They said that there’s 9 meals between stability and revolution. Hopefully, that was a somewhat flippant comment back then…. However, the us is a heavily armed society and injecting a large group with nothing to lose will be a real problem.
This might be the factor that keeps the robots at bay. Politics seems to think that ubi “isn’t possible”, but a whole lot of people might want to keep jobs and thus food in their possession.
The world is a consumer economy, and the transition to Star Trek will be very difficult. Look for the rise of those promising to help their group vs those who’ll do it harm.
> Look for the rise of those promising to help their group vs those who’ll do it harm.
That’s everyone, the conventional wisdom is to form in-groups and out-groups, and to help your people. There’s no concern for truth, or establishing or maintaining universal moral or ethical standards; most conflate these with their political or religious beliefs. Regardless of whoever you are, the main concerns for anyone on average are related to resource acquisition and management.
Taking a step back, what’s the point of UBI? To sustain more of this thoughtlessness? Being able to work is a means to an end, and it’s unclear what that means for the majority when there’s no evolution of thought or purpose.
On a practical note, every statesman should support and find a way to implement UBI in the absence of providing means for acquiring basic human needs. There are a lot of examples in the world which show how to deprive populations and still maintain societal stability, but the conditions required for reproducing those effects will be absent from societies which were previously functioning democracies. It follows that such societies will enter into conflict, both internally and externally. If AI is an existential threat, then it’s because nation states will enter into nuclear or civil conflict (nuclear is less dangerous), and not because of the emergence of a super intelligence which will dominate humanity.
They said that there’s 9 meals between stability and revolution. Hopefully, that was a somewhat flippant comment back then…. However, the us is a heavily armed society and injecting a large group with nothing to lose will be a real problem.
This might be the factor that keeps the robots at bay. Politics seems to think that ubi “isn’t possible”, but a whole lot of people might want to keep jobs and thus food in their possession.
The world is a consumer economy, and the transition to Star Trek will be very difficult. Look for the rise of those promising to help their group vs those who’ll do it harm.
> Look for the rise of those promising to help their group vs those who’ll do it harm.
That’s everyone, the conventional wisdom is to form in-groups and out-groups, and to help your people. There’s no concern for truth, or establishing or maintaining universal moral or ethical standards; most conflate these with their political or religious beliefs. Regardless of whoever you are, the main concerns for anyone on average are related to resource acquisition and management.
Taking a step back, what’s the point of UBI? To sustain more of this thoughtlessness? Being able to work is a means to an end, and it’s unclear what that means for the majority when there’s no evolution of thought or purpose.
On a practical note, every statesman should support and find a way to implement UBI in the absence of providing means for acquiring basic human needs. There are a lot of examples in the world which show how to deprive populations and still maintain societal stability, but the conditions required for reproducing those effects will be absent from societies which were previously functioning democracies. It follows that such societies will enter into conflict, both internally and externally. If AI is an existential threat, then it’s because nation states will enter into nuclear or civil conflict (nuclear is less dangerous), and not because of the emergence of a super intelligence which will dominate humanity.