Do people really expect to have decent lifestyle with UBI?

Submitted by raylolSW t3_1265f80 in singularity

Throughout history there has always been a massive social economic balance, before the industrial revolution 90% of people were farmers and barely surviving of course this changed after the industrial revolution where today people have ok lives but the reason of this is capitalism.

Capitalism benefits from competence and technological advancement which means you get paid good but you also have to dedicate a lot of your life to become good at something and then be productive. This means someone who is really good at Machine Learning or Medicine will be a treasure and will be paid really good. Power is split between the govertment and the people but the people bring advancements.

​

Why with UBI this would remain the same? Power is everything. History has always teached us this Power is everything that matters and it's easier to have AGI and an small amount of people do everything and leave the rest in the dust while inflicting power in them. Basically like the movie Elysium, why would you share power to humans when their advancements can't compete to the ones that are made by machines?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SkyeandJett t1_je7pnc9 wrote

You don't understand the implications of a post-scarcity society. UBI is a stopgap that keeps society afloat in the tiny period of time it takes from AGI to hit a critical mass of generalist androids. As your cost of labor approaches zero and your supply of labor becomes unbounded you're only limited by things that are TRULY scarce and there aren't many of those things. I've seen people here say things like beachfront property but you could literally build islands to meet the desires of people who want to live on the beach and all of that really just fills the gap to FDVR.

19

Sashinii t1_je845w2 wrote

Well said. It really is a shame how so few people acknowledge how advanced technology (like the nanofactory) will enable post-scarcity in the near future.

10

shmoculus t1_je7y366 wrote

bitcoin?

−4

Sashinii t1_je83t5u wrote

No. Cryptocurrency IS scarcity. They're talking about post-scarcity.

5

Loud_Clerk_9399 t1_je8qvxg wrote

I mean the idea of money goes away. No Bitcoin. No trading for barter no money.

2

shmoculus t1_je8zz9d wrote

I think this is a bit premature because there is usually some form scarcity either by distance or time and a medium of exchange is necessary to trade these resources

e.g. gold is scarce localy but a sufficiently advanced space mining system will increase supply until we need to get out of the solar system, then you likely have to time constrained scarcity ie have to wait for operations in another star sysytem to be setup and send resources back

Even considering there are billions of people and perhaps a few very disirable places for them to live, how to allocate living space equitably since the qualities that make that space desirable cannot easily be scaled e.g. the historical / cultural value of living in Paris, the beauty of living in Hawaii

1

Loud_Clerk_9399 t1_je7u0nz wrote

It's not about UBI; it's going away from money entirely. That's the endgame.

4

Loud_Clerk_9399 t1_je7u23l wrote

Everyone is equal and merit doesn't matter because we all end up with the same. We just do what we desire.

1

Low-Restaurant3504 t1_jebu62l wrote

The ideal scenario is to have enough time to get the populace to accept and treat the idea that success is not tied into a financial or external incentive but is found in contentment and creative exploration. You don't have to get it to be accepted wholesale, but just float it as a viable point of view. That would make a lot of the transition much easier.

That's... probably not in the cards, however.

1

Iffykindofguy t1_je801k5 wrote

This reads like a horror story from an 80s writer who doesnt understand why people do bad things and instead just thinks people are either bad or good.

0

BigZaddyZ3 t1_je80xzi wrote

How do you know people aren’t either just good or bad?

−2

Puzzleheaded_Pop_743 t1_je8bu0s wrote

They can but that is just a subjective perspective because "good" and "bad" are just egoic projections. From a third person point of view if you view human behavior as part of a system then you can see that people behave immorally due to fear and ignorance.

1

BigZaddyZ3 t1_je8dh2a wrote

This thought process only works if you believe good and bad are completely subjective, which they aren’t.

There are two decently objective ways to define bad people.

  1. People who are a threat to the wellbeing of others around them (the other people being innocent of course.)

  2. People that are bad for the well-being of society as a whole.

For example, there’s no intelligent argument that disputes the idea that a serial killer targeting random people is a bad person. It literally can not be denied by anyone of sound mind. Therefore we can conclude that some people are objectively good and objectively bad.

1

johanknl t1_je984xe wrote

The fact that everyone agrees on something does not make it objective. It just means that all of humanity shares the same subjective view on that point.

2

BigZaddyZ3 t1_je98gpt wrote

It certain cases, it absolutely does make it objective. If literally everyone finds a painting beautiful, it’s objectively a beautiful painting. How else would you define the term “objective” in this context?

0

johanknl t1_je9rdk8 wrote

when i go to the dictionary it clearly states: "in a way that is based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings"

even if everyone agrees, it's still just their feelings. You cannot have an objectively beautiful painting since beautiful inherently has to do with opinions and beliefs.

Objective and subjective are static things. One cannot fluidly go between both. In your example, if someone changed their mind, it would all of a sudden become subjective? that's not how these words work.

There's objective facts about a painting, such as the time it took to complete, or the colours used or something, but not how beautiful it is. Same for "good" and "bad" people. People just are and the judgement is subjective. whether we agree or not.

1

BigZaddyZ3 t1_jebb7g9 wrote

Even when you take your feelings out of it, you can still make an argument for a piece of art being well-produced objectively. Regardless of your personal tastes…

And you can still make good arguments that serial killers have a negative impact on a community regardless of your personal beliefs…

1

johanknl t1_jecpodm wrote

Of course. I never claimed otherwise. Being well produced or having negative effects on a community can absolutely be argued in objective ways.

The fact that for example "a good colour balance in painting is important and good" is subjective, does not mean that we cannot then go on to say that someone objectively produced a better result for that subjective ruleset.

That would focus in on details like that though. Saying that something is "beautiful" is not in any way objective.

1