It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Enacting a basic income for all Americans

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
What I don't want to see happen is like what happened in Issac Asimov's "Foundation" series...

Basically, when the Galactic Empire declined and shiveled into a shell of its former self, no one knew how anything worked anymore. People took for granted that the power stations just "worked" -- but no one could fix them if they broke down.

I wouldn't want to see a society dependent on robots to the point where we didn't know how any of them operated or how they could be fixed. One good natural disaster (asteroid) could send us back to the stone age because we weren't able to repair the robots that allowed us to survive.


Avoiding that outcome would require a shift not only from greed to generosity, but a shift to the absolute pursuit of knowledge.
edit on 6/3/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

That is also a problem.

You give people everything they need, and they don't need to learn. Learning is a survival skill. If you don't need to learn to survive, you lose your intellectual curiosity.

We can already see the overall decay beginning.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The more we automate, the smaller our population needs to be. We simply can't have a huge chunk of the population sitting around doing nothing because we've designed robots to do it for us.

I hate to say it ... but people probably need to not have 5 kids and whatnot. We don't live on farms anymore, we don't need to breed in order to have a ready-made workforce.


Yeah. People shouldn't have a bunch of kids. I think we should stop having heterosexual intercourse. No. Just do away with sex period. No more reproduction, no kids, yeah cause it's all about producing sh$t and not about PEOPLE. Who needs people? What we need is more sh$t and less people, cause you never can have enough sh$t... too many people... no good....
edit on 3-6-2015 by HUMBLEONE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Cuervo
picturing a world with maybe 5% employment rate (enough to keep the machine running) and maybe have everybody work a mandatory five years (like compulsory military service in some nations) or even a lottery. There will be zero reason for everybody to work 40 hours a week to keep a high-tech society functioning and thriving.


I don't even believe that any compulsory labor or military service would be needed.

It's like I keep saying. There will always be people willing to perform jobs because they like to do it.

Is it really a job when you're doing something you love?


I agree. I was just trying to position it in a way that everybody could understand. Most people can't wrap their heads around a society that does not require an active and robust workforce.

I also agree that there would still be people providing services just like there are now and maybe those people could get perks. One thing we know will not function is a paycheck system that a person's survival depends on. That will one day be a barbaric meme that kids will use just like we use those mustached guys on unicycles.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: EternalSolace

That is also a problem.

You give people everything they need, and they don't need to learn. Learning is a survival skill. If you don't need to learn to survive, you lose your intellectual curiosity.

We can already see the overall decay beginning.



Agreed. That's a problem I see that would be a very big issue. That poses the question, can one instill intellectual curiosity as one of the highest held values in their children?



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

If you are giving out perks, you are paying people. That's what it boils down to.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
our whole economy I think will eventually be restructured making both communism and capitalism obsolete ideas.
how may jobs worldwide would be replaced if every home had a 3d printer in them programmed with the designs of everything we could ever want or need (outside of food)... if we could sort our waste and dispose of it in it's proper receptacle and well it could be automatically transported to a recycling facility where it is automatically broken down into a form that the 3 d printer can used and transported back to feed your printer for the next thing you wish to have. The same could be done with our nutrition also, but well I think that would be going too far. the whole system might have less than one hundred people in charge of it for a city and they could be rewarded with better living quarters.
In such a world, who would be working the butts off so other's could be getting a free ride? Or in other words when we have machines producing everything, and transporting to each home, isn't the whole system basically free?
free energy from solar, wind and water...as well as others.
free materials through recycling,
and free labor through machines.

I don't think we are that far from this little dreamworld that I just described. And as I see it it would eliminate much of the labor we currently need to do now leaving us open to spend our time with more important labors,
creativity
nuturing our fellow man,
and exploring the sciences, arts or whatever other topics peak our interests.

probably what scares people the most about this idea is that it would in effect remove the so called curse that gave put on man so long ago that we would work from dawn till dusk. maybe that is why some feel like that should deny the possibility.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

No, it's not that the idea of Utopia is frightening. It's that it's seductive. The thing is that it's also impossible.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
An interesting thread OP.

Funny that beezer said something about a gilded cage, from his gilded cage.

People generally react poorly when their vaunted worldview is challenged.

