Jump to content

Artificially fixed Nitrogen is likely hugely damaging to the environment... but we need it to feed our massive and growing human population...


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, polishgenius said:



Why do you believe that we should stay in a state where almost everyone has to work because some people really want to?

PG,

I'm saying that if we have a state where people do not have to work then much of what is done as work will not longer be available for people who want to work.  That's a problem.

Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) artist.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) writer.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) poet.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) singer.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate)chef.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) sculptor.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) brewer... etc.

You are setting up a society wherein those who are not artists... that's most people... will have an exciting day of television to sit through while waiting for their next Basic check to arrive.  I'm saying the fully automated society sounds like a recipe for disaster as people sit around all day waiting for... something.  

People lacking purpose will find one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if we will end up in a world of panem et circenses (a/k/a basic income, which note, I do not think this is a good thing for human beings, progress, individual liberty or pretty much anything else I care about).  What I do think is that we will start valuing things (some of which do not yet exist) differently than we value things now.  We act as though things have intrinsic value. They do not.  What is valuable to a society has and will continue to change a lot over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

How 'bout exploring the galaxy? Y'know, "space, the final frontier... " and all that?  ^_^

Rippounet,

Is that possible?  Really, is that possible?  If it is great.  We have a new frontier to explore and expand upon.  If not... what do we have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is that possible?  Really, is that possible?  If it is great.  We have a new frontier to explore and expand upon.  If not... what do we have?

What do we have now? Surely you don't define yourself by your work alone, do you? Most people have loved ones to spend time with and take care of as well as friends and hobbies to have fun with. One can travel the world, learn a new language, read (and write) books, grow a garden, find inner peace, climb mountains, become an olympic athlete, paint toy soldiers, watch the 780 One Piece episodes... etc.

Space exploration is really for the most demanding.

I'm given to understand that we are going to start colonizing Mars in the next couple decades, without even having renewed our socio-economic system or invented a Warp drive yet. Surely, by the time automation is so widespread that it forces most of us out of work, there will be a demand for explorers and colonists...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

What do we have now? Surely you don't define yourself by your work alone, do you? Most people have loved ones to spend time with and take care of as well as friends and hobbies to have fun with. One can travel the world, learn a new language, read (and write) books, grow a garden, find inner peace, climb mountains, become an olympic athlete, paint toy soldiers, watch the 780 One Piece episodes... etc.

Space exploration is really for the most demanding.

I'm given to understand that we are going to start colonizing Mars in the next couple decades, without even having renewed our socio-economic system or invented a Warp drive yet. Surely, by the time automation is so widespread that it forces most of us out of work, there will be a demand for explorers and colonists...

 

How do you afford travel when you are living on "Basic"?  You are assuming that Basic will afford people a living that will facilitate travel.  When people cannot get work because everything but art is automated are you not going to be elevating artists to a new "upper class" because they can offer something that cannot be automated?

I love the idea of space exploration but if things dry up employment wise... where is the money to pay for that space exploration going to come from?  Will Governments not be devoting the vast majority of their resources to providing "basic" to the huge percentage of the Human population that simply isn't artistically inclined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What is available if every task is taken by automation that isn't an "artistic" endeavour?  Sports? Video Games? Professional drinking?

Invention. Discovery. Entrepeneurship. Science. Thinking. Feeling. Creating. 

If you are free to do anything, why does what you do mean that it can't be something that is valuable or important to others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

PG,

I'm saying that if we have a state where people do not have to work then much of what is done as work will not longer be available for people who want to work.  That's a problem.

Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) artist.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) writer.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) poet.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) singer.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate)chef.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) sculptor.  Not everyone is a great (or even an adequate) brewer... etc.

You are setting up a society wherein those who are not artists... that's most people... will have an exciting day of television to sit through while waiting for their next Basic check to arrive.  I'm saying the fully automated society sounds like a recipe for disaster as people sit around all day waiting for... something.  

People lacking purpose will find one.

I think there are loads of problems surrounding basic income, but everyone suddenly being grafted to the couch isn't one, IMO. Basic income would be basic, i.e. enough for medicals, modest housing and food, and not much else. Most, or at least many, aren't satisfied with that, and would still sacrifice some of their couch time for extra money. What you'll never be rid of is people with a burning passion for education/medicine/architecture/astrophysics. They can still become educators/medical practitioners/architects/astrophysicists. 

People who just want a little extra spending money would pick up some job that they don't really live for, but don't totally hate. And if they end up doing so, their lives won't fall off the rails waiting for something more suitable to arrive.

Innovation and entrepreneurship wouldn't stagnate, I think. How much scientific advance comes from people being desperate for money, anyway? Besides, many great innovators keep on going long after they've made enough to be set for life.

The main problem is human nature, and all the shitty things we do, to each other and ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Invention. Discovery. Entrepeneurship. Science. Thinking. Feeling. Creating. 

If you are free to do anything, why does what you do mean that it can't be something that is valuable or important to others?

If what you do is of no value to others... are you cool with living on basic your whole life as you can't get beyond it?  How frustrating will it be for those who see what they do as valuable but everyone else thinks it is a complete waste of time?  Can't see those people getting frustrated and directing their frustration into other arenas now can we?  

It's not like frustrated artists have ever caused problems in the recent past, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If what you do is of no value to others... are you cool with living on basic your whole life as you can't get beyond it?  How frustrating will it be for those who see what they do as valuable but everyone else thinks it is a complete waste of time?  Can't see those people getting frustrated and directing their frustration into other arenas now can we?  

It's not like frustrated artists have ever caused problems in the recent past, is it?

So what? 

I'm quite serious. You're often on about how free expression and free speech are super important regardless of what they cost others; this is the obvious result of that kind of thinking. You're saying that free speech is fine provided that the people who are doing it are basically worn out by their day to day labor. 

