and there is no evidence to prove it's true. On the contrary, it's well known that people with free time can become socially and politically engaged, while people working 2 jobs have no time for it.
- RubenSandwich 7y agoMirror: https://web.archive.org/web/20190908093705/https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/09/08/universal-basic-income-automation-plutocracy-dystopia/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190908093705/https://caitlinjo...
- zhoujianfu 7y agoSites down for me, but I’m more of the feeling UBI + automation = utopia. I guess maybe utopia + plutocracy = dystopia?
- BubRoss 7y agoCentralization of power and lack of independence is never going to be a utopia for long.
- godtoldmetodoit 7y agoYes centralization of power is an issue, and our current system rewards corruption and listening to special interests. Democracy Dollars and some of Yangs other policies directly address this. His whole platform is about giving people more individual freedom and power.
- missosoup 7y agoUBI is a good idea in principle but a gateway to dystopia in practice. UBI and similar systems are an easily abused vector to create a new slave class. Relevant reading: Manna: Two Visions of Humanity's Future
- petermcneeley 7y agoCan you detail how giving stipend resources to everyone leads to a new slave class? Slavery is forced labor.
- eximius 7y agoI can see what their though process is. 1. All resources are distributed for labor in an open market. 2. All resources are held, some are distributed for labor in an open market, some are distributed for UBI. 3. All resources are held, there is little to no open market left, the rest is distributed via UBI. 4. UBI now require certain conditions to be claimed, such as participation in various labor programs, or, perhaps, whatever program you are assigned to. The open market has collapsed or is too small to offer a meaningful alternative to, effectively, economically enforced labor. Think of an economy like in Player Piano: only the engineers have jobs. The rest 'work' for their pay, but have no agency.
- vincnetas 7y ago"UBI now require certain conditions to be claimed" No it does not. That the idea of universal basic income. Everyone gets it.
- eximius 7y agoSorry, I wasn't clear. Each stage is an evolution of policy. Once people rely on UBI and don't have easily accessible alternative options, those who control UBI can corrupt it to control those who depend on it. We have seen this happen, generally with good intentions, in Federal funding for roads and such. I'm not saying this course of events is inevitable, only that it is very possible to imagine. Particularly now, as many of our enshrined institutions are being corroded.
- apocalypstyx 7y agoI've always wondered (at the furthest end of full-automation) what's to stop a collection of billionaires, equipped with their self-perpetuating, self-assembling, hermetic technological sphere, from deciding to turn the planet into their own personal Eden again by eliminating the 99.9% of humans that are no longer needed to keep civilization as was known before going? Offer a voice command and this self-functional tech (a dream at this point, admittedly, but a dream that many are actively pursuing) builds a fleet of drones and expert systems / AI work out the best strategy to achieve the end. People will say, oh the masses will rise up and eat the rich, but when the rich are in the their world war II-proof self-contained underground habitats with banks of genetic samples from every plant and animal formerly on Earth, there isn't going to be much worry about collateral damage; so chemical, genetic, germ warfare, all of it can be on the table. It might even be a video game, they could let their kids fly killer drones before dinner. Not possible? Not technologically yet. But how many 'normal' people complain about there being 'too many people'? And if someone just has to talk to fancy Alexa on steroids to get whatever they want, why should they keep me around? Adulation? Holographics, gynoids, and there's and app for that.
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoI'm not worried. There are enough nukes to solve any such situation. Get to the point where someone is actively purging percentages of humanity with no end in sight? Launch a few dozen ICBMs and turn their little pool party into an irradiated piece of shit. And if they survived the ICBM volley? Enjoy your cancer, assholes!
- ChrisClark 7y agoBut what if the ones doing the killing own all the nukes?
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoDo you really think US/UK/Russia/France/Israel are all going to collectively give up control of their nuclear weapons to a single entity? Nuclear weapons are the ultimate equalizer. Your nation state can be 10000x less powerful, but still capable of threatening a superior civilization with total destruction of their population.
