25 ms·

Here's the thing: I believe that millions of years of evolution have baked into every living thing a deep need to work, and we'll feel bad if we don't (because

by dicroce 13y ago

Here's the thing: I believe that millions of years of evolution have baked into every living thing a deep need to work, and we'll feel bad if we don't (because for millions of years lazyness meant death). We need to struggle. Further, I think we need to bad times to help us recognize the good times and a basic income would do much to soften those bad times... I worry that Basic Income is in the long term practically unavoidable, but at the same time will create new levels of depravity in mankind.

baddox 13y ago
> I believe that millions of years of evolution have baked into every living thing a deep need to work, and we'll feel bad if we don't (because for millions of years lazyness meant death). We need to struggle. I think there is a difference between "work" that fulfills our desire to dedicate time and effort toward challenging endeavors and "work" that creates sufficient net value to keep oneself alive (or in the case of a redistributive society, to keep society as a whole alive). And yes, I think this even applies to people who do jobs that align very closely with their passions, like many computer programmers. My argument isn't that passionate programmers wouldn't continue programming if they had no need for a wage, but rather that they would do precisely the parts of programming they enjoy.
- tempestn 13y ago
  It's not like the economic incentive to work will be completely gone though. Presumably BI would be, at least to start, roughly the bare minimum required to survive. Any luxuries would still require earned income. Also, given hedonic adaptation, humans are rarely content with any given level of luxury. While there are certainly negatives to that, it does mean that most (or at least many) people would continue to attempt to earn as much as possible even with a basic income. Finally, the money does have to come from somewhere. I expect that the system would be designed so that it begins net neutral for the middle class. And I can't see most middle class people suddenly deciding to give up half their income just because there's suddenly a softer landing. For the rich, the effect would obviously be even less pronounced.
  - FLUX-YOU 13y ago
    >It's not like the economic incentive to work will be completely gone though. Presumably BI would be, at least to start, roughly the bare minimum required to survive. Any luxuries would still require earned income. Curiously, I think Basic Income would drive creativity in some people to acquire luxuries without working for someone else (building their own stuff, or unfortunately, stealing). I think many would wear that as a badge of pride. We already worship business leaders and entrepreneurs. Imagine the praise of successful entrepreneurship of one's life and possessions and not just his business.
brianpgordon 13y ago
1. I think you underestimate the daily hell of the lives of workers who hate their jobs. There are millions of people out there who are homeless because they'd rather sleep outside than perform the jobs available to them. 2. People who are forced to work two (or more) jobs to stay afloat are struggling way more than could conceivably be incentivized by evolution. I can't imagine how miserable and downtrodden people must be who have no weekend to look forward to in which to pursue their interests. 3. I don't believe that doing something meaningless like sweeping floors or checking groceries fills any kind of psychological need. I've personally gone a few months before without doing any kind of work, and it was glorious. 4. What about all of those psychological needs (family, relationships, hobbies) which people compromise for the sake of work?
acchow 13y ago
Furthermore, we expect others to work and respect them based on what they do. I believe that a basic income may make life easier, but it will make it all that much harder to reach equality of respect, equality of dignity.
- jsmeaton 13y ago
  There's no dignity in being homeless, or even working 2-3 jobs without weekends just to keep your family from starving.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Hard work is a recent invention. It arrived with the farming revolution a mere 10-12k years ago. Before that, humans as foragers are believed to have worked about 20hrs per week, if they so chose.
- nirnira 13y ago
  Yeah, and early vertebrate species in the Cambrian just swam around singing happy songs and smooching anemones all day while they enjoyed a universe free of those horrible constraints of energy and matter that nasty humans invented to oppress each other. Get a fucking grip. Hunter gatherers lived in shitty conditions with unbelievably poor material wealth, and had no protections against disease, injury, starvation, attack by animals, attack by other humans, old age, death in childbirth, etc etc. Average lifespan was 20.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    All of which is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. Hard work came with farming. Before farming people worked very few hours.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    Oh, and you're also wrong about much of the rest of it as well. There is a reason that anthropologists consider farming "the worst mistake in human history": http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanned%20Documents/Intro/Diamond.PDF http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne...
gizmo686 13y ago
From an evolutionary standpoint, I disagree with your first statement. Work involves using energy. When an animal does not need food, it is often better served by not working so as to conserve its energy.

