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

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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"?

Yes, they can. And they can even get more money back via things like EIC and child care credits and whatnot. There are plenty of people who pay negative taxes right now. And that's not counting other benefits they get, like medicare and welfare and food stamps. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

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?

Kalbear,

I'm saying it may be worse because in addition to giving people income you are giving them the ability to not work.  I'm saying that the face of Janus has two sides for a reason.  That time will be both a boon and a curse.  It simply depends upon which works out for which individual.  I'm not saying now is better... I'm saying that change will have impacts none of us can anticipate and that giving frustrated angry people free time to work with may cause harm.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, they can. And they can even get more money back via things like EIC and child care credits and whatnot. There are plenty of people who pay negative taxes right now. And that's not counting other benefits they get, like medicare and welfare and food stamps. 

Then that's a form of basic that exists today.  It's simply not basic that everyone is entitled to.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

I'm saying it may be worse because in addition to giving people income you are giving them the ability to not work.  I'm saying that the face of Janus has two sides for a reason.  That time will be both a boon and a curse.  It simply depends upon which works out for which individual.  I'm not saying now is better... I'm saying that change will have impacts none of us can anticipate and that giving frustrated angry people free time to work with may cause harm.

Alternately, it might cause massive happiness and joy. It might allow communities to work together organically on things they want to do. It might allow kids to grow up with extended neighborhoods and families. It might allow a whole generation of people born in extreme poverty to have the opportunity to not lead shitty lives.

What's striking to me is the gross nihilism that comes from you in assuming the worst of people - that the only reason people aren't out there formenting dissent, rioting, killing each other and what not is because they're simply kept too busy with work. That is a kind of pessimism I didn't really think was going to come from you, especially given your libertarian leanings. 

[DunderMifflin]

Speaking as someone that doesn't have to work but once did, my anecdotal evidence clearly shows that not having to work is better than having to work. I don't even watch TV but even if I only did that it still seems like not the worst thing ever. Most people I know that don't have to work do exactly what I do, just find interesting things to do. I don't think a default state for humanity under basic income would be everybody watching tv and waiting for a check. Maybe some would do that but my guess is there would be a lot of hobby pursuing going on that could benefit society

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Alternately, it might cause massive happiness and joy. It might allow communities to work together organically on things they want to do. It might allow kids to grow up with extended neighborhoods and families. It might allow a whole generation of people born in extreme poverty to have the opportunity to not lead shitty lives.

What's striking to me is the gross nihilism that comes from you in assuming the worst of people - that the only reason people aren't out there formenting dissent, rioting, killing each other and what not is because they're simply kept too busy with work. That is a kind of pessimism I didn't really think was going to come from you, especially given your libertarian leanings. 

I want people to have the ability to choose the lives they want to live.  There will be great good... and great bad that comes from a formal "Basic" system.  I simply fear that the bad may outweigh the good.  As I said above this may be necessary because I can't think of any other way to address the large scale automation of even white collar jobs.  Nevertheless, I'm going into what is coming with my eyes open... I hope for the best... but plan for the worst. 

You are acting as though I want horrible things to evolve from a "basic" system.  I really don't.  I simply worry about what will evolve from such a system.  Change is rarely predictable.  We are likely both wrong in our predictions.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I want people to have the ability to choose the lives they want to live.  There will be great good... and great bad that comes from a formal "Basic" system.  I simply fear that the bad may outweigh the good.  As I said above this may be necessary because I can't think of any other way to address the large scale automation of even white collar jobs.  Nevertheless, I'm going into what is coming with my eyes open... I hope for the best... but plan for the worst. 

Okay, here's what I don't get.

You say you want people to choose the lives they want to live. One of the best ways to do that is give everyone the means to survive so they don't have to worry about that if they don't want to, and then they can have much more freedom of choice. But...apparently you also DON'T want them to do this, because you are afraid that that freedom to choose will allow them to make bad choices.

I am not acting as if you want horrible things to happen - I am saying that you are fully expecting them to happen, and arguing against the system as if it is inevitable that it will happen. You are also not thinking about ways in which you can improve these possibilities, and one might argue that one of the biggest things for people to do will be to do things that make others avoid bad choices.

Now, the funny thing is that I happen to share a fairly pessimistic viewpoint of humans; my viewpoint is that giving most people money will simply make them fairly lazy. And that makes them safe. When most everyone has about the same amount of stuff, it's hard to be particularly worked up about others who have more. I think that when most of people's needs are met, so long as there isn't gross unfairness, our monkey brains will largely be happy. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, here's what I don't get.

You say you want people to choose the lives they want to live. One of the best ways to do that is give everyone the means to survive so they don't have to worry about that if they don't want to, and then they can have much more freedom of choice. But...apparently you also DON'T want them to do this, because you are afraid that that freedom to choose will allow them to make bad choices.