- joelx 7y agoAn alternative idea to UBI that achieves many of the same ends is to remove all taxes other than a wealth tax. A wealth tax actually would greatly augment UBI.
- eximius 7y agoHow do those two accomplish the same ends? UBI gives money, a tax takes money. Even if the wealth tax could go negative at low income levels, it doesn't seem obvious that this would _augment_ UBI.
- avac 7y agoIt wouldn't help those who don't make enough to pay taxes as well as the homeless, students, stay-at-home parents, disabled, retired, caretakers, etc.
- Mediterraneo10 7y agoGetting the legislative votes to enact UBI is one thing. But my fear is that politicians would just think that after that, their task is done. In fact, it has hardly begun. The state would need to offer the masses of perpetually un- or underemployed people activities, things to do with their lives. This would be a hard sell in the USA especially, where historically there has been relatively little state support of community infrastructure, but the private institutions like churches and clubs that used to provide that infrastructure have now collapsed. The Nordic countries have experienced this problem firsthand, where in spite of a safety net and generous funding of arts, culture, and leisure in areas suffering from high unemployment, a substantial number of people still prefer to drink their lives away or hang out on internet fora to complain about how they feel no purpose in their lives.
- mikhuang 7y agoI don’t know what things are like in Nordic countries but I feel there’s tons of things that need to be done in the USA. Perhaps things like time banking for giving credit for all the tasks a community needs would be nice? https://www.yang2020.com/policies/modern-time-banking/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/modern-time-banking/
- mistermann 7y agoNot only is that an enlightened policy, I love the way it's presented. If all candidates were forced to clearly define their policies in that form, in writing, instead of the current spoken debate theatre we use, perhaps we could get out of this negative feedback loop we're in.
- marknadal 7y agoUBS is a better alternative to UBI. I wrote a pretty lengthy article about this & the evolution of wealth: http://free.eco http://free.eco .
- onemoresoop 7y agoWhat is UBS?
- zhoujianfu 7y agoThe question is do you believe the government is better at providing services than a competitive marketplace? Government: UBS Marketplace: UBI
- catfish123 7y agoThe question is wrong. UBS does not imply services are provided by the government.
- petermcneeley 7y agoI read through your article and I found it to be silly and naive. I would highly recommend actually reading someone like marx or even von mises. Here are some specific silly parts: "This means we can predict that a universal basic income will just self-adjust to treat $1K/ month as the new $0." "At present in the United States, there are more empty homes than homeless people on the street. The flaw with the current economic model is that if these homes were given out, that would incentivize people to become homeless in order to get free housing, and a free house is a loss in profit."
- petermcneeley 7y agoWhen automation is something feared by such a large fraction population you are already living in the dystopia.
- pdkl95 7y agoVi Hart[1] wrote a very detailed essay about UBI + AI (automation) leading to "dystopia". "Changing my Mind about AI, Universal Basic Income, and the Value of Data" https://theartofresearch.org/ai-ubi-and-data/ https://theartofresearch.org/ai-ubi-and-data/ [1] creator of "Doodling in math class", "Pi Is (still) Wrong", and other fun math videos
- Geee 7y agoWe don't need UBI, because automation will naturally decrease prices, eventually to the negative. That means there will be more stuff than anyone can consume, thus it's less expensive to give it away than to store or demolish it. I think this will lead to the end of the human race. We are becoming useless, and have already stopped reproducing. Only a few will survive, supported by technology that they no longer understand. When it fails, the remaining people will die, or start everything again without any technology.
- maxerickson 7y agoThere's lots of things that are technology that are not all that complicated. Like a shovel or whatever. If you assume an order of magnitude drop in population, there would be plenty of refined metals just sitting around to maintain quite a base of simpler technology. I also wonder if we will see cultures/groups emerge that keep on reproducing at high growth even in the face of economic security.
