3 ms·

I am against UBI because I think we aren't there just yet with technology but I do agree that we need a way to ensure that "everyone can eat" when the time come

I am against UBI because I think we aren't there just yet with technology but I do agree that we need a way to ensure that "everyone can eat" when the time comes. Right now we also need to look at how we can provide job for those who are affected by automation and not just say that the coal miners need "learn to code" and move. Edit to add: We have some industries that are highly automated, ie. semiconductor manufacturing. Yet they still have raw inputs that take non-automated work. If we were able to develop a complete automated line, I would support gov/private group "socializing" the output.

tomrod 5y ago
Can you nail down what it will look like once we are there?
- themaninthedark 5y ago
  Technology wise, there are a lot of diffrent visions of how it might look like. I liked the description of the Universal Constructors in Diamond Age, toothed gears that captured atoms and placed them into buckets, sorting the elements out of the ocean water. That is probably more fantasy though, more likely to like like how it does now with modular rock crushers, moving belts, etc. Food supply is going to be interesting(read difficult), we can automate harvesting grains(rice, wheat, corn) easily. But things like tomatoes, lettuce, spinach rely heavily on human labor to tend and harvest. One of the things that is noticeable is that as we select foods that ship and store better(which we will be doing more of as we automate more) they are less tasty. Maybe we can engineer foods that are easy to harvest, tasty and transport well but that will necessitate us to get over our fear of GMO. On the societal front, I would not want the government to have control of the manufacturing systems because the temptation to use control against political adversaries would be to great(See Biden's recent comments on how Spotify should do more about Joe Rogan and how Trump used his influence(Not taking a stance on any issues, just showing the issues exist and would have grave ramifications). My thought would be that as you have a product more and more automated and vertically integrated, let's say bread. Planting, harvest, milling, mixing, baking are all owned by a handful of companies with minimum human labor. Government should then hold bids to see who gets to supply the market, limiting each supplier to below a 20%(?) share as to keep multiple suppliers in the market but also spread the risk so you don't have a too big to fail. The companies would be paid via taxes and everyone would get free bread. Now, you would have to deal with the effects of that; people wasting bread because it's free, health effects of eating more bread because it's free are two that I can think of off the top of my head. One other thought on the after effects: We will have no way to educate and no way to punish those who commit crime. I like kids but I doubt I would want to spend the majority of my day trying to get a group of them to learn when I don't have to. And honestly, they would also feel like it is a waste of time because it is not needed. No one will want to spend their time policing ,running prisons, jails or courthouses either. Hell, you have a hard enough time trying to get people to serve jury duty now. I know we like to that crime will cease to exist if we have plenty, but there is more than the lust for physical items that drives crime. Desire to control others, lust. The transition to a society where everyone can get what they want, when they want it is fraught with pitfalls and traps. The best cases would end with up something like the Isaac Asimov's utopias or Ian M. Bank's Culture universe. Middle case is dystopias like Snow Crash and Diamond Age. Worst case is that humanity falls into a hedonistic loop, people stop learning and then things break. Probably wouldn't kill everyone but humanity would be reset at that point. Random tidbit that I didn't work in: If you can't design a system that is 100% perfect and requires no maintenance, you should design one that requires ~yearly maintenance. If the maintenance cycles are too far apart, no one will remember when to do it and how to do it. Later when it breaks, there might not be anyone who knows how to fix it.
atom_arranger 5y ago
We could at least be experimenting, maybe implement a $100/month UBI in one state, see how it affects their productivity/health/budget, consider trying other numbers in other locations.

tomrod 5y ago

Can you nail down what it will look like once we are there?

themaninthedark 5y ago
Technology wise, there are a lot of diffrent visions of how it might look like. I liked the description of the Universal Constructors in Diamond Age, toothed gears that captured atoms and placed them into buckets, sorting the elements out of the ocean water. That is probably more fantasy though, more likely to like like how it does now with modular rock crushers, moving belts, etc. Food supply is going to be interesting(read difficult), we can automate harvesting grains(rice, wheat, corn) easily. But things like tomatoes, lettuce, spinach rely heavily on human labor to tend and harvest. One of the things that is noticeable is that as we select foods that ship and store better(which we will be doing more of as we automate more) they are less tasty. Maybe we can engineer foods that are easy to harvest, tasty and transport well but that will necessitate us to get over our fear of GMO. On the societal front, I would not want the government to have control of the manufacturing systems because the temptation to use control against political adversaries would be to great(See Biden's recent comments on how Spotify should do more about Joe Rogan and how Trump used his influence(Not taking a stance on any issues, just showing the issues exist and would have grave ramifications). My thought would be that as you have a product more and more automated and vertically integrated, let's say bread. Planting, harvest, milling, mixing, baking are all owned by a handful of companies with minimum human labor. Government should then hold bids to see who gets to supply the market, limiting each supplier to below a 20%(?) share as to keep multiple suppliers in the market but also spread the risk so you don't have a too big to fail. The companies would be paid via taxes and everyone would get free bread. Now, you would have to deal with the effects of that; people wasting bread because it's free, health effects of eating more bread because it's free are two that I can think of off the top of my head. One other thought on the after effects: We will have no way to educate and no way to punish those who commit crime. I like kids but I doubt I would want to spend the majority of my day trying to get a group of them to learn when I don't have to. And honestly, they would also feel like it is a waste of time because it is not needed. No one will want to spend their time policing ,running prisons, jails or courthouses either. Hell, you have a hard enough time trying to get people to serve jury duty now. I know we like to that crime will cease to exist if we have plenty, but there is more than the lust for physical items that drives crime. Desire to control others, lust. The transition to a society where everyone can get what they want, when they want it is fraught with pitfalls and traps. The best cases would end with up something like the Isaac Asimov's utopias or Ian M. Bank's Culture universe. Middle case is dystopias like Snow Crash and Diamond Age. Worst case is that humanity falls into a hedonistic loop, people stop learning and then things break. Probably wouldn't kill everyone but humanity would be reset at that point. Random tidbit that I didn't work in: If you can't design a system that is 100% perfect and requires no maintenance, you should design one that requires ~yearly maintenance. If the maintenance cycles are too far apart, no one will remember when to do it and how to do it. Later when it breaks, there might not be anyone who knows how to fix it.

atom_arranger 5y ago

We could at least be experimenting, maybe implement a $100/month UBI in one state, see how it affects their productivity/health/budget, consider trying other numbers in other locations.