3 ms·

UBI+existentialism That's basically what Star Trek has for a post-scarcity world. It assumes that people would be motivated to better themselves or the world,

UBI+existentialism That's basically what Star Trek has for a post-scarcity world. It assumes that people would be motivated to better themselves or the world, be curious, etc. despite not having to work. I think some people would flourish in that environment and presumably still be contributing. Many scientists were basically trust fund kids before the 20th century. They didn't need to work. But there is a good amount of worry some will just derive no meaning from life and turn to social media, video games, drugs, etc. (The WALL-E future) There is a huge amount of thought going on, but I think the open questions are regarding how effective the solutions will be. We as a society may need to shift our values considerably for any solution to be viable.

weinzierl 6y ago
UBI = universal basic income (to save others a Google search)
the_duke 6y ago
The problem is that people still need something to do that gives some meaning to their existence and provides accomplishment, intrinsically and within their peer group. There are only so many occupations that can do that. There's art, but if ever fifth person is an artist, who is supposed to consume all of it? Many are also not wired to be scientists. With machine learning steadily becoming helpful in more domains and slow but steady improvements in robotics, we could be just 50-100 years away from a future where most manual labor and even a lot of the lower level intellectual labor of today becomes redundant or significanntly diminished. I'm sure there are models that can provide a meaningful existence, but they won't be so easy to find. And that's ignoring the possible outcome of giant mega corporations that completely control the masses , since every aspect of live becomes dependant on what they provide. We are headed for very interesting times. Of course that assumes continued progress, and as history shows that is not at all a given. All we'd need is a serious global conflict with nuclear weapons or local revolutions for progress to be reverted or stalled for a long time.
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  > The problem is that people still need something to do that gives some meaning to their existence and provides accomplishment, intrinsically and within their peer group. Parenting. > There's art, but if ever fifth person is an artist, who is supposed to consume all of it? Don't forget charity work, nursing, education - i don't think any of these will replaced by machines soon. > Many are also not wired to be scientists. See above. How about explorers? Sports enthusiasts. > With machine learning steadily becoming helpful in more domains and slow but steady improvements in robotics, we could be just 50-100 years away from a future where most manual labor of today becomes redundant. It happened before : see farming. We found other things to do :) > Of course that assumes continued progress, and as history shows that is not at all a given. All we'd need is a serious global conflict with nuclear weapons and progress could be stalled for a long time. Massive progress is made during times of need. WW1 and WW2 basically created aircraft, rockets and computers. The current pandemic is pushing medicine forward at a rate not seen in years.
- bobajeff 6y ago
  >The problem is that people still need something to do that gives some meaning to their existence and provides accomplishment, intrinsically and within their peer group. I seriously doubt that's something anybody has trouble figuring out. The issue most people tend to face is finding something to do that will provide income. Especially, since all of the things we would want to do requires money. Even if it's just watching sports and talking to friends drinking beer.
  - aogaili 6y ago
    I also think this is the case. I see many people perfectly happy and keeping themselves very busy with hobbies, socializing, games etc. Also, content and entertainment platforms are growing, so I think most people will have even more to do with their time in the future. It does seem to be mostly an income issue. A lot of UBI skeptics are quick to point out the psychological impact of living in society with no work, but I think the real stress is living in a society that dependant on income while watching the jobs get automated by the day and your leaders have no clear/meaningful vision for the future.
mixedCase 6y ago
>UBI Ok, how do you fund it?
- ralusek 6y ago
  Get rid of all other social safety nets. No social security, no affordable housing, welfare, food stamps, etc. Enormous amount of bureaucratic overhead removed from that. Everyone just gets a flat rate every pay period, virtually no bureaucracy or perverse incentives involved. Any dollar you earn in the market is purely in addition to what you receive from UBI. Wealth transfer/inequality is handled on the tax side.
  - mixedCase 6y ago
    That's not enough to fund it, if this link's budgetary data is to be believed https://www.thirdway.org/memo/five-problems-with-universal-basic-income https://www.thirdway.org/memo/five-problems-with-universal-b... (scroll down to the graphic under the section "UBI is incredibly expensive"). You'd also need to cut down medical care programs.

weinzierl 6y ago

UBI = universal basic income (to save others a Google search)

the_duke 6y ago

The problem is that people still need something to do that gives some meaning to their existence and provides accomplishment, intrinsically and within their peer group. There are only so many occupations that can do that. There's art, but if ever fifth person is an artist, who is supposed to consume all of it? Many are also not wired to be scientists. With machine learning steadily becoming helpful in more domains and slow but steady improvements in robotics, we could be just 50-100 years away from a future where most manual labor and even a lot of the lower level intellectual labor of today becomes redundant or significanntly diminished. I'm sure there are models that can provide a meaningful existence, but they won't be so easy to find. And that's ignoring the possible outcome of giant mega corporations that completely control the masses , since every aspect of live becomes dependant on what they provide. We are headed for very interesting times. Of course that assumes continued progress, and as history shows that is not at all a given. All we'd need is a serious global conflict with nuclear weapons or local revolutions for progress to be reverted or stalled for a long time.

CodeGlitch 6y ago
> The problem is that people still need something to do that gives some meaning to their existence and provides accomplishment, intrinsically and within their peer group. Parenting. > There's art, but if ever fifth person is an artist, who is supposed to consume all of it? Don't forget charity work, nursing, education - i don't think any of these will replaced by machines soon. > Many are also not wired to be scientists. See above. How about explorers? Sports enthusiasts. > With machine learning steadily becoming helpful in more domains and slow but steady improvements in robotics, we could be just 50-100 years away from a future where most manual labor of today becomes redundant. It happened before : see farming. We found other things to do :) > Of course that assumes continued progress, and as history shows that is not at all a given. All we'd need is a serious global conflict with nuclear weapons and progress could be stalled for a long time. Massive progress is made during times of need. WW1 and WW2 basically created aircraft, rockets and computers. The current pandemic is pushing medicine forward at a rate not seen in years.
bobajeff 6y ago
>The problem is that people still need something to do that gives some meaning to their existence and provides accomplishment, intrinsically and within their peer group. I seriously doubt that's something anybody has trouble figuring out. The issue most people tend to face is finding something to do that will provide income. Especially, since all of the things we would want to do requires money. Even if it's just watching sports and talking to friends drinking beer.
- aogaili 6y ago
  I also think this is the case. I see many people perfectly happy and keeping themselves very busy with hobbies, socializing, games etc. Also, content and entertainment platforms are growing, so I think most people will have even more to do with their time in the future. It does seem to be mostly an income issue. A lot of UBI skeptics are quick to point out the psychological impact of living in society with no work, but I think the real stress is living in a society that dependant on income while watching the jobs get automated by the day and your leaders have no clear/meaningful vision for the future.

mixedCase 6y ago

>UBI Ok, how do you fund it?

ralusek 6y ago
Get rid of all other social safety nets. No social security, no affordable housing, welfare, food stamps, etc. Enormous amount of bureaucratic overhead removed from that. Everyone just gets a flat rate every pay period, virtually no bureaucracy or perverse incentives involved. Any dollar you earn in the market is purely in addition to what you receive from UBI. Wealth transfer/inequality is handled on the tax side.
- mixedCase 6y ago
  That's not enough to fund it, if this link's budgetary data is to be believed https://www.thirdway.org/memo/five-problems-with-universal-basic-income https://www.thirdway.org/memo/five-problems-with-universal-b... (scroll down to the graphic under the section "UBI is incredibly expensive"). You'd also need to cut down medical care programs.