4 ms·

When talking about this I often encounter people going "BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE FAT LAZY SLOBS WHO WON'T DO ANYTHING?!1!?" to which I can only reply: What about th

When talking about this I often encounter people going "BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE FAT LAZY SLOBS WHO WON'T DO ANYTHING?!1!?" to which I can only reply: What about them? So a few people will sit around and do nothing. What's so bad about that if their labor isn't needed? It's not like a few lazy people will bring about the end of our civilization… It's always important to remind those people that it's better to have some parasites at the bottom of society (under basic income) than to have parasites at the top of it (under the current corporate elite). I support BI because it will change the workplace dynamic outright. It will be focused more on getting things done and improving the world and less on servility.

mattm 13y ago
It's also better to have them being given some income instead of having to steal for it which generally costs way more than if the money was just given to them directly in the first place.
chii 13y ago
The parasites at the top will not want the parasites at the bottom, because without the parasites at the bottom, they get a bigger slice of the pie! Basic income, whether its a good idea (for society in general or not), will not come to be. Those who have something to lose with BI will certainly oppose it, and they are the people who have real voting power (or should i say lobby/political power). Unless, the west turns on its head and adopt communism...but i highly doubt that.
- phryk 13y ago
  If ~all the goods are produced automatically we are all parasites living off of the labor of the machines, if you really want to use that word. The way I think about it it's simply taking away the necessity to labor for your survival. I guess most people will spend a very large chunk of their newly won time socializing and I don't see anything wrong with that. If everyone can celebrate each and every day of their lives, I'm strongly in favor of it. :)
  - chii 13y ago
    > we are all parasites living off of the labor of the machines but some parasites are more equal than others - namely, those who owns the machines. You might ask, why do some own the machines (or means of production), while others dont? Its not a question i m in authority or knowledgable enough to answer, but my take on it is that its a snowball effect - once you gain enough capital (or, as i called it above - means of production), you can effectively get other people's productivity as a lever to increase your own. Note, only those who already have capital can do this - people who cannot accrue capital either take big gambles (like borrowing lots of money without being able to pay it back, if they can borrow it at all). Or they just don't do it, and remain status quo. Either way, the only option left for them is to live or work. Thus the cycle perpetuates, and this is the "cause" of the wealth divide - not because some people worked harder, but because opportunities don't come knocking equally. In aa he world where automation is completely replaced all labour, either everyone is capable of being an owner, and thus, all profit to be made using automation is so thin you don't get much of an advantage doing it compared to someone else. Or, some small group basically owns all means of production, and essentially owns the world and everyone in it (either via their power to control resource supply, since they own it!), or indirectly via lobby/"taxes" they pay that the rest of the meeples gets to live off. I m hoping the first scenario comes to pass, but i highly doubt it. Looking at the world now, its much more likely that the 2nd scenario comes to pass.
    - phryk 13y ago
      Well, we already see a democratization of the means of production. Look at open source 3D printers. Did you know there is an open library for smart materials? For genetic information? Open Hardware projects are multiplying, think arduino, raspberry pi, beagleboard… I mean shit - even the last CCCamp had it's own piece of open hardware. I myself am thinking about developing a little robot that can tend plants, basically an open source toolchain for vertical farming… There is more and more stuff like this coming up all the time. And of course there's even an open source civilization starter kit you can inform yourself about at http://opensourceecology.org http://opensourceecology.org IMHO the risk of one faction being all-powerful is nearly zero. We have good times ahead. Even though the road may have a few bumps.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  I think BI will be a necessity, but it will be an ugly discussion. The rich will want the poor to self-sterilize after N (0? 1?) children before it's allowed. I know what people in that set talk about when no one else is listening, and they will be able to get behind paying poor people not to reproduce. I think that is the only way to get the current elite ("the 1 percent") behind basic income; tie it to voluntarily sterilization. Right now, society's really fucking barbaric. If you don't have health insurance and get sick, you die in a lot of pain and spend your last hours in some ER. If you're unemployed for 6+ months, you can't get a job unless you hire a guy like me to consult you on how to re-work your story and arrange references, and even then it's dicey because there's only so much that can be done. This isn't civilization; it's the decaying remnant of one. It either improves dramatically (which I wouldn't rule out) or it falls further because right now it even turns good people into vultures[0]. [0] Actually, I dislike this metaphor. Vultures are good citizens; but you know what I mean.