by dicroce 13y ago

baddox 13y ago

> I believe that millions of years of evolution have baked into every living thing a deep need to work, and we'll feel bad if we don't (because for millions of years lazyness meant death). We need to struggle. I think there is a difference between "work" that fulfills our desire to dedicate time and effort toward challenging endeavors and "work" that creates sufficient net value to keep oneself alive (or in the case of a redistributive society, to keep society as a whole alive). And yes, I think this even applies to people who do jobs that align very closely with their passions, like many computer programmers. My argument isn't that passionate programmers wouldn't continue programming if they had no need for a wage, but rather that they would do precisely the parts of programming they enjoy.

tempestn 13y ago
It's not like the economic incentive to work will be completely gone though. Presumably BI would be, at least to start, roughly the bare minimum required to survive. Any luxuries would still require earned income. Also, given hedonic adaptation, humans are rarely content with any given level of luxury. While there are certainly negatives to that, it does mean that most (or at least many) people would continue to attempt to earn as much as possible even with a basic income. Finally, the money does have to come from somewhere. I expect that the system would be designed so that it begins net neutral for the middle class. And I can't see most middle class people suddenly deciding to give up half their income just because there's suddenly a softer landing. For the rich, the effect would obviously be even less pronounced.
- FLUX-YOU 13y ago
  >It's not like the economic incentive to work will be completely gone though. Presumably BI would be, at least to start, roughly the bare minimum required to survive. Any luxuries would still require earned income. Curiously, I think Basic Income would drive creativity in some people to acquire luxuries without working for someone else (building their own stuff, or unfortunately, stealing). I think many would wear that as a badge of pride. We already worship business leaders and entrepreneurs. Imagine the praise of successful entrepreneurship of one's life and possessions and not just his business.

brianpgordon 13y ago

1. I think you underestimate the daily hell of the lives of workers who hate their jobs. There are millions of people out there who are homeless because they'd rather sleep outside than perform the jobs available to them. 2. People who are forced to work two (or more) jobs to stay afloat are struggling way more than could conceivably be incentivized by evolution. I can't imagine how miserable and downtrodden people must be who have no weekend to look forward to in which to pursue their interests. 3. I don't believe that doing something meaningless like sweeping floors or checking groceries fills any kind of psychological need. I've personally gone a few months before without doing any kind of work, and it was glorious. 4. What about all of those psychological needs (family, relationships, hobbies) which people compromise for the sake of work?

acchow 13y ago

Furthermore, we expect others to work and respect them based on what they do. I believe that a basic income may make life easier, but it will make it all that much harder to reach equality of respect, equality of dignity.

jsmeaton 13y ago
There's no dignity in being homeless, or even working 2-3 jobs without weekends just to keep your family from starving.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

Hard work is a recent invention. It arrived with the farming revolution a mere 10-12k years ago. Before that, humans as foragers are believed to have worked about 20hrs per week, if they so chose.

nirnira 13y ago
Yeah, and early vertebrate species in the Cambrian just swam around singing happy songs and smooching anemones all day while they enjoyed a universe free of those horrible constraints of energy and matter that nasty humans invented to oppress each other. Get a fucking grip. Hunter gatherers lived in shitty conditions with unbelievably poor material wealth, and had no protections against disease, injury, starvation, attack by animals, attack by other humans, old age, death in childbirth, etc etc. Average lifespan was 20.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  All of which is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. Hard work came with farming. Before farming people worked very few hours.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Oh, and you're also wrong about much of the rest of it as well. There is a reason that anthropologists consider farming "the worst mistake in human history": http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanned%20Documents/Intro/Diamond.PDF http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne...

gizmo686 13y ago

From an evolutionary standpoint, I disagree with your first statement. Work involves using energy. When an animal does not need food, it is often better served by not working so as to conserve its energy.