Basic Income? (revised intro - excuse my lack of understanding at the time of writing this)

in writing •  last year

Revision


When I wrote this post initially I wasn't fully aware of the actual way the author mentioned in this post intended these proposed basic income ideals would work.

As I understand it currently it's not about an actual income such as social assistance /welfare but a model of land and resource distribution which may one day dictate the way an actual land mass.

I've got to extend an apology both to the author mentioned here as well as the STEEM community for expressing my feelings in such a way before properly understanding what had actually been proposed. While I still do not entirely understand the idea I've been taught enough to feel the need to mention to all readers that at the time this was written I was envisioning a completely different (and unsustainable) model.


I've recently been noticing a disturbing trend in posts dealing with the ideas of creating or enabling these grand utopian societies where everything is fair, perfectly balanced and everyone basically has all their needs taken care of simply by showing up.. While even I admit the idea of one day humanity banding together and shrugging off our violent, bloody past and going on to unite under the canvas of supporting eachother..

Let's be friggin honest and realistic for a moment:

Humans for the most part are greedy, gluttonous creatures.

When we start looking into the main authors behind this new found #basicincome rise of popularity you can't help but notice that one individual's posts stick out like a dirty thumb. Now I'm not going to name any names here as it's blatantly obvious whom I'm referring to and if it's not all you must do is go and check out the tag and you'll know.

One thing that irks me (perhaps more than it should, hence why I'm getting this off my chest here) is that while we've got this glorious Utopian dream posting going on what's being actively exercised by the posters is in fact the opposite.. Or at least that is how it looks from my point of view. We've got high reputation/value staff accounts basically doing the opposite of dollarvigalante's "bullshit doomcalling posts" (You're talented writer TDV, stop preying on fears of idiots) and spreading what I can only describe as "Needless Utopian Circlejerking". Not only do we have these extremely long winded posts being created, and heavily upvoted (likely by people only upvoting on the author name) by the community but anyone who actually takes the time to read these things soon realizes that they've absolutely NO significance or value when applied to realistic reality models where humans are involved.

What seems to be the problem with utopian fluff posts?!

While I'll admit right now some of this author's ideas do in fact seem to be pretty damn ingenious. For the most part what you're seeing here is needless embezzlement of the reward pool by Steemit Inc. staff members who frankly do not need another damn cent in their accounts given the fact a clear pattern of preach one thing and practice another emerges when you look into it.

I'm all for freedom of speech, sharing ideas and dreaming of a better tommorow we really need to as a community give our damn heads a good shake and focus on our current reality which isn't even a whiff close to the perfectly balanced dream worlds our favourite #basicincome author lays out.

Where is the Value or Meaning Behind this #basicincome Trend?

What is the true meaning behind these basic income posts? My guess is perhaps some form of peer acceptance seeking or self validation via upvotes on the blockchain.. But really when you look into it more and actually read these posts you soon realize they are literally nothing more than unrealistic pipe dreams that just so happen to be written by a man who's got an extremely high reputation on STEEM.

Are these posts necesarry? Sure, everyone is entitled to post their opinion and thoughts.

Do these post deserve such payouts? Absolutely f**king not!

Stop Devaluing others posts by upvoting pipedreams not set in any reality anyone here lives in..

Let alone when authored by people who frankly do the exact opposite of what they write. There is no need to further express my disdain for what is going on.. The blockchain tells a story that cannot be covered up

The only reason you see these posts soar so high is people piling on votes because of whom the author is without actually reading them. Lord knows if any of you actaully read any of these recent basic income posts you'll clearly soon realize that they've absolutely no value in our current reality other than to inflate the ego of the author and take your hard earned rewards and siphon them into the author's pocket.

It's fine to write about utopias, to spread good vibes and feelings to the users of STEEM.. But when you're rapidly inflating your own wallet and ego basically to the tune of demise of the network you helped create while others are knowingly suffering and in far worse positions than what you lay out in your utopian posts there is something seriously wrong with this situation.

Utopian societies will simply not exist as long as humans are involved

We've actually already got a basic income system set up in most modern countries anyways.. It's called welfare or social assistance, And last time I checked all it did was enable obese lazy people to feed off of the society's tax dollars and enables addicts and junkies to do f**K all with their lives.. Do we really want to further expedite the problem by enabling these slothful, weak willed individuals to carry on? Nah. Basic income and utopian societies don't work and the factor in which it fails at every god damn time is PEOPLE.

As a species we are far to greedy and harbour far too much hypocrisy to even take the first steps towards the seemingly perfect little worlds being laid out in these #basicincome posts.

Please stop upvoting stuff that isn't realistic nor feasible steemsters, regardless of whomever is shilling it.

You make us all look like a bunch of f**king idiots making this feel good, fantasy fiction writing trend on the front pages as if we actually as a community believe that sort of stuff is even attainable given the current state of human nature.

Some BRUTAL Honesty

Let's be brutally honest with ourselves here, Had any other account posted that stuff it'd been extremely lucky to make $1.00. Get off of the developer d!ck and start throwing your votes at content and ideas that are actually worthy of being seen by outsiders of our community.

