4 ms·

The point of the article was that this applies to a nearly post scarcity society. For example, suppose we lived in an Asimov style world where autonomous robots

The point of the article was that this applies to a nearly post scarcity society. For example, suppose we lived in an Asimov style world where autonomous robots could produce enough food, clothing and housing to sustain everyone on Earth even if Every Single Person decided to never work again. In such a society, the basic income can be determined by what the robots can produce. I think it's interesting to think about what could be possible in a future society, as opposed to just the fact that this probably won't work today.

msandford 13y ago
Yeah that's cool too, but where does the $100 trillion to build all the robots come from? Robots ain't cheap and it's not like it's all software license fees either, you need to actually pay people (or robots) to dig ore out of the ground and to use energy to transform it into metal and then form those ingots into usable shapes and then transform those usable shapes into robot frames and then attach electrical or hydraulic actuators and pumps and put controlling circuitry in there and then you still have to have the control system. So far all that stuff is owned privately and I don't foresee the people who've spent millions or billions of dollars of private capital to make all that exist suddenly say "hey it's cool, we're giving all this stuff away for the greater good!"
- landryraccoon 13y ago
  Well, if the robots can produce ten times more then the amount needed to sustain everyone, then the government can tax the robots productivity at 10% to achieve the same thing. You're going to say that that's theft at gunpoint probably, and I'm going to say I don't have any moral problem with that. Taxes have existed since human beings first banded together to form large groups and they aren't going away anytime soon. So is this just going to turn into another stupid libertarian argument about how all taxes are evil? Because I'm pretty sure that debate has been settled in every single successful civilization since the dawn of time.. Taxes won. Lastly, I think your viewpoint is pretty evil honestly. So there is a robotic surplus sufficient to feed the world multiple times over in this scenario and people still starve because fuck you I own the robots and I'm only going to help myself? If that's the world there will be a revolution and I'll be on the side of the dirty hippies.
  - msandford 13y ago
    >You're going to say that that's theft at gunpoint probably, and I'm going to say I don't have any moral problem with that. No I'm not going to argue that it's theft at gunpoint, actually. But thanks for trying to paint me into a corner. What I am saying is that the world is complicated and just because the robots can make enough stuff or grow enough food in a theoretical sense doesn't mean that utopia is suddenly achieved. >Lastly, I think your viewpoint is pretty evil honestly. So there is a robotic surplus sufficient to feed the world multiple times over in this scenario and people still starve because fuck you I own the robots and I'm only going to help myself? If that's the world there will be a revolution and I'll be on the side of the dirty hippies. You don't even know what my viewpoint is so I don't see how you can characterize it as evil! I can't believe how quickly this turned into "you must be a dirty libertarian so fuck you!" I don't particularly LIKE taxes and a world where taxes magically didn't have to exist but I still got to use roads and schools and fire departments and police and stuff, I'd be OK with that. But since none of those people work for free, I accept taxes as necessary even if not my favorite. > then the government can tax the robots productivity at 10% to achieve the same thing. OK what you just said there is that the government is going to take all the useful output of the robots and leave the owners with no useful output. If the robots can produce 10x whats needed and the government takes the first 1x then what the owners of the robots do with the other 9x? Nobody needs the other 9x, so by definition they couldn't sell it. Disagree with me? OK great, I want to sell you a million liters of air at 1ATM for $0.001 per liter. Wait, you already have more than enough air? And everyone else does too? Fuck who is going to buy this air so that I can make good on my investment?!?! If the robots were going to be taxed at 10% of productivity you'd basically see the total robot workforce get reduced by 90%. If you spend a billion dollars on a factory you need to get your money back and if you can't sell the excess capacity then you're going broke. The best scenario I can think of is that the robots become so cheap that eventually everyone becomes largely self-sufficient. But even then you'll still have problems because of land ownership; if you can make everything you need just so long as you have access to land then the price of land will go way, way up. Maybe once you get to space everyone can have as much of whatever that they need and we can achieve rough approximations of utopia but maybe not. Maybe once we get to space everyone wants their own 500 ft luxury spaceliner and there's not enough raw materials to go around. I think part of the problem is that human desires are basically unlimited. Maybe not everyone has infinite ability to consume, but the human race, collectively, could consume nearly infinite amounts of anything. So any attempt to imagine "well what happens in the future when we can easily satisfy everyone's current desires" accidentally ignores the idea that in the future people will probably have desires that are bigger than they are today. There was a time when many people shared a large single room house in Europe in the middle ages. Then someone invented the fireplace and the nobility gave themselves their own rooms. Eventually it became common for everyone to have their own room. Then, everyone has their own house/condo/apartment though sometimes shared between several generations. Now in the US it's quite common for a single person of 25 to have their own 1BD apartment or even a whole house. 500 years ago you'd have to have been filthy rich to have that. Today it's possible for someone with a high school diploma and knowledge of a skilled trade to afford it. 500 years from today I agree that meeting everyone's current demands will probably be a joke and the robots will be able to do it all. But what new desires will human beings have that we can't even imagine right now? I'm not saying that a Star Trek economy could never exist, but that I don't foresee it happening do to the fact that human nature will probably be the same.

