If only they hadn't sabotaged the Universal Basic Income that Richard Nixon proposed back in the 1970s, this would be pretty much good news, instead of more to worry about.
Is that really the worst thing in the world? In an age driven by hyper consumerism and buying new shiny iPhones and other gadgets, do we really need to do more? Can't we just be happy with our accomplishments as a human race and just enjoy? I for one would welcome a stagnant society.
Also, humanity's eggs are currently all on one basket - we're one major cataclismic event from complete obliteration.
No, the challenges ahead require us to keep evolving, we cannot afford to stagnate.
Or some machine...
There's a lot of great stuff that could happen if people weren't chained to wage slavery and could lean on UBI to pursue passions. Sure there will be people that sit on their ass and do nothing, but there will also be people who use their new found freedom to create great things that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
I'd also like to point out that even the most radical UBI proponents aren't pushing for a truly substantial benefit. Most of the proposals I've seen are payments that would be near poverty level if it was treated as a sole income for any length of time.
And most of the ones pursuing their passions will do redundant, useless crap like countless blogs and TikTok videos.
We are the result of evolution and without evolutionary pressure we will fail.
As natural life, everything we do is inherently natural.
Dubious assumption indeed.
The assumption that a company cranking out an iPhone every year is inherently "better for the evolution of humanity" than more people writing or making videos is one I'd question.
Evolutionary pressure seems to mainly create animals that focus more plainly on food and reproduction than modern humanity, after all!
I'm suggesting that "useful to a business" is currently over-prioritized compared to "useful to an individual." (And yes, it's driven by consumers, but if one's basic needs were met without working 8+ hours a day, maybe those individuals would have different preferences.)
And I think the claim that it's evolutionary necessary for us to have today's model of firms and full time employment is particularly out there.
Perhaps it's been a long day, and for some reason I'm not seeing this?
Given time off and no obligations, I always intend to use all of it on that... but damned if I don't start doing useful things on day 2, instead.
[EDIT] FYI, last I heard, states have been quietly letting people scam their way onto the disability rolls to make up for our official social safety net being totally inadequate, after the '08 financial crisis. You might look into that.
I have a friend I made in college who is now on disability. She's using the time to learn and create, and preparing to start a business teaching others what they know. They could easily smoke weed and play video games all day, but that gets old very quickly.
And to add on to that - what makes you think UBI simply won't cause rents to go up to match? We have strong evidence from the current inflation situation that broad based wage gains get eaten up by price increases of goods with limited supply (i.e. the housing situation in every coastal city). Existing UBI experiments aren't widespread enough to materially shift the housing market. You can't go off evidence from giving a few hundred people extra money. And basic economics tells us that oligopolies (the rental market in coastal cities) extract all consumer surplus (the UBI money) because an oligopoly is not a properly functioning market.
As opposed to the army of software engineers developing the platforms to post said useless crap?
Who cares if they do nothing, write blogs, and post to TikTok? This feels like a get off my lawn type of grievance.
We have endured far worse as a species than a mass of people with time and money to do whatever they want. It is pure arrogance to even meekly assert _you_, someone occupying such a thin sliver of time in human history knows what precise machinations will irreversibly ruin us as a species.
Weed and games are fun. Spiritually fulfilling work is fun until about 10%, then you have to document the code, write tests, do marketing, answer support and so on…
However the danger is if you cut human input/involvement altogether. That is what AI will be if successful. Everyone except the business owner will be uninvolved (apart from futile protests).
Why would eliminating the benefit cliff produced by means-tested welfare result in fewer people working for income above the basic support level? Reducing the disincentive for additional work on top of minimum support is a major motivation for moving to BI from means-tested welfare.
Given that most creative output comes from a very small number of people, releasing even a tiny fraction of those people from the basic drudgery of life should result in a cultural explosion.
I would even argue that it would significantly help our current political problems. A lot of political discourse is driven by people who have unstructured idle time--retired or unemployed. UBI would allow people who currently have to struggle to support themselves to engage with the political system.
Besides, don’t artists need the struggle to create? Isn’t best art born of pain and suffering? Isn’t the artist soul a tortured one?
I dont have sources but I've read studies of the creative output of people who only do work when feeling inspired creative motivated and whatnot vs those who do purely out of discipline and habit. And even same people in different moods. And there is no discernable difference in output. Its a feel good assumption but you don't need any of those things to create beautiful things