Personal responsibility! Harped from the rooftops as the pinnacle of human virtue as they blindly ignore the fact that it's been disappearing for a LOOONG time.

Cling to the old ways all you like.


So since personal responsibility is gone, workers like myself have to sacrifice our own gilded cage for those who have not worked, are unwilling to work, or have not found work.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Basically, in this "brave new world", how much of what I earn would I be allowed to keep?



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Cuervo

If you are giving out perks, you are paying people. That's what it boils down to.



Not necessarily with "money", though. Anthropologists break down cultural economies into two distinct flavors: one that values a currency and determines worth based on the quantity of that currency and one that values real things, like art, culture, education, skills, infrastructure, etc.

We will eventually be forced to remove the connection between "money" and "goods". When there is nothing crucial for 95% of the population to do to "produce" things, they will instead produce value that cannot be measured into GDP. It's not so much that this is the "good" way and that the current (old) way is the "bad" way, it's just simply something we will have to do someday.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Basically, in this "brave new world", how much of what I earn would I be allowed to keep?


I have a better question for you. If everybody who are on lower economic rungs than you were brought up to your level and you stayed where you were at, would you view that as a loss?

What if you didn't have to lose a thing aside from your relative wealth when standing next to poor people? If technology drives the world economy to that point, would you complain if you and all the poor folks were all elevated to the status of somebody who was better off than you? Should that person feel like they lost something then?



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: EternalSolace

That is also a problem.

You give people everything they need, and they don't need to learn. Learning is a survival skill. If you don't need to learn to survive, you lose your intellectual curiosity.

We can already see the overall decay beginning.



I see what you are saying but i'm not so sure I totally agree with that.

I research a lot of things on the side that don't make me any money nor do I need for survival, but I'm passionate about them and enjoy learning when I can.

IMO if You give people everything they need , learning would be the only thing they could never fully obtain and would pursue as its limitless.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

In the end, it's the same thing though. It doesn't matter what you call it or how you reward. It's still paying them.

There will be haves who chose to do certain things to be haves and there will be the have nots. And you will have a two class society because of this. And someone at some point will say, "Look at them! It's not fair that they have what you don't just because they do something you don't. Don't you deserve it too?"



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

No, but we're talking about a star trek scenario.

Hell, on paper, socialism, even communism sounds like a wonderful idea.

It just doesn't work when you throw people into the equation.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I'm a passionate learner too, so is my husband.

But I know a lot of people who simply never bother to wonder about things or care. Way more people than you or I or my husband. We are a definite minority. It is much easier not to know, and learning is much harder for the majority than people like you and I suspect because it comes so easily and is such a joy to us.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Cuervo

No, but we're talking about a star trek scenario.

Hell, on paper, socialism, even communism sounds like a wonderful idea.

It just doesn't work when you throw people into the equation.


Hell that's a statement I can remember my dad saying when I was knee high to a grasshopper.

Socialism is beautiful in prose. The execution leaves something to be desired.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

impossible?? or just too danged improbable?
wasn't really aware that I was describing utopia either..

maybe we should just have a good ole fashion world war to reduce the population by a few billion and well, send us back technologically a few centuries and well we can avoid it all..

one thing's for sure is that we can't keep going down the road we are on. we need to rethink things. either we unleash the technology and accept that it will reduce the necessary labor mankind has to do and well make adjustments to accommodate that fact, weather it be allowing more and more to skim by without working or reducing the hours worked to part time and spreading that work around so more people can have a job...while still allowing everyone to earn enough to provide their needs. or we can just shelve the technology as being a detriment to society and continue working our butts off doing things that we really no longer need to be doing.
or we just arrange it so that half the population or more just isn't here anymore.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

But i worked really hard for what i got so everyone else can starve.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

my son is going to college at the present time and I am often sitting in front of the tech building waiting for him to get out of class. you'd be surprised at some of the people coming and going regularly from the building. On lady has to be retired. She walks with a walker, or once in a while she has a cane. All in all there seems to be quite a few that seem to be either near or above retirement age attending classes there. I don't think you are such as minority as you think you are. I also think that there'd be many more attending classes, matter of fact I know quite a few, if they could only find a way to.




top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join