5 ms·

Guaranteed basic income. It's the only way... at least if we want a future that is actually good for more than ~10% of the human race. The only alternatives ar

by api 11y ago

Guaranteed basic income. It's the only way... at least if we want a future that is actually good for more than ~10% of the human race. The only alternatives are bloody destructive revolutions or totalitarian panopticon police states to forcibly hold the other 90% in crushing poverty. That future would look an awful lot like The Hunger Games -- small high-tech enclaves enslaving and suppressing the rest of humanity -- and even within these enclaves, you do not step out of line. I know people said this in the past and "jobs always came back," but I am increasingly believing that there is a qualitative difference between Turing-complete automation and non-Turing-complete automation. It's different this time. Software defined systems are not like the cotton gin or even first generation industrial robotics. In other words I agree with Marc Andressen: "software is eating the world." Absolutely everything will become software defined -- rapidly and easily reconfigurable and thus exponentially rather than linearly destructive to employment.

darkmighty 11y ago
Absolutely, if every task a given worker can do (even higher level cognitive ones) can be accomplished more economically by a machine, it should be the only conclusion that some mechanism will be required to prevent them from marginalization, regardless of past events (in which low level tasks were automated). I'm not sure this is the case with China yet though. But given the universal availability of technology, it's bound to be a worldwide issue.
itistoday2 11y ago
> Guaranteed basic income. It's the only way... at least if we want a future that is actually good for more than ~10% of the human race. Basic income is one of two ways of realizing a future that is good for everyone (and those ~10% won't be happy without it because the zombies will be at their door). The other way is to make everything free (either forcefully, or through price reductions via technology and automation). Basic income is known to work [1]. "Making everything free" forcefully is a no-go because it disrespects the realities of market dynamics (as we've learned from Communism). It is important also to realize that there are many ways of implementing BI, and some of them are better than others. This is a debate and discussion we should be all having. The primary ethical decision I see is whether BI is implemented in a coercive manner (i.e. taxation) or a voluntary manner. Both approaches are possible and each can be done in various different ways. I worked on something called http://groupcurrency.org http://groupcurrency.org [2], a voluntary cryptocurrency approach to basic income, and there are many other approaches as well, the simplest of which is simply for a "company-tribe" to guarantee its members a minimum income (backed by the fruits of their collective labor). For those interested in Basic Income, I strongly recommend perusing the subreddit r/basicincome and related subreddits (r/CryptoUBI, etc.). [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index#wiki_that.27s_all_very_well.2C_but_where.27s_the_evidence.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index#wiki_that.27... [2] HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501059
- api 11y ago
  While I'm not a fan of coercive taxation, it's better than The Hunger Games. It's also important to note that populist revolutions also often result in totalitarianism. So without basic income I think we have a choice between a totalitarian state of the 1% and a totalitarian state of the 99% (or at least one that claims to be -- we saw what the USSR turned into). It's likely the best way to preserve the most freedom and openness, at least given the political tools at our disposal. I'm a fan of the idea of eliminating coercive taxation but I do not see it as something politically achievable in the foreseeable future. ... and yes, there will be some percentage of people who get basic income and just sit around and get high and eat chips. I do not believe that is avoidable. I suppose today a lot of those people are working in bullshit jobs that are on their way out, or are on an existing welfare system. It's dumb to sacrifice our freedom or quality of life just because it offends us to see a few people dicking around. Ultimately it's their loss -- they are the ones wasting their lives on unfulfilling time-wasting "entertainment," and they'll probably regret it later. We need not subject ourselves to totalitarianism or poverty in order to "punish" people for laziness -- a life wasted is punishment enough.
  - itistoday2 11y ago
    > I'm a fan of the idea of eliminating coercive taxation but I do not see it as something politically achievable in the foreseeable future. It is also questionable whether basic income itself is politically achievable. The beauty of the non-coercive voluntary approaches to basic income is that it can be implemented right now by any group without requiring or waiting on any political gesticulation.
    - api 11y ago
      I'm curious about this. Any references? The problem I see is that you already have this huge taxation burden which soaks up surplus wealth that might power such things. Implementing basic income at the government level would redirect this firehose, but I don't see how decentralized voluntarist approaches would achieve that.

by api 11y ago

darkmighty 11y ago

Absolutely, if every task a given worker can do (even higher level cognitive ones) can be accomplished more economically by a machine, it should be the only conclusion that some mechanism will be required to prevent them from marginalization, regardless of past events (in which low level tasks were automated). I'm not sure this is the case with China yet though. But given the universal availability of technology, it's bound to be a worldwide issue.

itistoday2 11y ago

> Guaranteed basic income. It's the only way... at least if we want a future that is actually good for more than ~10% of the human race. Basic income is one of two ways of realizing a future that is good for everyone (and those ~10% won't be happy without it because the zombies will be at their door). The other way is to make everything free (either forcefully, or through price reductions via technology and automation). Basic income is known to work [1]. "Making everything free" forcefully is a no-go because it disrespects the realities of market dynamics (as we've learned from Communism). It is important also to realize that there are many ways of implementing BI, and some of them are better than others. This is a debate and discussion we should be all having. The primary ethical decision I see is whether BI is implemented in a coercive manner (i.e. taxation) or a voluntary manner. Both approaches are possible and each can be done in various different ways. I worked on something called http://groupcurrency.org http://groupcurrency.org [2], a voluntary cryptocurrency approach to basic income, and there are many other approaches as well, the simplest of which is simply for a "company-tribe" to guarantee its members a minimum income (backed by the fruits of their collective labor). For those interested in Basic Income, I strongly recommend perusing the subreddit r/basicincome and related subreddits (r/CryptoUBI, etc.). [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index#wiki_that.27s_all_very_well.2C_but_where.27s_the_evidence.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index#wiki_that.27... [2] HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501059

api 11y ago
While I'm not a fan of coercive taxation, it's better than The Hunger Games. It's also important to note that populist revolutions also often result in totalitarianism. So without basic income I think we have a choice between a totalitarian state of the 1% and a totalitarian state of the 99% (or at least one that claims to be -- we saw what the USSR turned into). It's likely the best way to preserve the most freedom and openness, at least given the political tools at our disposal. I'm a fan of the idea of eliminating coercive taxation but I do not see it as something politically achievable in the foreseeable future. ... and yes, there will be some percentage of people who get basic income and just sit around and get high and eat chips. I do not believe that is avoidable. I suppose today a lot of those people are working in bullshit jobs that are on their way out, or are on an existing welfare system. It's dumb to sacrifice our freedom or quality of life just because it offends us to see a few people dicking around. Ultimately it's their loss -- they are the ones wasting their lives on unfulfilling time-wasting "entertainment," and they'll probably regret it later. We need not subject ourselves to totalitarianism or poverty in order to "punish" people for laziness -- a life wasted is punishment enough.
- itistoday2 11y ago
  > I'm a fan of the idea of eliminating coercive taxation but I do not see it as something politically achievable in the foreseeable future. It is also questionable whether basic income itself is politically achievable. The beauty of the non-coercive voluntary approaches to basic income is that it can be implemented right now by any group without requiring or waiting on any political gesticulation.
  - api 11y ago
    I'm curious about this. Any references? The problem I see is that you already have this huge taxation burden which soaks up surplus wealth that might power such things. Implementing basic income at the government level would redirect this firehose, but I don't see how decentralized voluntarist approaches would achieve that.