mattm 13y ago

It's also better to have them being given some income instead of having to steal for it which generally costs way more than if the money was just given to them directly in the first place.

chii 13y ago

The parasites at the top will not want the parasites at the bottom, because without the parasites at the bottom, they get a bigger slice of the pie! Basic income, whether its a good idea (for society in general or not), will not come to be. Those who have something to lose with BI will certainly oppose it, and they are the people who have real voting power (or should i say lobby/political power). Unless, the west turns on its head and adopt communism...but i highly doubt that.

phryk 13y ago
If ~all the goods are produced automatically we are all parasites living off of the labor of the machines, if you really want to use that word. The way I think about it it's simply taking away the necessity to labor for your survival. I guess most people will spend a very large chunk of their newly won time socializing and I don't see anything wrong with that. If everyone can celebrate each and every day of their lives, I'm strongly in favor of it. :)
- chii 13y ago
  > we are all parasites living off of the labor of the machines but some parasites are more equal than others - namely, those who owns the machines. You might ask, why do some own the machines (or means of production), while others dont? Its not a question i m in authority or knowledgable enough to answer, but my take on it is that its a snowball effect - once you gain enough capital (or, as i called it above - means of production), you can effectively get other people's productivity as a lever to increase your own. Note, only those who already have capital can do this - people who cannot accrue capital either take big gambles (like borrowing lots of money without being able to pay it back, if they can borrow it at all). Or they just don't do it, and remain status quo. Either way, the only option left for them is to live or work. Thus the cycle perpetuates, and this is the "cause" of the wealth divide - not because some people worked harder, but because opportunities don't come knocking equally. In aa he world where automation is completely replaced all labour, either everyone is capable of being an owner, and thus, all profit to be made using automation is so thin you don't get much of an advantage doing it compared to someone else. Or, some small group basically owns all means of production, and essentially owns the world and everyone in it (either via their power to control resource supply, since they own it!), or indirectly via lobby/"taxes" they pay that the rest of the meeples gets to live off. I m hoping the first scenario comes to pass, but i highly doubt it. Looking at the world now, its much more likely that the 2nd scenario comes to pass.
  - phryk 13y ago
    Well, we already see a democratization of the means of production. Look at open source 3D printers. Did you know there is an open library for smart materials? For genetic information? Open Hardware projects are multiplying, think arduino, raspberry pi, beagleboard… I mean shit - even the last CCCamp had it's own piece of open hardware. I myself am thinking about developing a little robot that can tend plants, basically an open source toolchain for vertical farming… There is more and more stuff like this coming up all the time. And of course there's even an open source civilization starter kit you can inform yourself about at http://opensourceecology.org http://opensourceecology.org IMHO the risk of one faction being all-powerful is nearly zero. We have good times ahead. Even though the road may have a few bumps.
michaelochurch 13y ago
I think BI will be a necessity, but it will be an ugly discussion. The rich will want the poor to self-sterilize after N (0? 1?) children before it's allowed. I know what people in that set talk about when no one else is listening, and they will be able to get behind paying poor people not to reproduce. I think that is the only way to get the current elite ("the 1 percent") behind basic income; tie it to voluntarily sterilization. Right now, society's really fucking barbaric. If you don't have health insurance and get sick, you die in a lot of pain and spend your last hours in some ER. If you're unemployed for 6+ months, you can't get a job unless you hire a guy like me to consult you on how to re-work your story and arrange references, and even then it's dicey because there's only so much that can be done. This isn't civilization; it's the decaying remnant of one. It either improves dramatically (which I wouldn't rule out) or it falls further because right now it even turns good people into vultures[0]. [0] Actually, I dislike this metaphor. Vultures are good citizens; but you know what I mean.