a reply to: lakenheath24
Well, I don't want to hijack the thread with some comprehensive "lecture." One of the issues is that just throwing a UBI at things, without
considering the whole topic, may be more harmful than helpful. To me, that means its such a big topic that it quickly becomes unwieldy and may very
well be one of the biggest stumbling blocks when it comes to getting somewhere on the topic.
In regards of UBI though, I think a solution is twofold; Address truly basic needs like food/shelter and provide an income option on top of that.
The first allows us to no longer "need" a UBI for survival, which allows us to do some creative things with the pay side of things that can benefit
My own answer to this was to design a house, roughly 1400 sqft. that is low cost. Overall cost is projected at $20k, but I think that could be reduced
dramatically with mass production.
The trick was to make it a nice
place to live. I made use of my own designs and devices to accomplish that. Nearly everything is automated,
everything from the HVAC system to aquaponics and each of those
systems are of my own design.
The HVAC, for example, makes use of connected modules rather than a typical central system. The central "brain" monitors each area, and individual
modules supply hot or cold air as needed per area and it learns how best to do that as time goes on (so, it doesn't need different software for
different climates or preferences) . An advantage here is that the modules can also just move air, so if one area is hotter it will balance that out
THEN examine whether further heating/cooling is needed. This also connects to the windows, to take advantage of that. It will automatically open
specific windows to make use of wind direction and house location.
There is even a home theater with a 120" projector screen (lol), which I was able to accomplish by designing speakers, etc. myself.
Obviously leaving a lot out there, but hopefully that builds a bit of an image of what I'm talking about. I'm trying to walk the line of giving enough
info to be meaningful, but not so much as to inundate the thread. A balance that I'm just not very good at
Now, the UBI takes on a bit different position, but I think it still has a place. We no longer need to consider it in terms of the needs of
individuals, which IMO, opens up some pretty cool options.
The best I've come up with is making use of technology and communication systems to have a real-time system that distributes pay as work is performed,
rather than in set chunks of hours, days, or weeks.
Instead of being a specific pay per unit of time put in, the pay received would be dictated by an algorithm that can be adjusted according to
everything from local need to societal impact.
So, if say, a pothole on a major road has become highly problematic, that part of the algorithm can be adjusted to expedite it. Anyone who can do the
job, and do it well, is acceptable all they have to do is go do it. One day, someone may decide to fill potholes and then the next, work on helping
people with their aquaponics systems and both
would generate income without having to change employers or anything like that.
Importantly, there would be a modifier for impact in the "social chain." So, if an individual comes up with a device that becomes widely adopted (like
a computer), everyone who contributed to that process would receive varying levels of income for as long as it is relevant. If you helped someone eat
when they couldn't, and they went on to do great things because of it, that would be reflected in your "pay."
I'm leaving a lot
out, but there are some serious issues with this system as well. One would be that out of necessity, everyone in a given
society would be connected to technology in pretty invasive ways. I hold the opinion that all of our tools (from the humble hammer to the internet)
can be used in ways that span the spectrum from great to horrible. While a system like I describe would be on the "good" side, the system itself could
be used to deeply nefarious ends. That stands true for things even as they are now, but I feel that it introduces a type of individual and
group responsibility that we usually don't really consider.
For that very reason, I think changing how we look at satiating greed is almost a requirement for anything
we do from here. Personally, I don't
see greed as inherently "bad," but the way we approach it leads to some problems (to say the least).
Trying to stay away from batsh!t crazy length here.. but to summarize my thoughts: instead of satisfying that thirst by proxy (money or even power),
we should look at it in terms of actual
improvements to quality of life. This is the end goal of "money and power" anyway (the ability to
improve ones quality of life at will), but taking out the middle man injects some reality into the situation. For one, holding back technology in
order to maximize profit in currency begins to look as absurd as it really is. That increased currency is to gain the ability to increase niceties,
ease of life, quality of life, etc. but in approaching it in the way we do, we end up greatly
limiting the end result.
In essence, we end up shooting ourselves in the foot and directly making life more difficult for every class in existence, all in order to generate a
higher "score." It'd be like if we were dealing with a carnival where we spent ALL of our resources on making tickets, but there are no prizes to
actually get with those tickets because we put everything into the currency (tickets).
We may feel great about our vast amount of paper stubs, but we have created a situation where its not nearly as meaningful .
Ill stop there, might not appear this way, but this is all the short version
But, like Aazadan and I were talking about, I think this is all an
important conversation to have and we have the opportunity to really change "the game." Since we are faced with a situation where its changing whether
we like it or not, why not at least examine other possibilities?
edit on 6-3-2017 by Serdgiam because: Changed some confusing wording