RE: A somewhat Dystopian overview of Universal Basic Income ( UBI )
Nice post, here are some of my thoughts in response:
Egalitarianism promotes mediocrity. Materialism correlates with a desire to want ever-more stuff. This desire cannot be satisfied by the mediocrity provided by a universal basic income. Setting a threshold for society’s minimum is a good idea (see Finland and other Northern European States), but I don’t think it will satisfy the urge to consume.
Switching consumers to creators provides relief from the tyranny of consumerism. Steemit is one aspect of this greater idea: decentralization reverses the relationship between consumer and creator. With everyone as creator, the drive towards ownership of material goods is diverted towards generating new goods. Here egalitarianism plays a part because of the unrealized nature of each individual’s creative capacity. Some individuals might be born creative but others need to be socialized in a creative environment in order to become creative.
Escaping the clutch social media and other forms of consumerism have upon the soul of individuals living paycheck to paycheck is the first step towards making creators out of consumers. Monetising hobbies is a great start but most people lack the drive and initiative to want to get up and create someone new. They would rather maintain the comfortable pattern of consuming they have grown accustomed to from a society that teaches them this is the correct way to live life.
Utopia is a fantasy that cannot be provided by a universal basic income. I think it’s a wonderful step in the right direction to free people from fearing if they will be able to provide for their base needs; but universal basic income is not a panacea.
I agree with what you say here ad this is my larger point. The revolution cannot be technological or financial to be lasting. It must be within us as individuals that make up society. I do not believe in a perfect Utopia but at a personal level, it is the creators that have long-term life satisfaction even though it is a very hard path. Making that path easier reduces suffering a great deal.
Automation should take place so people can have the space to become creators, not to increase profits. The current pathway is unsustainable so this stop-gap measure is likely unavoidable but it is not the destination, just the space to manoeuvre the change over in the innovation of the self.
Thank you for taking the time, I would answer more but have to feed my baby.
The other link to the 'Utopia' version might interest you too.
https://steemit.com/society/@tarazkp/a-somewhat-utopian-overview-of-universal-basic-income-ubi
Yes space for the arts needs to be a required life-long skill that is currently lost for most once they become teenagers. If people don't want to do it there is little that can be done aside from the incentives mentioned already to motivate them. A very sad fact of life!
Creators or maintainers might be sufficient in liberate people from the drudgery of monotonous employment. As an historical example: the coal shovelers of yesteryear would've argued until they're blue in the face that taking their jobs away is not liberation: these people need to be flexible enough to be retrained and reskilled to be put back into the workforce. However, if a suitable baseline of skills was instilled during early years than this would not be necessary as the essential skills for life would be already present.
Thanks I'll check it out! You might be interested in my new debate series. Currently we're just starting the debate around the philosophy of the image and related visual arts philosophy discussion. Check it out: https://steemit.com/philosophy/@deterrencepolicy/a-great-debate-the-philosophy-of-the-image
Thst early training is vital. At the moment it is opposed to future success (unless in a narrow band) as they do not teach how to learn, rather what.
I will check it out :)
Oh dear, this is a pesimistic view isn't it.
You don't give people much credit here do you? Whilst I agree there are plenty of potato's out there I like to think that for the majority of people you are being too sceptical - If you have as little faith in people as this article suggests then you must think we're pretty much doomed already with or without a UBI.
Truth is I think the majority of your problems (expressed here) with the UBI are not with the UBI at all but rather the powers that be that would be responsible for distributing it. The solution to the problem of entrenched power will certainly not be the UBI but we shouldn't write it off because it doesn't solve all soceities problems,
Personally I think that finding innovative solutions to the funding for the UBI could help reduce the inequality and power grabbing that you appear most concerned with. I have ideas how this could be done but I'll be doing a video on it at some point so I won't share those ideas here.
Nice, thought provoking article anyway even if the thoughts you express are down on people. Have faith my friend, in the words of John Lennon - we can work it out.
Doomed is very contextual. My version of doomed might be different than yours and some might even consider both versions paradise. I'm sceptical not pessimistic: if people desire more than they should have it but most are quite happy to scrape by with the bare minimum.
UBI might solve some problems and create still more problems. The goal of public policy is to anticipate these future problems and mitigate them by figuring out smart policies. Showering people with money for absolutely no reason is not smart policy. It has few incentives built into the system and it creates far too many expectations. High levels of taxation are a constant complaint of many but if UBI was implemented tax would rise in order to generate the funds required.
Definitely, but those solutions are few and far in between. Awesome I look forward to your video! Followed :)
Also, the definition of what constitutes a "potato" would vary depending on the specific requirements of a society.