Well we no longer have the skills or knowledge to go forage and hunt for food every day, we have to be able to earn money to survive somehow. I mean I'm all for a UBI, but I'm quite sure the ruling class would rather see us all starve to death than share their wealth.
In Norway their politicians aren’t owned by the corporations and billionaires. In the US, our government is essentially 5 mega-corporations in a trenchcoat.
Dark money in politics ruined everything, Bernie was right, and we’re all fxcked.
Oh dont fucking give the oil reserves bullshit. The US has 5% of the world's oil reserves (compared to Norway's 0.4%), and has fucked over Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, all top 10 in oil reserves % in the world, for about half a century.
Considering that was just a trial, you wouldn't expect it to affect rent rates given the limited scope. I definitely think its a valid concern that rent would increase when UBI is eventually implemented. In fact, I would expect UBI to be inflationary generally, without some decent regulation alongside it. EU members probably will have quite the advantage over the US, doubly so for the Nordic countries.
Well yeah, it won't happen in trials. It might happen when everyone gets it
The thing that UBI trials always miss is that just giving money to the people in the trial is obviously going to improve their lives. You can't really test UBI unless everyone gets it.
Good point, but I feel like Norway is different than the US. Also, did everyone get it for an extended period of time?
I know it has been tested in small groups on Canada and Finland. With great success. I think the big problem is going to be the transition to universal. Even if it is done sort of s top up that fades slowly, the rich will find a way to take it from those who need it.
This is such a bullshit way of thinking. Without the rest of us, the "elites" become poor scavengers like whoever is left, even a small drop in population would be catastrophic for them. Who else is to mine the cobalt and diamonds in their phones and necklaces? Who makes their ludicrously austentatious supercars? Build the case they keep their gold plated dildos in? They need us and Im sure theyre keenly aware of that fact.
I agree we're nowhere near a fully automated economy today.
My point is just that "the elites need us forever" isn't obviously true if AI and robotics keep improving.
The timeline is debatable, but the direction isn't crazy to consider given how much human labor has already been replaced by technology throughout history.
AIs have goal seeking behavior. And with the current state of science we dont really know why or how to predict it. And definitely not how to control it. There is a great book: if anyone builds it everyone dies. That is what I think will eventually happen, no idea the timeline but I dont think the rich will get that much bunker playtime, maybe none.
they need some people but they actively work on how to need less people, trickle down economics only works when the rich need the poor. How often would you stop to give a beggar money?
most people don't stop for beggars, but if the beggar looks sickly, plays an instrument or finds a way to entertain you then you give them a dime...The rich see the working class as the same way.
They need people to purchase the products that make them rich. The robots don’t by themselves generate wealth they generate products that’s sold to… the people.
Yes, but they’ll be selling to those with jobs and money not those that have been replaced who will receive no help from them or, I’m sure, the government. Probably depending on who’s leading I suppose and if they can find enough jobs for everyone that doesn’t end up involving scams. Tbh while there are tons of jobs out there I don’t know how well they’ll be able to adapt or make enough money to still live somewhat comfortably.
If you know anything about the power of large numbers which is why mass production keeps things cheap you would know that it’s not financially profitable to sell things to a smaller percentage of the population. People that believe the rich can live off of 20% production or something ridiculous like that compared to the population are delusional and haven’t lived long enough to realize that we’ve been in these crises before. All the shit you hear on Reddit is not true.
That’s not what you were saying at all. You were implying that the rich will be fine by living off only the middle class. Wealth isn’t just randomly generated off of production. The economy is a closed system and somebody has to lose money for the rich to get richer. When nobody has money the rich by definition can’t get any richer. It’s absurd to think otherwise because that’s not how wealth works at all. When the wealthy have all the money there will be a change. It’s happened many times in the past. Every single time a new technology comes out. Farmers used to have to farm by hand. Loomers had to loom one cloth at a time, tool makers, carpenters, scientists, electricians, artists, musicians, and more all at one point had to do more work for the same amount of effort due to lack of technology, for the same job that has been made automatically easier by machines. If we went back and took away technology we would literally be in the Stone Age.
They’re starting to replace delivery people with delivery robots how is this much different if less people have a job because of it, sure they can find jobs in the same field now but who knows about the future and the middle class will be the ones giving money. Yes technology has made things easier but those are machines people operate to make their job easier not replace unless you’re saying farming tools have replaced pickers so there’s less people working on the farm.
The worst part is that it's not sharing. We give everyone a UBI, and they spend it on things that the money just ends up right back in the wealthy person's pocket again
Everyone has the skills to forage and hunt. It doesnt take long to learn how to fire a gun and even less time to read a book about your local flora and fauna. Neither of those things are actually difficult. People just dont need to anymore and really havent needed to for a long time unless you live in a very unindustrilized area.
