3 ms·

How about we take the things that are necessary for a functioning life, and make them provided to each person based on a universally understood base tax layer.

How about we take the things that are necessary for a functioning life, and make them provided to each person based on a universally understood base tax layer. Things like food, shelter, electricity, heat, water, healthcare, etc. Just… start there. That there are hungry people in the same world as there are people with such billions amassed and through exploitation… is just deplorable.

29athrowaway 4y ago
Then you would be artificially raising the population capacity, causing population to grow exponentially until reaching the new capacity, determined by the point in which you cannot keep providing those things for free anymore. This creates a much bigger problem than the one you initially tried to solve and would lead to a total catastrophe. Economic hardship is the population feeling the backpressure from what essentially is the reality of living in a world with limited resources. You can decide to ignore those limits but that does not end well.
- flandish 4y ago
  sure: if you extend things to the extreme. Ignoring that illogical connection between “feeding people” and “pop growth” - there is no, that I have read, indication that an increase in pop will become untenable, under a system designed to take care of its people. (Not under capitalism, for instance.)
  - 29athrowaway 4y ago
    Under a system that ensures housing, food, health, education, you also need some form of population control. The premise is that if you lower mortality rates you lower birth rates, but that's because once enough people survive you reach a capacity, which is established through economic pressure.
    - flandish 4y ago
      Where do you (how do you) connect housing, food, essential services to a lower mortality rate and further, how do you connect more people (consuming yet paying taxes) to a capacity as you mention it?

29athrowaway 4y ago

Then you would be artificially raising the population capacity, causing population to grow exponentially until reaching the new capacity, determined by the point in which you cannot keep providing those things for free anymore. This creates a much bigger problem than the one you initially tried to solve and would lead to a total catastrophe. Economic hardship is the population feeling the backpressure from what essentially is the reality of living in a world with limited resources. You can decide to ignore those limits but that does not end well.

flandish 4y ago
sure: if you extend things to the extreme. Ignoring that illogical connection between “feeding people” and “pop growth” - there is no, that I have read, indication that an increase in pop will become untenable, under a system designed to take care of its people. (Not under capitalism, for instance.)
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  Under a system that ensures housing, food, health, education, you also need some form of population control. The premise is that if you lower mortality rates you lower birth rates, but that's because once enough people survive you reach a capacity, which is established through economic pressure.
  - flandish 4y ago
    Where do you (how do you) connect housing, food, essential services to a lower mortality rate and further, how do you connect more people (consuming yet paying taxes) to a capacity as you mention it?