4 ms·

Why is UBI assumed as part of techtopia? When the government has access to unlimited labour and military via robots, why do they need citizens anymore? Beyond s

by djtango 10mo ago

Why is UBI assumed as part of techtopia? When the government has access to unlimited labour and military via robots, why do they need citizens anymore? Beyond some antiquated moral obligation, why would a government actually do anything for a population that is net value extracting?

defrost 10mo ago
You might as well ask why a sea of humanity should tolerate a toll gate keeping robotically enhanced micro brotopia that is net value extracting. Traditionally these motte and bailey fiefdoms were laid siege to and undermined.
- beeflet 10mo ago
  What value do technocrats extract? It is a totally one-way dependency of the serfs upon the technocrats and not the other way around.
tdeck 10mo ago
> why do they need citizens anymore? People like being served by human beings, rich people especially. So that work will still be around and all the brightest and most diligent people will compete to be the one who brings Jeff Bezos's grandson his dinner.
SturgeonsLaw 10mo ago
>why would a government actually do anything for a population that is net value extracting? Because we outnumber them a million to one, and history is littered with examples of what happens to leaders who squeeze their population a little too far
- bigstrat2003 10mo ago
  I'm not really convinced it's actually possible to overthrow a modern government. The disparity in killing power available to the two sides is just too great. Like yeah we outnumber the government a million to one (figuratively), but that's not going to help much when they have tanks, artillery, and planes to defend themselves with.
  - Aloha 10mo ago
    The people that run that killing power are also citizens, and they either must be bought at an increasing steep price, or they will go with the bulk of the nation (mostly with their near and distant relatives who are suffering) - network effects are very real here.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - beeflet 10mo ago
      What happens when the killing power is a autonomous machine? Like now?
      - throw310822 10mo ago
        It's a very valid concern, but technological advances are also available to the people. Asymmetrics war (terrorism, depending the side you're on) is always a possibility, unless the gap between the possibility of states and those of citizens grows too wide.
    - throw-the-towel 10mo ago
      If this argument were true, dictatorships couldn't exist. However, they do.
      - makeitdouble 10mo ago
        You're assuming that citizen are united in what they want. That's usually not the case.
      - Warwolt 10mo ago
        > they either must be bought at an increasing steep price
        throw-the-towel 10mo ago
- mrob 10mo ago
  Historical leaders didn't have fully automated killer drone factories. (Just an example; a real AGI will probably come up with more effective ideas.)
- myk9001 10mo ago
  So, you literally read "unlimited supply of military via robots" in the parent comment, and still reply with this? Humanity truly doesn't stand a chance...
- beeflet 10mo ago
  "killbots, mow down these stupid protesters"
- analog8374 10mo ago
  So it's a mind control problem. We have a good technology for that
integralid 10mo ago
Who is "they"? Isn't government just a group of people selected among others? Government whole job is making life better for people in the country. Billionaires, on the other hand, are not elected and have a vested interest in maintaining the inequalities. If anything, they are UBI enemies.
- zelphirkalt 10mo ago
  And here I got the impression, that the government's job was to enrich themselves, coasting along on the back of the common goods, letting themselves be bought by lobbies and lining up for supervisory board positions, looking out first and foremost for themselves and their clans.
loup-vaillant 10mo ago
> When the government has access to unlimited labour and military via robots, why do they need citizens anymore? Wait a minute, didn’t you just assume Western countries are not democracies? I’ve noticed how fashionable it is in the US in particular, to distrust the government — not just this government, but on principle. This idea that a government never acts on behalf of the people, unless forced to. I wouldn’t disagree to be honest. But then we need to follow this up to its logical conclusion: governance by elected officials is not democratic. Then we need to decide if we actually want democracy or not. Personally, I’d like this decision to be… err… you know, it would be nice if everyone had a say?
- 9rx 10mo ago
  > governance by elected officials is not democratic. Correct. In a (representative) democracy, one does not elect officials. They elect representatives. The representative is not an authority like an official is. They are merely messengers who take the constituent direction established at the local level and travel with that message to deliver it in a country/state/etc.'s central gathering place. > Then we need to decide if we actually want democracy or not. We (meaning most people) do not. Democracy is a lot of work. An incredible amount of work. It requires active participation on a near-daily basis. Most people would rather do things like go to their job to put food on the table or spend time with their hobbies or other pleasure activities. Which is why most people seek — by your own admission — officials to lord over them instead. > Personally, I’d like this decision to be… err… you know, it would be nice if everyone had a say? It is nice when you are independently wealthy and no longer have to worry about things like giving up an enormous amount of your day to keep a roof over your head. But most people are not so fortunate, so they do not find it fair that, for all realistic purposes, only some people get to participate in democracy to their own advantage. Hence why democracies devolve into a system of officials instead, with most people believing it offers a better balance for all involved, albeit at the cost of losing say.
  - bloppe 10mo ago
    But in your example, it sounds like representative democracy is a choice freely taken. If people actually want representatives to worry about the details of policy for them, then that is real democracy, because the alternative is a form of government that the people don't actually want.
hephaes7us 10mo ago
It's pretty easy to imagine a world in which, for example, UBI is available, but it's contingent on sterilization. Aside from being more compassionate than the Terminator movies, it might simply be the cheapest way to handle humans in a world where we've become a liability.
shinycode 10mo ago
I’d argue, why would we need a government in this case ?

