3 ms·

> We've got more than enough resources to ensure a good and happy baseline existence What is this supposed to mean? What is 'enough' is relative. Present-day

by qsort 6y ago

> We've got more than enough resources to ensure a good and happy baseline existence What is this supposed to mean? What is 'enough' is relative. Present-day Western society would have looked like the literal garden of Eden to the average human from 2000 BC. There have never been, nor there will ever be, 'enough' resources for everyone: resources are limited, human desires are (thankfully) not.

mmastrac 6y ago
"Enough" for most people seems to be about 75k-95k USD per year equivalent [1]. We _might_ not have enough resources yet to provide that much for UBI [2] but we can drastically raise the baseline level of happiness of the populace. [1] https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q1/money-only-buys-happiness-for-a-certain-amount.html https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q1/money-only-... [2] More and more automation could get us there
- matz1 6y ago
  > More and more automation could get us there The only thing that can work is if technology/automation is advance enough that everybody can live happily without depending on other people at all. That even 'other people' can be replaced by virtual people that indistinguishable from real one. The problem is if everybody live like this, can it be still called society ?
- qsort 6y ago
  Quoting from your own link: "And, there was substantial variation across world regions, with satiation occurring later in wealthier regions for life satisfaction," Jebb said. "This could be because evaluations tend to be more influenced by the standards by which individuals compare themselves to other people." Sure, it's 75k now. Is it guaranteed to stay at 75k? There isn't a universal constant by which you can assert "okay, this level of wealth is, and will always be, enough for everyone". > We _might_ not have enough resources yet to provide that much for UBI. That's... way more than the US GDP per capita...
Ericson2314 6y ago
Enough means if we distribute evenly, there won't be societal collapse we depended on people who got above their share to be able to do special things. (e.g. Newton needed to not be farming all day to be Newton.)
mLuby 6y ago
> Present-day Western society would have looked like the literal garden of Eden to the average human from 2000 BC In some ways. Sanitation and education are undeniably better. I'm almost sure physiological (food, temperature), safety, and equality are also better, though not solved. Some worries both my great^70 grandparents and I share: - Losing access to food, shelter, and medical care if unable to work. - Occasionally fearing for physical safety of self or loved ones. - Persecution/ostracism by community for traits or actions. - Abuse by power structures (governments, churches, etc.). The first worry is an economic problem that could be solved this year if all governments agreed to guarantee it. (The social problems are harder.)
- qsort 6y ago
  > In some ways. In pretty much all ways, and unquestionably so in aggregate. > Some worries both my great^70 grandparents and I share: Sure, but the degree to which those are immediate worries to you is (on average) significantly less intense than it would have been at pretty much any other point in history. My father's family skipped meals. My grandfather dropped out of school. Elementary school. I don't see how this is even a contentious point. > The first worry is an economic problem that could be solved this year if all governments agreed to guarantee it. If you're arguing that welfare is mostly broken for no good reason, I agree wholeheartedly, but by and large, in most of the Western world, it's overwhelmingly likely that you won't starve nor lose access to shelter or medical care, even if you're out of a job for an extended period of time.

by qsort 6y ago

mmastrac 6y ago

"Enough" for most people seems to be about 75k-95k USD per year equivalent [1]. We _might_ not have enough resources yet to provide that much for UBI [2] but we can drastically raise the baseline level of happiness of the populace. [1] https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q1/money-only-buys-happiness-for-a-certain-amount.html https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q1/money-only-... [2] More and more automation could get us there

matz1 6y ago
> More and more automation could get us there The only thing that can work is if technology/automation is advance enough that everybody can live happily without depending on other people at all. That even 'other people' can be replaced by virtual people that indistinguishable from real one. The problem is if everybody live like this, can it be still called society ?
qsort 6y ago
Quoting from your own link: "And, there was substantial variation across world regions, with satiation occurring later in wealthier regions for life satisfaction," Jebb said. "This could be because evaluations tend to be more influenced by the standards by which individuals compare themselves to other people." Sure, it's 75k now. Is it guaranteed to stay at 75k? There isn't a universal constant by which you can assert "okay, this level of wealth is, and will always be, enough for everyone". > We _might_ not have enough resources yet to provide that much for UBI. That's... way more than the US GDP per capita...

Ericson2314 6y ago

Enough means if we distribute evenly, there won't be societal collapse we depended on people who got above their share to be able to do special things. (e.g. Newton needed to not be farming all day to be Newton.)

mLuby 6y ago

> Present-day Western society would have looked like the literal garden of Eden to the average human from 2000 BC In some ways. Sanitation and education are undeniably better. I'm almost sure physiological (food, temperature), safety, and equality are also better, though not solved. Some worries both my great^70 grandparents and I share: - Losing access to food, shelter, and medical care if unable to work. - Occasionally fearing for physical safety of self or loved ones. - Persecution/ostracism by community for traits or actions. - Abuse by power structures (governments, churches, etc.). The first worry is an economic problem that could be solved this year if all governments agreed to guarantee it. (The social problems are harder.)

qsort 6y ago
> In some ways. In pretty much all ways, and unquestionably so in aggregate. > Some worries both my great^70 grandparents and I share: Sure, but the degree to which those are immediate worries to you is (on average) significantly less intense than it would have been at pretty much any other point in history. My father's family skipped meals. My grandfather dropped out of school. Elementary school. I don't see how this is even a contentious point. > The first worry is an economic problem that could be solved this year if all governments agreed to guarantee it. If you're arguing that welfare is mostly broken for no good reason, I agree wholeheartedly, but by and large, in most of the Western world, it's overwhelmingly likely that you won't starve nor lose access to shelter or medical care, even if you're out of a job for an extended period of time.