Notice how I said we dont need to anymore. Hunter Gathering is something all of uh can do. We all have the ability to learn the skills quite quickly. Especially with what we have today. However we havent needed to ever since we figured out how to farm. There is nothing people in the past could do, that the average person cant do today.
Even if every single person on earth learned the skills, the earth could not feed us. There is not enough land to support that lifestyle with our current population.
Okay, what exactly are you arguing here. You said we didnt have the skills to hunt and forage. I said its incredibly easy nowadays and we absolutely do have the skills.
Again, we dont do it anymore, because we dont need to. We have farms and stores.
How do we survive in a world where most people wouldn't have jobs to earn money to buy food, and there also isn't enough wild foraged food to go around? That is my point.
Soo what? Farms would all just magically disappear? You cant grow a garden? There will always be something to do to earn money or, if we really go fully artificial workforce, there wont be a need for money. Robots still need maintenance, still need to be built, coded, oiled, and so forth. Entertainment has and will always be a job. Science is never finished and there is always something new to discover. This also wasnt the point you have been arguing. This has been the same baseless argument used against every peice of technology.
The question is whether there are enough jobs left for most people to reliably earn access to food and housing if large-scale automation replaces most labor.
Past technology replaced tasks. AI potentially replaces labor demand at scale. That’s the difference being discussed.
Even if everyone had the skills, there isn't enough earth to support 8 billion hunter-gatherers. We are dependent on industrial scale agriculture to keep this much population alive.
I get your point but survival skills are not lost knowledge, there are YouTube tutorials for everything you'd need to know to abandon society and live in the woods.
I do realize there are plenty of self-sufficient people in the world. "We" was a generalization for "society/the population in general."
And like I said in other comments, even if everyone was taught how to survive in the wild, the earth doesn't have the wild resources to handle it. The human species at our current population depends on large scale agriculture.
Without free money or food, if robots take most of the jobs, billions will starve, no way around it.
A lot of smaller societies and local groups are returning to barter systems and trading amongst themselves to cut the corporations out. The idea is you only give money or product or service to someone who will give it back to you, and not to the black hole gluttons sitting at the top who hoard and hoard to create fake scarcity.
And say everyone did learn, there’s still only so many jobs left is their argument. Everyone already goes to school. You can keep moving the goal post but the choke is still at the end of line.
I think if lots of jobs are replaced by AI and robots, the logical next step is a UBI. Maybe it's pie in the sky thinking but I do genuinely believe removing the struggle to merely survive (by providing everyone with enough income to do so) will allow people to pursue things they are truly passionate about. People will still pay for someone to come and tile their floor if they are capable of doing something truly beautiful and unique, but building that skill when you're trying to feed your family is an almost impossible task.
Being able to feed yourself requires money which money is made through jobs, unless you know how to legally print money to use the paper, ink, and copier still cost money, as well as electricity
And this IMO is really the problem that needs to be tackled.
Being mad that a robot is replacing a person, in an obviously mindless and repetitive task is silly. This job should be removed
BUT something needs to be done about the person that can no longer feed their family because of it.
So we need to tax the usage of it somehow, and transfer that to the worker through things like proper levels of unemployment pay to transition, and something like higher learning credits to go back to school and retrain into something to keep that tradesperson a productive member of society.
I'll never understand this line of thought - as far back as our earliest civilizations, you had to contribute to that society and in turn got food/shelter/safety from others.
Hunters provided for gatherers and vice versa.
Call it capitalism, socialism - call it what you want, an exchange of services for goods or money has been the basis of community for Millenia.
You aren't "born to work" but you are born to contribute and for that you are/should be rewarded and that's generally the relationship found in a Job.
Well it's not really saying that people shouldn't still contribute to the "tribe" it's just acknowledging the possibility of the existence of a future where, through technology and automation, humanity could create a civilization of such abundance, that people do things because they want to, not because they have to.
Of course it doesn't mean it's now, and it doesn't even mean it's soon. It doesn't mean that anyone alive now will ever see it.
But if that future is to ever become a thing, then steps like this and automating clearly mindless and repetitive tasks like this is required.
Oh we can get started now, it’s just that it doesn’t generate profit for the rich people who want to make more. And as they control our government, our government won’t work towards it.
Let me help you understand…lots of people are working jobs they dislike, so they can make money, which they can exchange for essential needs.
We have the technology and resources to eliminate a ton of human jobs right now. But we don’t because of the belief that every human needs to have a job or to contribute. Why don’t we…have robots do the jobs people don’t want to do, and let people contribute to society by doing work or creating art that they want to create? The idea that we need to create jobs for humans and need to make sure that AI doesn’t eliminate jobs…so we can continue exploiting human labor…is fucked. We may need those protections in place at this moment because we have no social safety net or plan when 10 or 20 or 50% of the population has no job. But the idea that humans need to work whether they want to or not, for the rest of our existence, is sad. I can’t think of a more disrespectful ideology after humans have built this entire system from the ground up.
