3 ms·

This could work, realistically, as a scheme to incentivize the geniuses to work on problems that matter. One incentive presented here is providing them with bas

This could work, realistically, as a scheme to incentivize the geniuses to work on problems that matter. One incentive presented here is providing them with basic income to achieve their full potential. This question is very deep and has wide implications. One thing is sure: without harnessing the natural talent of the human genius qualitative progress is impossible.

ksec 4y ago
I think parent is arguing that everyone should be better off and everyone should get equal treatment. And may even be implying resources should be distributed equally.... To put it in mildly simple term, you are likely not in the same political spectrum as parent.
- braingenious 4y ago
  They’re both suggesting that the government use public money to subsidize people’s daily lives. The main difference is one person is advocating for the government to administer intelligence tests and collect data around that. What’s the big political difference?
  - ksec 4y ago
    One is suggesting everyone should be treated equally, and not specially "genius", what ever that definition might be. The other is suggesting there are people with higher potential where this may be worth the effort.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      OK. I still don’t get how “Give everybody free money” and “Give a subset of ‘worthy’ people as determined by a government agency free money” are that different. They’re both kind of bog standard socialist/communist ideas, just one has the self-dealing and nepotistic downsides to these ideologies explicitly baked into it by design. Edit: It’s kind of like arguing “feeding everybody is communism! Feeding everybody that is approved as officially My Buddies is Good Capitalism!” We’re discussing two different scenarios in which the government collects taxes and distributes that money to people without them being employed in any way.
- sinenomine 4y ago
  On the contrary, I think everyone should be able to achieve their full potential. It's just that the shortest path to this is, likely, some sequence of Manhattan projects/X-PRIZEs culminating in a set of technologies and knowledge that could be used to uplift any consenting person and support automated labor to provide for our needs. You cannot get to the moon by piling up equally sized chairs.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    There is an interesting group of people that when you say stuff like “things could be better”, they are conditioned to instantly conclude “This is literally Mao Zedong talking to me right now, I must act swiftly to stop this dangerous ideology from spreading.”
  - ksec 4y ago
    I am assuming you are mistaken that parent was referring to you, I was referring to your parent or OP.

ksec 4y ago

I think parent is arguing that everyone should be better off and everyone should get equal treatment. And may even be implying resources should be distributed equally.... To put it in mildly simple term, you are likely not in the same political spectrum as parent.

braingenious 4y ago
They’re both suggesting that the government use public money to subsidize people’s daily lives. The main difference is one person is advocating for the government to administer intelligence tests and collect data around that. What’s the big political difference?
- ksec 4y ago
  One is suggesting everyone should be treated equally, and not specially "genius", what ever that definition might be. The other is suggesting there are people with higher potential where this may be worth the effort.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    OK. I still don’t get how “Give everybody free money” and “Give a subset of ‘worthy’ people as determined by a government agency free money” are that different. They’re both kind of bog standard socialist/communist ideas, just one has the self-dealing and nepotistic downsides to these ideologies explicitly baked into it by design. Edit: It’s kind of like arguing “feeding everybody is communism! Feeding everybody that is approved as officially My Buddies is Good Capitalism!” We’re discussing two different scenarios in which the government collects taxes and distributes that money to people without them being employed in any way.
sinenomine 4y ago
On the contrary, I think everyone should be able to achieve their full potential. It's just that the shortest path to this is, likely, some sequence of Manhattan projects/X-PRIZEs culminating in a set of technologies and knowledge that could be used to uplift any consenting person and support automated labor to provide for our needs. You cannot get to the moon by piling up equally sized chairs.
- braingenious 4y ago
  There is an interesting group of people that when you say stuff like “things could be better”, they are conditioned to instantly conclude “This is literally Mao Zedong talking to me right now, I must act swiftly to stop this dangerous ideology from spreading.”
- ksec 4y ago
  I am assuming you are mistaken that parent was referring to you, I was referring to your parent or OP.