Canada is considering a guaranteed universal basic income program. Here’s what that means

[SpankyMcFarland]

It was chilling to see how excited Sunak was to interview Musk. 

[Zeitgeist]

While I understand that soon most work will be automated and there will be a need to ensure that people have income, there’s great risk that the economy becomes geared to a subsistence, uniform, scaled down existence that “saves the planet,” “keeps us safe”, and neuters all character and culture in the name of not offending anyone.  It’s Maoism meets technology.  It means a population that’s more or less imprisoned in low carbon footprint cells where there’s no need to leave home. Throw in transhumanism wherein A.I. runs the show in terms of policing. People are stripped of sex and biological features because life becomes essentially virtual.  Brains on Meta.  Tech replaces humans.

It’s not that UBI itself has to lead to all these dystopian conditions.  It’s that the state has a tendency to socially engineer society.  Even Lenin understood that at the local level people need to be free to create and exchange what they want in relation to a free market where people can buy what they want.  You also need to be able to build and sell as much as you want to acquire the best items that people are capable of producing.  People who have a choice will always choose the most opportunity, freedom, and prosperity they can find.  Always.  All ideologies crumble before the reality of human nature.  It doesn’t mean we don’t need guardrails to prevent oppression, exploitation, destitution, etc.  I just think people will seek the best lifestyles they can acquire for themselves and their loved ones.  What are the optimal levels of taxation, social safety nets, regulations, etc.?   Which jurisdictions work best for people?  You won’t get much consensus but will get some.  If the formula fails, people who can leave will do so.  

Edited November 5, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

34 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

While I understand that soon most work will be automated and there will be a need to ensure that people have income, there’s great risk that the economy becomes geared to a subsistence, uniform, scaled down existence that “saves the planet,” “keeps us safe”, and neuters all character and culture in the name of not offending anyone.

The biggest challenge will be getting used to the idea of everybody living for free.

Why would AI put up with supporting freeloaders anymore than you?

[Zeitgeist]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

The biggest challenge will be getting used to the idea of everybody living for free.

Why would AI put up with supporting freeloaders anymore than you?

Two points:  Living for free or living on a state-set universal wage with conditions attached that feel more like imprisonment and poverty than the freedom and prosperity we have today?

Secondly, it’s critical that we don’t hand over decision-making to A.I., give it rights, or become slaves to algorithms that can never be fine-tuned fast enough to appreciate the uniqueness of every person in every situation.  Tech is only a tool, so we should be careful what and how we automate.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Two points:  Living for free or living on a state-set universal wage with conditions attached that feel more like imprisonment and poverty than the freedom and prosperity we have today?

No, living without wages. Who's even going to need money when machines do everything? In theory the only real restraints on us would be set by the abundance or lack of natural resources required to meet our desires.

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Secondly, it’s critical that we don’t hand over decision-making to A.I., give it rights, or become slaves to algorithms that can never be fine-tuned fast enough to appreciate the uniqueness of every person in every situation.  Tech is only a tool, so we should be careful what and how we automate.

It should be easy enough to control the machines so they don't develop their own set of interests or values that clash with ours - just don't program them to be ideological.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

No, living without wages. Who's even going to need money when machines do everything? In theory the only real restraints on us would be set by the abundance or lack of natural resources required to meet our desires.

It should be easy enough to control the machines so they don't develop their own set of interests or values that clash with ours - just don't program them to be ideological.

Where are you, Star Trek?  Remember the Borg might come.  

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, living without wages. Who's even going to need money when machines do everything? In theory the only real restraints on us would be set by the abundance or lack of natural resources required to meet our desires.

It should be easy enough to control the machines so they don't develop their own set of interests or values that clash with ours - just don't program them to be ideological.

People will still need money.  Someone will own the machines or the supply of the machines and they'll want something for it. 

And people will find ways to use the machines to assist them to be more productive,  and while quality of life may go up due to tech advancements you'll still be working.

Which is precisely what happened when computers came along. And everyone then predicted most people would be out of a job.

AI as it's being developed right now is a very cool thing and will likely be put to amazing uses, but it's in no danger of replacing humans in the workplace.

Your communist utopian society is going to have to wait a little longer  

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Your communist utopian society is going to have to wait a little longer

So will warp engines but there will be a day when there's less need for people in the workplace.

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

People will still need money.  Someone will own the machines or the supply of the machines and they'll want something for it. 

There's the rub. It'll be their utopia. What could they get or need from us that they couldn't possibly get from their machines?

This is where I see potential for a more sci-fi like dystopia that involves AI.  Why would an infusion of the 1%'s values and interests into AI be any more or less utopian than if AI were infused with communism or social conservatism?  Who knows where environmentalism could take us. 

[taxme]

On 10/24/2023 at 2:09 PM, eyeball said:

Capitalism's playing field is supposed to be flat not tilted in the direction of the filthy rich - better for them IOW.

We do not have real capitalism today. Today, we now have WEF globalist corporate capitalism which is meant for the filthy rich to get even richer. A big difference indeed.

The WEF is a prime example of greedy corporate capitalism. Their WEF globalist great reset plans consists of owning private jets, big SUV's, big yachts and are allowed to own private property, and they can have steaks for dinner every night.

But we the peasants will never be able to own private jets, drive big SUV's, own yachts or own property but we can always have bugs to eat for dinner. And with their 15 minute cities plans, no cars will be allowed, just bicycles and public buses.

Such a deal for we the peasants, eh? ?

[SpankyMcFarland]

I suspect things will carry on as they are but worse. The oligarchs will be far richer and more powerful but they’ll still want a handful of workers around:

1. Police, judges, prison officers. That will continue for quite a while.

2. Artisans. It will still be fun to see handmade stuff. 

3. Celebs. They’ll be the whole world to most of us.

4. Politicians. People to make things seem like they were. 

I was listening to The Man Who Sold The World and I wondered will such a person eventually exist? Somebody who sells the world. Given the way wealth is being concentrated, it could happen. 
 

 

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I was listening to The Man Who Sold The World and I wondered will such a person eventually exist? Somebody who sells the world. Given the way wealth is being concentrated, it could happen

I recall the answer George Orwell provided to the question, how to avoid the possible futures he wrote about, 'don't let it happen' he said.

Sounds simple enough.