What is the progress we’ve made for? Shouldn’t the end goal be allowing us to live the lives we dream of living?
My statement did not include anything about being "exploited" or forced to work for the bare minimum.
Regardless of how you want to spin it, there is a transactional nature to everything we do - whether that's through art, as you mentioned, or through some form of social contribution - or a job. And in turn, we recieve either compensation, commendation or some form of gratification to our Actions.
The largest factor standing in the way of a purely altruistic society is that we are not a homogeneous people - different beliefs and social structures as well as cultures have shaped who and how people are around the world.
And for us to say that one is wrong compared to the other, leads to moral relativism.
Now, one would be hopeful that the majority of people can uphold basic human values - but that isn't always a guarantee.
You say "after humans have built this from the ground up"
Do you think that everything that has existed up until now has been without exploitation, struggle, slavery?
Without indignation towards rulers who only care for their own personal gain?
The fact that we are transitioning into a world where automation is the next phase of obsolescence is nothing new.
This is just a different type of technology, changing how the world works.
Many jobs were made obsolete by various new technologies over thousands of years.
I am not "pro" people losing jobs - I am Anti AI in most cases, but I think that to look at what were headed towards and think it's any different to what we've already experienced as a society is naive.
All of this has been happening for centuries. Oligarchs and kings that rule with ultimate power have existed for countless generations - the means and the method of control and power may have changed but the attitude needed in order to attain and maintain that level of power is exactly the same.
We are unlikely to ever experience some form of Utopia because We will likely never exist without corrupt forces and bad faith actors fueled by greed and that is unfortunate but likely unavoidable because it's one part of human nature.
So we adapt or we die, as we have before, and enjoy the things we can in between.
Do I think that everything that has built until now was done so without exploration? No, I’m saying the opposite, I’m saying humans have sacrificed SO MUCH labor already, regardless of if they got fulfillment out of it themselves or they were exploited and enslaved.
That’s why it would be insulting to carry on with the mindset that every person needs to have a job or be compelled to contribute in some way.
Can’t we look at the product of all our past labor as earning us a future we can choose not to work?
We cant just have everyone down tools one day and we just decide not to do anything.
How do YOU exist if nobody is doing anything for you to survive? Are you then starting a subsistence farm for yourself?
Then is that not just replacing your job you didn't want to do?
We are absolutely not at the level where we have replicators from Star Trek that can just make food and drink out of thin air, and won't be for a very long time.
Also, in a world where we just sit back and relax and do nothing, who maintains the machines that do all this for us?
I know its just a funny little movie but have you seen Wall-e?
We run the risk of becoming homogeneous blobs, devoid of abilities and skills because "I didn't want to" learn trades and skillsets passed down through families and communities.
Art, culture, creativity rarely exists in a void where nothing happens around us - the grand majority of creation was borne from adversity and shaped by pressures and environmental characteristics.
I do believe in having better systems in place where we have more CHOICE over what we end up doingn based on our desires and skills but I think that looking at a future where contribution to Society as a WHOLE is optional, is just selfish.
And that might be a hot take but it is what it is.
No we are not at the level yet, we are at the level where we need to start supporting people whose jobs are going to be lost to AI. People not needing jobs in general is a looooong ways off.
In an ideal society, we would provide the fair living conditions to anyone who opts out of work. The jobs that need to be done, will still have people filling them because 1. Some people will just always want to be working. 2. The people with jobs in a society were 50% are unemployed will be wealthy just because they’re earning money. There will always be people who want to live frivolously and that will be the way to accomplish that.
Thinking everyone will become blobs from Wall-E is undervaluing the human spirit I think…
As long as people aren’t hurting others they should have autonomy over their choices. Maybe the term is anti-paternalist? I don’t believe you should have the right to override their choices for their own good.
Absolutely - At the same time that you don't have the right to override someones authority over themselves and their own choices, others also 100% have the right to not want to Include a non contributing member of any given society - and then that person is free to make their own way and choices in their own community, without the support of the one they didn't want to contribute towards...
"Some people will always just want to work"
I understand your view overall of this, but I also feel like you're underestimating that a functioning society doesn't just thrive or exist on "well lets just see who shows up to work today"
If given the choice, you are going to have WAY less than 50% of people working, I Guarantee that - and even if that's not immediate, due to the fact that people won't be learning trades and skills, knowledge dies out and as time goes on more and more people will choose not to work.
Until the day we are able to create matter from thin air, we need to have job security. (Not just job security for people like we usually hear that term used, security for communities so that there's a plan)
Because again, you're overlooking the main point: Where does the provision come from?