- sabujp 7y agowall-e
- eximius 7y agoEventually to the negative? We aren't FORCED to create things. Even once the marginal cost is effectively zero, things still have a cost. Just make less of it.
- feanaro 7y ago> That means there will be more stuff than anyone can consume, thus it's less expensive to give it away than to store or demolish it. You could also, you know, stop producing stuff at that point?
- nathan_f77 7y agoA species doesn't really need to be "useful" in order to survive. It just needs to reproduce or continue living. We haven't stopped reproducing as a species. I can't imagine a future where humans decide to let ourselves die out just because we've built lots of amazing machines that take care of all of our needs. > Only a few will survive, supported by technology that they no longer understand. I think the human population might shrink to somewhere around 10-100 million over the next 10,000 years. It's hard to conceptualize, but humans were around 10,000 years ago, and we'll be around 10,000 years from now. I personally believe that we're heading towards a utopian future, although there will be a lot of serious bumps along the way. Maybe we'll agree to maintain a population of 10 million humans on earth, and there will be many more living on interstellar arks that are slowly heading towards distant planets. We will have achieved immortality, so the birth rate will be very close to zero.
- mikhuang 7y agoI’m not sure I understand the argument. A mass of angry people who have their basic needs met seems a good force for confronting exploitation. The Yang campaign specifically is the one very vocally calling out for capturing the fruits of automation to share.
- leshow 7y agoThe argument here is terrible. Basically, billionaires want UBI, therefore it must be bad for us. Sorry, but you have to do better than that. You need to actually argue against the principles not just assume bad faith of those supporting it.
- _bxg1 7y agoThe author does argue the principles. Power balance between the elites and everyone else has always kept things from getting too bad. Historically there has been violent revolution; more recently developed societies have empowered people through capitalism (despite its many flaws, it serves this crucial purpose). So labor movements have replaced violence in many cases. As the author says, economic contribution is the only real leverage regular people have. Without that we'd be reliant on the continued goodwill of the ultra-powerful. How has that played out historically?
- williesleg 7y agoBernie, like Socialism, never wins. Get to work. Make something.
- aazaa 7y agoThe thesis seems to go something like this: UBI eliminates the last bargaining chip the masses have - labor. Without workers, there can be no strikes. With everyone dependent on the UBI for livelihood, nobody could afford to oppose the system. This is what the "plutocrats" are after. Masses without a lever to organize. I don't necessarily agree with the thesis, it's just that the article really doesn't get to the point.
- esotericn 7y agoSurely it's automation that eliminates the bargaining chip, not UBI?
- sabujp 7y agoautomation can't eliminate the bargaining chip if the populace have no means to purchase goods produced by automation. That's why it's actually UBI that makes a huge chunk of people a slave to the system
- baddox 7y agoBut if the rich people need people to have money to buy their goods, and you’re saying UBI would be this money, where is the UBI money coming from? Why couldn’t the rich people just get that money directly?
- AstralStorm 7y agoWhy would the rich need the proles to buy anything, when their automated factories would make anything they want for them? The thing is, the rich only have the threat of violence then to keep poorer masses in check. Though there are many kinds of violence, disease, starvation, homelessness. The thing is, without the dictates of the rich, there will be places they would be unable or unwilling to reach. There, a socialism of even purer kind could start given enough automation. The problem would be hydraulic despotism. Resources like water, oil, metals would be hard to get.
- 7y ago
- unoti 7y agoArticle says: > They can’t organize labor strikes if they have no labor. The idea of UBI isn’t to make it so that the masses never work again. The idea is so they don’t starve and die when between jobs. It’s to give people a real chance to live their lives while training or retooling. Money gives people choices and options. Today’s lack of choices for people at the lowest levels of income amounts to slavery. Low income people can and will still work under a UBI system. So I’m not sure the article’s central thesis makes sense.
- leshow 7y agoYeah, it's not like 12k a year is enough to live on. People on UBI will still need jobs.
