I do think it's misguided benevolence, though. I hope that largely removing adversity and creating dependence aren't viewed as trivial changes here. People need to be challenged. We need to consider the more subtle ramifications of this. Humans have always labored. Work is in our blood.
The only real challenge in my life is to keep some perspective and maintain a positive outlook. So from where I'm sitting this sounds pretty patronizing.
Or that working for subsistence is somehow noble while basic income and working to achieve other goals (creative outlet, education, etc) isn't?
Your second point is not even in the same ballpark with what I said, however.
I propose a counter-statement: removing adversity is good, the goodest thing there is.
The options are either embracing some form of socialism or violent, society-ending revolt.
I'd much prefer the former to the latter.
I'm more optimistic, however. I think labor will just evolve, just as it's done with every corresponding evolution in technology.
Then you're missing the point, there is not an endless amount of low skilled labor to do and machines will take over all of those roles, even the new ones. People aren't going to suddenly all be able to handle high skilled jobs.
There is a strong relationship between improvements in technology and improvements in human development. All boats rise with the tide.
The definition of change.. but some people seem to believe change does not exist. Is it possible to reach such a person/
It's not the same thing happening this time.