by djtango 10mo ago

defrost 10mo ago

You might as well ask why a sea of humanity should tolerate a toll gate keeping robotically enhanced micro brotopia that is net value extracting. Traditionally these motte and bailey fiefdoms were laid siege to and undermined.

beeflet 10mo ago
What value do technocrats extract? It is a totally one-way dependency of the serfs upon the technocrats and not the other way around.

tdeck 10mo ago

> why do they need citizens anymore? People like being served by human beings, rich people especially. So that work will still be around and all the brightest and most diligent people will compete to be the one who brings Jeff Bezos's grandson his dinner.

SturgeonsLaw 10mo ago

>why would a government actually do anything for a population that is net value extracting? Because we outnumber them a million to one, and history is littered with examples of what happens to leaders who squeeze their population a little too far

bigstrat2003 10mo ago
I'm not really convinced it's actually possible to overthrow a modern government. The disparity in killing power available to the two sides is just too great. Like yeah we outnumber the government a million to one (figuratively), but that's not going to help much when they have tanks, artillery, and planes to defend themselves with.
- Aloha 10mo ago
  The people that run that killing power are also citizens, and they either must be bought at an increasing steep price, or they will go with the bulk of the nation (mostly with their near and distant relatives who are suffering) - network effects are very real here.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - beeflet 10mo ago
    What happens when the killing power is a autonomous machine? Like now?
    - throw310822 10mo ago
      It's a very valid concern, but technological advances are also available to the people. Asymmetrics war (terrorism, depending the side you're on) is always a possibility, unless the gap between the possibility of states and those of citizens grows too wide.
  - throw-the-towel 10mo ago
    If this argument were true, dictatorships couldn't exist. However, they do.
    - makeitdouble 10mo ago
      You're assuming that citizen are united in what they want. That's usually not the case.
    - Warwolt 10mo ago
      > they either must be bought at an increasing steep price
      - throw-the-towel 10mo ago
mrob 10mo ago
Historical leaders didn't have fully automated killer drone factories. (Just an example; a real AGI will probably come up with more effective ideas.)
myk9001 10mo ago
So, you literally read "unlimited supply of military via robots" in the parent comment, and still reply with this? Humanity truly doesn't stand a chance...
beeflet 10mo ago
"killbots, mow down these stupid protesters"
analog8374 10mo ago
So it's a mind control problem. We have a good technology for that

integralid 10mo ago

Who is "they"? Isn't government just a group of people selected among others? Government whole job is making life better for people in the country. Billionaires, on the other hand, are not elected and have a vested interest in maintaining the inequalities. If anything, they are UBI enemies.

zelphirkalt 10mo ago
And here I got the impression, that the government's job was to enrich themselves, coasting along on the back of the common goods, letting themselves be bought by lobbies and lining up for supervisory board positions, looking out first and foremost for themselves and their clans.

loup-vaillant 10mo ago

> When the government has access to unlimited labour and military via robots, why do they need citizens anymore? Wait a minute, didn’t you just assume Western countries are not democracies? I’ve noticed how fashionable it is in the US in particular, to distrust the government — not just this government, but on principle. This idea that a government never acts on behalf of the people, unless forced to. I wouldn’t disagree to be honest. But then we need to follow this up to its logical conclusion: governance by elected officials is not democratic. Then we need to decide if we actually want democracy or not. Personally, I’d like this decision to be… err… you know, it would be nice if everyone had a say?

9rx 10mo ago
> governance by elected officials is not democratic. Correct. In a (representative) democracy, one does not elect officials. They elect representatives. The representative is not an authority like an official is. They are merely messengers who take the constituent direction established at the local level and travel with that message to deliver it in a country/state/etc.'s central gathering place. > Then we need to decide if we actually want democracy or not. We (meaning most people) do not. Democracy is a lot of work. An incredible amount of work. It requires active participation on a near-daily basis. Most people would rather do things like go to their job to put food on the table or spend time with their hobbies or other pleasure activities. Which is why most people seek — by your own admission — officials to lord over them instead. > Personally, I’d like this decision to be… err… you know, it would be nice if everyone had a say? It is nice when you are independently wealthy and no longer have to worry about things like giving up an enormous amount of your day to keep a roof over your head. But most people are not so fortunate, so they do not find it fair that, for all realistic purposes, only some people get to participate in democracy to their own advantage. Hence why democracies devolve into a system of officials instead, with most people believing it offers a better balance for all involved, albeit at the cost of losing say.
- bloppe 10mo ago
  But in your example, it sounds like representative democracy is a choice freely taken. If people actually want representatives to worry about the details of policy for them, then that is real democracy, because the alternative is a form of government that the people don't actually want.

hephaes7us 10mo ago

It's pretty easy to imagine a world in which, for example, UBI is available, but it's contingent on sterilization. Aside from being more compassionate than the Terminator movies, it might simply be the cheapest way to handle humans in a world where we've become a liability.

shinycode 10mo ago

I’d argue, why would we need a government in this case ?