- maxerickson 7y agoA lot of time people talking about 'basic income' intend the 'basic' to indicate it would be sufficient to cover needs. 12k in the US is not so bad for costs other than healthcare (lots of families of 3 are living on $35,000).
- leshow 7y ago> 12k in the US is not so bad for costs other than healthcare (lots of families of 3 are living on $35,000). Lots may be doing it, but you'd be living in poverty your whole life. There's no way a family of 3 could get by on 35k a year without accumulating debt. 12k hardly covers just your rent in many places in the US
- dragonwriter 7y ago> 12k in the US is not so bad for costs other than healthcare (lots of families of 3 are living on $35,000). Expenses do not scale down linearly with household size.
- maxerickson 7y agoYes, people depending solely on a $12k basic income might have to, uh, do something like live with other people. Turns out that has a real impact on expenses even when they aren't family.
- patientplatypus 7y agoWe’re going to have to stop using up energy driving to jobs the world doesn’t need to produce crap you have to propagandize people into believing they want so they’ll spend money on it and then throw it in the landfill. That’s obviously an insane way for an increasingly technologically advanced species to continue to function, and one way or another we are going to have to start doing a lot more nothing quite soon. And we won't stop, because people would rather kill each other over their creature comforts than come to the realization that all people are inherently equal and we need to share a limited pool of resources. There is no solution and this will all end in tears.
- godtoldmetodoit 7y agoI don't really understand the argument here, and the writer didn't look into the rest of Yang's platform that addresses the plutocracy part of this equation. Is our current system captured by the wealthy and special interests? Absolutely, and his Democracy Dollars and Ranked Choice Voting policies directly address those, and as a supporter I'm more excited about those two positions then the UBI as I think it is even more of a structural change. I highly recommend his talk with Lawrence Lessig, who has been fighting the good fight against corruption for years. https://youtu.be/kjiHwx6bpkg https://youtu.be/kjiHwx6bpkg
- zhoujianfu 7y agoAlso check out represent.us!
- godtoldmetodoit 7y agoYes! I'm a volunteer with them as well, great non partisan organization trying to get some simple but absolutely transformative changes done in how our Democracy functions.
- avac 7y agoNo matter how many regulations lawmakers come up with, powerful interests will always find some ways to get their money into politics. On the other hand, washing out lobbyist money with people's Democracy Dollars could be a game changer. And since the politicians benefit from this arrangement too, it has a decent chance of getting their support. I imagine it'd be hard for the lobbyists to lobby against this one.
- gmuslera 7y agoStopping UBI won't stop automation, and you will still have to deal with the potentially massive rise of unemployment that could be caused by automation. You still will have dystopia with just automation and plutocracy, but somehow you will need to solve the implied unemployment, or the dystopia will be far worse.
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoI think really plutocracy + anything is dystopia. There’s just no way a small group of wealthy elites can organize society to pursue their (the plutocrats’) interests without devolving to dystopia. Some of the best things about society are that plutocrats can be brought to justice and market forces can bring financial empires down. These are extremely critical sorts of checks & balances on plutocracy, and we need to entrench them more and more, to make it harder and harder for plutocrats to hide from legal or financial consequences.
- agentultra 7y agoThis article reads more like a paranoid manifesto. Immortal billionaires controlling a society that cannot revolt? Like vampires or something? A UBI seems like it should be more like a social assistance program where the people receiving it get to decide how to allocate the funds instead of a bureaucratic institution.
- whytaka 7y agoThe one thing that's necessary above all else is a strong Estate Tax regime that battles all the sneaky ways to avoid the taxman. Dynastic wealth is what creates civilizational rot. A mobile populace with fluctuating power centers spells dynamism. Let us think of all the poor children born to rich families who would not get the chance to tell the story of their self-made wealth.
- aklemm 7y agoThe plutocracy, though...that’s the actual problem.
- dragonwriter 7y agoPlutocracy = Dystopia; the rest of the equation is noise.