3 ms·

I think one possibility is that the increase in technology is enough to cover our needs. For example forget money, but instead we just handed out a certain amo

I think one possibility is that the increase in technology is enough to cover our needs. For example forget money, but instead we just handed out a certain amount of food to everybody. We can get 1 person with an advance combine to collect enough grain for maybe 1000 people. If we can automate that, then 0 people collect enough grain for infinite people. The only limit is the area that we are farming. It would be reasonable to assume for ubi to work, we would need a reasonable amount of land to be farmed. Now apply the same concept to other things as well.

theultdev 3y ago
What you're suggesting sounds like bread lines. That's not really a step up from the current system that lifted millions out of poverty and hunger. The US has enough grain to pass it out to everyone, no magic technological leap needed, we already ship our massive amounts of excess grain across the world to developing countries. Noone in a developed country wants to eat just grain though! Also who gets to hand out the grain? That never really goes well when authoritarians control who gets to eat and how much and what. (some animals are more equal than others) And who gets / has to do the automating / maintaining? Are they compensated extra or is it forced? > It would be reasonable to assume for ubi to work, we would need a reasonable amount of land to be farmed. We have plenty of farmland. The thing you need most for "free food" is more ranchland in the US. Otherwise you will have to develop the natural grassland as farmland, killing every creature under the topsoil and using A LOT of water. As you can tell I have a few issues with this communistic approach, but I would like honest answers to these proses as they come up in history as "problems of implementation" to be generous. (killing millions via famine and force) Edit: downvote all you want, but questioning a proposed new system to govern humans should be scrutinized given the past failed experiments with millions of people's lives.
financltravsty 3y ago
This is an interesting thought. And at that point, if we have sufficiently advanced technology we can simply do away with money and dispense necessities as necessary. A bit like communism, if it hadn't been plagued by resource shortages (ignoring the human causes).
phkahler 3y ago
>> If we can automate that, then 0 people collect enough grain for infinite people. The people who built the automation want to be paid (in perpetuity since they "own" it), as do the people who maintain the automation. But when nobody has a job, they can't pay. So we confiscate from the "owner" and tax the wages of the "maintainers" and hand it to the masses via UBI so they can "pay" for the services of the others (but food is free). I suspect wealth redistribution is an important function of the US government and tax system, but when things get to far out of whack it's going to look absurdly stupid and people will not play any more.

theultdev 3y ago

What you're suggesting sounds like bread lines. That's not really a step up from the current system that lifted millions out of poverty and hunger. The US has enough grain to pass it out to everyone, no magic technological leap needed, we already ship our massive amounts of excess grain across the world to developing countries. Noone in a developed country wants to eat just grain though! Also who gets to hand out the grain? That never really goes well when authoritarians control who gets to eat and how much and what. (some animals are more equal than others) And who gets / has to do the automating / maintaining? Are they compensated extra or is it forced? > It would be reasonable to assume for ubi to work, we would need a reasonable amount of land to be farmed. We have plenty of farmland. The thing you need most for "free food" is more ranchland in the US. Otherwise you will have to develop the natural grassland as farmland, killing every creature under the topsoil and using A LOT of water. As you can tell I have a few issues with this communistic approach, but I would like honest answers to these proses as they come up in history as "problems of implementation" to be generous. (killing millions via famine and force) Edit: downvote all you want, but questioning a proposed new system to govern humans should be scrutinized given the past failed experiments with millions of people's lives.

financltravsty 3y ago

This is an interesting thought. And at that point, if we have sufficiently advanced technology we can simply do away with money and dispense necessities as necessary. A bit like communism, if it hadn't been plagued by resource shortages (ignoring the human causes).

phkahler 3y ago

>> If we can automate that, then 0 people collect enough grain for infinite people. The people who built the automation want to be paid (in perpetuity since they "own" it), as do the people who maintain the automation. But when nobody has a job, they can't pay. So we confiscate from the "owner" and tax the wages of the "maintainers" and hand it to the masses via UBI so they can "pay" for the services of the others (but food is free). I suspect wealth redistribution is an important function of the US government and tax system, but when things get to far out of whack it's going to look absurdly stupid and people will not play any more.