5 ms·
If we are going by numbers, how many talented artists are indeed there? Of this how many are talented enough to be both artists and stock brokers AND are overwh
by SubuSS 6y ago
If we are going by numbers, how many talented artists are indeed there? Of this how many are talented enough to be both artists and stock brokers AND are overwhelmed by stock broking so much that they give up on their Picasso like talents? 0.0001% of the general pop? May be if we count every one with massive world class but oppressed talents, will they account for 0.1% of the world pop?
As much as it would liberate the stuck artists et al from the above 0.1%, my theory is that it would only allow the rest 99.9% to focus their time into consumption of various things rather than production of invaluable goods.
Now we could move the goal post and say, ‘hey, they were born as human and by that they have won the lottery! Why shouldn’t everyone be eligible for the basics?’ - but that’s a different argument than saying this will liberate the arts. I don’t buy that line of argument.
- robocat 6y ago> it would only allow the rest 99.9% to focus their time into consumption Here is an article in agreement with that point, from a different POV though: https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/i-used-to-argue-for-ubi-then-i-gave-a-talk-at-uber/2018/11/26 https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/i-used-to-argue-for-ubi-then-... “[UBI] merely serves as a way to keep the wealthiest people (and their loyal vassals, the software developers) entrenched at the very top of the economic operating system.”. Ideally I think a UBI appears interesting, however practically I can’t see how it could work. I’ve digressed from the article topic, because I am interested in why UBI has such zealotry (appears to me at least).
- CuriousSkeptic 6y agoOne may believe that many bad things in society stem from our instinctive fear of loosing out on valuable resources for our survival. F.ex I think it’s pretty commonly agreed that a safe environment, where failure is not fatal, may promote creativity and innovation better than an environment where failure gets you ousted. Some would even argue that the same fear is a powerful force in shaping less desirable behavior. F.ex when used as a tool for manipulation. UBI, some argue, may address a large source of such fears. Especially in a highly creative group, such as I imagine the hn-audience to be, this may be a strongly felt belief. I think it’s quite natural that it’s a promise that would trigger a bit of zealotry in that group.
- keiferski 6y agoChoosing to pursue a practical career instead of one’s passions seems like a universal thing to me. That doesn’t seem particularly controversial of a thing to say, but apparently for many, “producing invaluable goods” is more important than their fellow humans achieving self-actualization. Not to mention that said goods are by definition not invaluable if the jobs to produce them don’t exist anymore.
- SubuSS 6y agoA lot of the goalposts got moved there :) You mentioned talented artists, not self actualization. You are calling goods from jobs as invaluable - few may be. An iPhone is expensive but not invaluable. But art from Picasso is. I think by moving the argument to self actualization - you’re essentially proscribing a wallE like lifestyle - the above talented artists might go ahead and produce greatness, but I don’t think majority is going to be doing any self-actualization. It’s going to be a party of consumption for most. But we are both guessing here. That argument also assumes a post scarcity world which we aren’t even close to. Finally succumbing to the myth of everyone chasing their passions while AI keeps up our lifestyle essentially is writing the end of our civilization as it is. If you buy that it ever happens, you should also buy that one day it will turn off. That day humans will be surrounded by magic machines they have no idea how to fix / work and in essence die off. Or at best, they get back to today.