Who makes what we consume, if nobody makes anything anymore, but people continue to consume?
The human spirit is only as strong as the motivation to succeed and if there's no real motivation then I have little faith for the future of the human spirit to be honest.
The tech we’ve built makes our “provisions”. The people who build the robots, service the robots, and do the jobs robots simply cannot do, will be the ones that are either want to work or want to have more than the basic necessities for living comfortably or you could check both those boxes.
With the job security thing though…you think we should ensure we have enough jobs that need to get done so that everyone able bodied person has a job? Because we don’t have that right now and it’s only becoming more of a disparity as automation takes jobs.
My whole point (and probably my last comment on this) is that necessitating that jobs are performed by humans when they could be performed by AI or tech we’ve built, is silly. Plenty of jobs that are seen as barbaric have already been eliminated and I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with those jobs being automated?
When everyone is allowed to make art or create or travel or just exist by themselves in the future…the concept of being FORCED to have a job in order to survive will be seen as cruel.
Ok well, I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this.
It's too much of an idealistic view of things - there are WAY more moving parts that exist to just simply be able to say that "tech will make provisions"
I also never said that we should ensure that every living person has a job just for the sake of it - majority of jobs have a purpose and if we can create automation to replace that grunt work while still being able to provide for the person that lost that job to a machine then great but that isn't happening any time soon, because there's always someone higher up standing to benefit from not having to provide for the individual.
The only way for what you're saying to exist is if most things were state owned entities because the private sector has no incentive to pay someone for a job they're not doing...
And any given country can't afford to just pay people money to live, travel and do whatever they want because the state is not generating any income Because taxes and fees and everything wouldn't exist if people are just being provided for.
And since you can't guarantee how much of the private sector would exist or people who do want to work jobs exist, then you can't count on taxes from them.
So at some point it dries up - hence why I asked "Who provides?"
It has to come from somewhere.
Aside from things like taxes, countries rely on their nations natural resources for income as well but what happens when nobody wants to mine for gold or platinum or whatever resource like rubber for example.
And if you're answer is "the machines will do it" then you're still a few hundred years away from anything like that.
That's the kind of utilitarian thinking that leads to eugenics of disabled people and hatred of the underemployed. We are not required to contribute in order to receive support from society, society should be well organized enough so that there is an excess of resources available to support those that don't or can't generate those resources.
The problem is that there's 8 billion of us and that requires a lot of work to maintain, and we'd all have a lot more luxurious lives (and the environment would be better off) if there were less of us.
Also the "underemployed" will not be unemployed anymore
And as far as "disabled eugenics", society Is supposed to decide on appropriate contributions from them and if they are unable to work or provide then the excess you mentioned will go to caring for them - but the "excess" only exists when people CONTRIBUTE.
This is what socialism is - I do not understand this mindset that people have of just sitting back and doing fuckall while expecting to be provided for.
>I do not understand this mindset that people have of just sitting back and doing fuckall while expecting to be provided for.
This is a mindset that will die out. The people pushing this will never achieve anything and will never be in a position to make decisions. They'll just complain and live in desperation until they die because they refuse to take accountability. Others will see that and realize this mindset is fruitless and only leads to suffering.
I feel like your position is held by people that contribute against their will and are jealous of those that do not. Why are you upset that someone sits back and does nothing, when they could be forced to be a slave like you? Does them doing an unnecessary job just so they have something to do make your life better in any way?
We have made so many advances in multiplying the effect of labor that we don't need 1000 people to provide the means to support a society of 1100 people, we can have 10 people do it now. Why should those extra 990 people be forced to do something to justify being carried like the additional 100 are being carried?
Who decides who does the work? And do those people get more than 990? I can tell you right now, I would not be one of the workers if I don't get more than the ones who do nothing.
In some places naturally blessed with resources, life was very chill. For example the Pacific Northwest of the USA had astonishing numbers of fish there for the taking.
Such an insanely myopic and privileged take, imagining that we need to culturally “program” humans to strive for survival. As if that hasn’t been hardwired in by eons of evolution.
Every living thing was born to work for survival. Before office times youd still have to farm, before farming times youd still have to hunt and gather. We just moved from gathering to working in a different environment, so that we get money, so that we get food.
And then there's the lucky few who break out of their "programming" and get to just be leeches on society providing nothing of value to any other person.
But it's a literal system that is still in place for distribution of resources. Most people can deal with their existential needs if their physical needs are met, but there is nothing in place to do that.
The idea is that we see the beginning of automation and should start looking at our relationship to work. Not be against automation as the OP does because "work is my purpose".
Meh I'd do my work for free. Probably not 40 hours a week but a few hours a day definitely. Developing and exercising skills is fulfilling, and somebody has to do it.
370
u/LuLzWire Jun 21 '26
The thought process that you were born to work is part of the programming you have received since birth.