And again, don't think about just artists. That's just a bullshit idea - that only artists are ones that work without money, or can work without money. Engineering right now is in a massive populist upswell because of the cheapness of materials, the ability to use CAD/CAM and 3d-printers, and the ability to speak with others globally. It isn't art - it's building things, sometimes really useful things, and it's only going to get bigger. Software engineering has been doing this for 25 years, with one of the most popular operating systems on the planet being created by a hobbyist. 

If the only way that you consider yourself important or useful is based solely on the value you produce to others, what does that say about you? About society? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If what you do is of no value to others... are you cool with living on basic your whole life as you can't get beyond it?  How frustrating will it be for those who see what they do as valuable but everyone else thinks it is a complete waste of time?  Can't see those people getting frustrated and directing their frustration into other arenas now can we?  

That frustration exists today for most people humping their shitty job to make money for their shitty boss.  But I guess that's ok because now they get to occupy their life doing something they hate in order to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So what? 

I'm quite serious. You're often on about how free expression and free speech are super important regardless of what they cost others; this is the obvious result of that kind of thinking. You're saying that free speech is fine provided that the people who are doing it are basically worn out by their day to day labor. 

And again, don't think about just artists. That's just a bullshit idea - that only artists are ones that work without money, or can work without money. Engineering right now is in a massive populist upswell because of the cheapness of materials, the ability to use CAD/CAM and 3d-printers, and the ability to speak with others globally. It isn't art - it's building things, sometimes really useful things, and it's only going to get bigger. Software engineering has been doing this for 25 years, with one of the most popular operating systems on the planet being created by a hobbyist. 

If the only way that you consider yourself important or useful is based solely on the value you produce to others, what does that say about you? About society? 

It says that I worry people who's ideas and suggestions are discarded by society may not react well to having their ideas and suggestions discarded.  Some people don't care if others like what they do.  Some people care an awful lot about whether people care about what they do. The latter group is the one I worry about.  What happens when all they can do is live on basic because none of their ideas catch on.  

Even worse how do they react when someone else is successful with an idea they had but didn't catch on?  

How many people who live on basic will be able to afford CAD/CAM programs and 3d-printers in the first place?  

Basic may be something we have to do... but it will be a necessary evil at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It says that I worry people who's ideas and suggestions are discarded by society may not react well to having their ideas and suggestions discarded.  Some people don't care if others like what they do.  Some people care an awful lot about whether people care about what they do. The latter group is the one I worry about.  What happens when all they can do is live on basic because none of their ideas catch on.  

What happens now?

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Even worse how do they react when someone else is successful with an idea they had but didn't catch on?  

What happens now?

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How many people who live on basic will be able to afford CAD/CAM programs and 3d-printers in the first place? 

They are literally accessible via libraries right now. 

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 Basic may be something we have to do... but it will be a necessary evil at best.

Why? 

Why is making it so that no human has to toil for someone else to pay them a necessary evil?

If you can have medicine that grows from a tree, what do you need money for? 

If you can have great food that you can just take, any time you want, what do you need government for?

If no one wants for anything, what is evil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

That frustration exists today for most people humping their shitty job to make money for their shitty boss.  But I guess that's ok because now they get to occupy their life doing something they hate in order to survive.

But their time is occupied by "humping their shitty job to make money for their shitty boss."  What Basic proposes is to take those people and give them lots of free time to work with.  While many will create wonderful art or design a better lightbulb... many will not.  How will those who are unsuccessful react and use their free time?

I think we should worry about which face of Janus presents itself to the majority of people who will be living on Basic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But their time is occupied by "humping their shitty job to make money for their shitty boss."  What Basic proposes is to take those people and give them lots of free time to work with.

No. Basic gives everyone some money. 

If you want more money, you need to work. If you don't, or you have other priorities, you at least won't die. 

You are mistaking Basic for joblessness, which is not remotely the case. One way to think of Basic is as everyone getting their standard deduction - a fairly large one - up front. Every single person. 

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 While many will create wonderful art or design a better lightbulb... many will not.  How will those who are unsuccessful react and use their free time?

Again, are you arguing that the only reason people as a whole aren't more evil is because they have better things to do? And you argue for the value of free speech in the same breath? Huh. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

What happens now?

What happens now?

They are literally accessible via libraries right now. 

Why? 

Why is making it so that no human has to toil for someone else to pay them a necessary evil?

If you can have medicine that grows from a tree, what do you need money for? 

If you can have great food that you can just take, any time you want, what do you need government for?

If no one wants for anything, what is evil?

Do you really believe people will be satisfied with "Basic"?  That they will not lust after what they cannot have because they don't have ideas or art that people are willing to compensate them for?  Do you really believe that lust will only manifest itself in positive rewarding behavior and that people will happily take their subsidies without complaint or frustration?

I don't think it will be the end of the world, but I don't assume it will be utopia either.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

How is universal basic income any different from the standard deduction? Scale and frequency.

Well, one is what we're allowed to keep that we've already earned.  The other is given to us by the Government.  Can someone who isn't working take a "Standard Deduction"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do you really believe people will be satisfied with "Basic"?  That they will not lust after what they cannot have because they don't have ideas or art that people are willing to compensate them for?  Do you really believe that lust will only manifest itself in positive rewarding behavior and that people will happily take their subsidies without complaint or frustration?

I don't think it will be the end of the world, but I don't assume it will be utopia either.  

Again, you're assuming basic is also saying 'and you get to do nothing else'. You're associating basic with a bizarre, stupid version of communism. 

Many will lust after what they cannot have, just like they do now, and some will figure out ways to get it and some won't. Some times crime will happen too, because there will still be laws. 

But you don't say an idea is bad because crime will still exist. How stupid is that notion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...