msandford 13y ago

Yeah that's cool too, but where does the $100 trillion to build all the robots come from? Robots ain't cheap and it's not like it's all software license fees either, you need to actually pay people (or robots) to dig ore out of the ground and to use energy to transform it into metal and then form those ingots into usable shapes and then transform those usable shapes into robot frames and then attach electrical or hydraulic actuators and pumps and put controlling circuitry in there and then you still have to have the control system. So far all that stuff is owned privately and I don't foresee the people who've spent millions or billions of dollars of private capital to make all that exist suddenly say "hey it's cool, we're giving all this stuff away for the greater good!"

landryraccoon 13y ago
Well, if the robots can produce ten times more then the amount needed to sustain everyone, then the government can tax the robots productivity at 10% to achieve the same thing. You're going to say that that's theft at gunpoint probably, and I'm going to say I don't have any moral problem with that. Taxes have existed since human beings first banded together to form large groups and they aren't going away anytime soon. So is this just going to turn into another stupid libertarian argument about how all taxes are evil? Because I'm pretty sure that debate has been settled in every single successful civilization since the dawn of time.. Taxes won. Lastly, I think your viewpoint is pretty evil honestly. So there is a robotic surplus sufficient to feed the world multiple times over in this scenario and people still starve because fuck you I own the robots and I'm only going to help myself? If that's the world there will be a revolution and I'll be on the side of the dirty hippies.
- msandford 13y ago
  >You're going to say that that's theft at gunpoint probably, and I'm going to say I don't have any moral problem with that. No I'm not going to argue that it's theft at gunpoint, actually. But thanks for trying to paint me into a corner. What I am saying is that the world is complicated and just because the robots can make enough stuff or grow enough food in a theoretical sense doesn't mean that utopia is suddenly achieved. >Lastly, I think your viewpoint is pretty evil honestly. So there is a robotic surplus sufficient to feed the world multiple times over in this scenario and people still starve because fuck you I own the robots and I'm only going to help myself? If that's the world there will be a revolution and I'll be on the side of the dirty hippies. You don't even know what my viewpoint is so I don't see how you can characterize it as evil! I can't believe how quickly this turned into "you must be a dirty libertarian so fuck you!" I don't particularly LIKE taxes and a world where taxes magically didn't have to exist but I still got to use roads and schools and fire departments and police and stuff, I'd be OK with that. But since none of those people work for free, I accept taxes as necessary even if not my favorite. > then the government can tax the robots productivity at 10% to achieve the same thing. OK what you just said there is that the government is going to take all the useful output of the robots and leave the owners with no useful output. If the robots can produce 10x whats needed and the government takes the first 1x then what the owners of the robots do with the other 9x? Nobody needs the other 9x, so by definition they couldn't sell it. Disagree with me? OK great, I want to sell you a million liters of air at 1ATM for $0.001 per liter. Wait, you already have more than enough air? And everyone else does too? Fuck who is going to buy this air so that I can make good on my investment?!?! If the robots were going to be taxed at 10% of productivity you'd basically see the total robot workforce get reduced by 90%. If you spend a billion dollars on a factory you need to get your money back and if you can't sell the excess capacity then you're going broke. The best scenario I can think of is that the robots become so cheap that eventually everyone becomes largely self-sufficient. But even then you'll still have problems because of land ownership; if you can make everything you need just so long as you have access to land then the price of land will go way, way up. Maybe once you get to space everyone can have as much of whatever that they need and we can achieve rough approximations of utopia but maybe not. Maybe once we get to space everyone wants their own 500 ft luxury spaceliner and there's not enough raw materials to go around. I think part of the problem is that human desires are basically unlimited. Maybe not everyone has infinite ability to consume, but the human race, collectively, could consume nearly infinite amounts of anything. So any attempt to imagine "well what happens in the future when we can easily satisfy everyone's current desires" accidentally ignores the idea that in the future people will probably have desires that are bigger than they are today. There was a time when many people shared a large single room house in Europe in the middle ages. Then someone invented the fireplace and the nobility gave themselves their own rooms. Eventually it became common for everyone to have their own room. Then, everyone has their own house/condo/apartment though sometimes shared between several generations. Now in the US it's quite common for a single person of 25 to have their own 1BD apartment or even a whole house. 500 years ago you'd have to have been filthy rich to have that. Today it's possible for someone with a high school diploma and knowledge of a skilled trade to afford it. 500 years from today I agree that meeting everyone's current demands will probably be a joke and the robots will be able to do it all. But what new desires will human beings have that we can't even imagine right now? I'm not saying that a Star Trek economy could never exist, but that I don't foresee it happening do to the fact that human nature will probably be the same.