I am not acting as if you want horrible things to happen - I am saying that you are fully expecting them to happen, and arguing against the system as if it is inevitable that it will happen. You are also not thinking about ways in which you can improve these possibilities, and one might argue that one of the biggest things for people to do will be to do things that make others avoid bad choices.

Now, the funny thing is that I happen to share a fairly pessimistic viewpoint of humans; my viewpoint is that giving most people money will simply make them fairly lazy. And that makes them safe. When most everyone has about the same amount of stuff, it's hard to be particularly worked up about others who have more. I think that when most of people's needs are met, so long as there isn't gross unfairness, our monkey brains will largely be happy. 

Maybe.  We will see.  

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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.

Yes, I am. Traveling isn't that expensive, as long as you're willing to forgo the usual conforts of your own home.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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?

This makes zero sense to me, but ok, assuming you're right: so what?

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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?

Obviously in a world in which most of the production of goods and services is automated we would no longer have to deal with an economy bsed on scarcity.

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm saying that change will have impacts none of us can anticipate and that giving frustrated angry people free time to work with may cause harm.

Why would people be angry and frustrated in a world of plenty?

[Isalie]

This is just like when you were arguing about how universal healthcare wouldn't grant immortality.

[DMC]

Well, one could always spend all that free time on message boards arguing about ridiculously pointless futuristic hypotheticals.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well, one could always spend all that free time on message boards arguing about ridiculously pointless futuristic hypotheticals.

That would never happen.  

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That would never happen.  

  Glad you took it as good-natured ribbing - which was the intent.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

  Glad you took it as good-natured ribbing - which was the intent.

[maarsen]

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As opposed to? A disrespected junior scientist giving an opinion on said theory?

When is an opinion then valid when a new theory is under discussion? Or did you mean it as a tongue in cheek comment?

Old farts,  of which I am now one, due to age, tend to have rigid or ossified beliefs based on what they learned when young.  Arthur Clarke came up with the quote while at an advanced age also. Make of this what you will but remember that everything I write is passed through a humour algorithm before posting

[Magnar of Skagos]

With luck, starvation increases and these areas brimming with billions of people are reduced to only a fraction of their number and we can stop destroying the only planet we have the luxury of borrowing from our children.

[Swordfish]

22 minutes ago, Maelys I Blackfyre said:

With luck, starvation increases and these areas brimming with billions of people are reduced to only a fraction of their number and we can stop destroying the only planet we have the luxury of borrowing from our children.

Rooting for starvation...........

Well played.  I mean, it's not like there are any other ways to solve the problem, so... Agreed.  Hopefully we get 'lucky' and starvation kicks in!  Because the people who starve now are inconsequential compared to our own descendants, MIRITE?

[TrueMetis]

Time to up the research on hydroponics and vertical farms methinks. Which would cut down on transportation costs by having the farms in the cities, allow growth cycles for constant fresh veggies with no long shipping, no picking veggies and fruit early to keep them from rotting before hitting store shelves, herbicide and pesticide use could be cut to almost nothing, and automation means this could be down with little human involvement. Now if only we could figure out the power issue we have a huge quality and quantity increase.

On the basic income discussion, why would it be only artists? In Star Trek Captain Sisko's father is a chef, he runs a restaurant, in a civilization with no money and replicators, because he enjoys it and so do his patrons. I don't see how that wouldn't happen in a basic income society. Sometimes you want the machine to do it for you, and sometimes you want the human touch.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Jeepers.  I shouldn't have limited it to 'artistic passions'.  Sorry for the confusion and derail.

 

[Magnar of Skagos]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Rooting for starvation...........

Well played.  I mean, it's not like there are any other ways to solve the problem, so... Agreed.  Hopefully we get 'lucky' and starvation kicks in!  Because the people who starve now are inconsequential compared to our own descendants, MIRITE?

There is finite agricultural land on this planet. Earth does not have the capacity to sustain anywhere near the amount of human beings present on it right now. Not even close. So, either the vastly overpopulated countries face starvation now and their population decreases, or we look for short-term solutions, destroy more of our land to establish more agriculture, provide even more food so the population can increase EVEN MORE, and we all starve. Do I want to see scores of people simply die off? No. But neither do I want to see us destroy this entire earth over something so preventable.

And yes, the prosperity of my own family and descendants is much more of a concern to me than somebody else's on the other side of the globe. Of course it is. Why would it not be? My country has spent decades supporting impoverished nations around the world, mainly through supplying food and water. We haven't ignored those in need. We have helped. And now the situation has grown out of control. If you spend more time worrying about everybody on this planet before yourself, then you are going to end up fucked over. It is the reality of the situation.

The fact of the matter is, we cannot help everybody. We cannot completely cure hunger. Not with the population level we have. It is not sustainable. If you think we can, then I admire your optimism and your kindness at wanting to help your fellow man, I sincerely do. Virtually every global issue we currently face has its roots in overpopulation, and I'm sorry, but until the number of human beings falls well under one billion, we are going to keep facing these issues.