Some Final Thoughts

This should not be viewed as a personal attack on anyone nor should this be misconstrued as "shots fired", disrespectful or me stirring the sh!tpot. I'm merely expressing my thoughts and feelings on the current trend I see and in no way is anything written above to be taken personally by anyone or taken for definitive truth.

We as a community need to stop acting like a bunch of friggin' sheep though so eager to give up our wool to folks who frankly have already taken full advantage of their position in the STEEM Ecosystem. Next time you see a nice fluffy feel good utopia sprawl article make sure you actually read the damn thing before you consider your vote.. I bet you'll find that if you actually read and understand what's being said you'll soon realize it's all just basically feel good garbage with very little bearing on reality as it sits today. By upvoting and encouraging these type of posts we're not only saying it's OK for the authors to dump meaningless feel-goods on us but you're also taking away rewards from writers whom actually deserve or need the payout.

/rant

I'm fully aware my opinion may not be shared by everyone! If you'd like to kick in your $0.020 SBD on the situation or debate me on it please feel free to do so in the comments! :D

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending

You have to put your heads in the clouds now and then, or you won't travel anywhere. Dan isn't proposing something that will lead to Soviet style unproductive disintegration .. there is no dividend paid to anyone if the society he suggests, fails. :) .. people should not be so quick to cry COMMUNIST! when they hear this sort of thing.

It's just a thought experiment, not new STEEM policy. :)

·

I tend to use my feet to travel most places..

While I'm all for ideas and dreams of future's where everything isn't set up to take advantage of the consumer when those ideas end up taking away food from people in far worse financial situations than those posting the dreams I will raise the issue I feel needs to be raised.

·
·

Absolutely .. and it is appreciated. That is why I upvote absolutely everything you post! :)

·
·
·

No need to upvote me every time man. Only if I'm producing content you actually want to see (and want others to see as well)...

<3

·
·
·
·

upvoted that too! :) cheers man!

I feel you.... I think the same thing everyday when I read bad stuff and see bad artwork getting paid big. I'm doing my own thing on steemit, and I hope it helps others out by having some fun.

Great post.

·

I read bad stuff and see bad artwork getting paid big

Rofl.. Was it tagged with #klyeart ... If so I'm guilty of producing bad artwork and barely passable writings. :D

I'm with you.
I love when someone puts the "Brutal Honest Mode" On
Resteeming

·

Sometimes it's got to be said for the good of the greater.. Even if I end up a martyr for sharing what I'm thinking I refuse to just sit here and let the devaluation of my fellow non-Steemit Inc users posts because one of our fearless leaders decides he'd like to go off on some fairy tale tangent which earns well over x1000% what the same post written by any other person would yield simply because he is who he is.. Shit's not right.

So hang on just a sec.
Disclaimer - I read some of the posts and didn't upvote them.

How does voting for one post devalue another post?
We are free to write what we want as long as it is not fluff? Who defines what fluff is?
We can only write things and get them voted if we also live what we write?
I wrote about a sailor being stranded on a desert island. does that mean I have to get stranded?
Only lower reputation Steemers deserve to have their posts voted on? At what point should you be cut off from the voting stream? When your reputation is over 40, 50, 60?

I thought the point of the posts was to postulate an idea, a concept, a possible approach. I took it as a call for discussion, examination, debate, argument, lively engagement even.

How is that wrong? isn't this what makes Steemit valuable - sharing ideas, discussing things, even impossible dreams?

Stop dreaming Utopian dreams - you mean like dreaming of a social platform that rewards me for my efforts in writing original content and commenting and supporting others that also write and share original content?

To borrow a quote - "You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one".

·

How does voting for one post devalue another post?

Well, The very algorythm the payout system runs on dictates that for every new vote after a certain amount it literally takes money from other posts to pay it out.. SO there is that answered.

Only lower reputation Steemers deserve to have their posts voted on?

No, I'm simply stating that the person responsible for the trend of the tag could have just as easily shared his idea with 0 payout if idea sharing was his only intention.. Not to say they don't deserve to get paid for posts but it's ultimately taking food off of others plates whose accounts aren't likely worth 1/100,000th of the author of these posts. I'm all for information and idea sharing but at what point do we put our foot down as a community and stop padding these guys pockets? The math on what they've cashed out is more than most people make in a decade if my numbers are even remotely close to accurate.

How is that wrong? isn't this what makes Steemit valuable - sharing ideas, discussing things, even impossible dreams?

No, This is the point of STEEM in my opinion. However when you've got high reputation accounts taking full advantage of their blind sheep following by posting what I can only describe as "pipedreams" not only do you have this stuff trending without barely anyone actually reading it but you're also sending the message that you can literally post any damn thing with little to no real world application or value and get handsome rewards assuming you're the "right guy"

Stop dreaming Utopian dreams - you mean like dreaming of a social platform that rewards me for my efforts in writing original content and commenting and supporting others that also write and share original content?

I'm not saying I want to eat your dreams and kill your fantasy future. I'm just saying the way this has been gone about isn't actually adding any value (in my opinion) to the network and serves only to make us look like a bunch of mindless swine following and upvoting whatever our puppet master posts.

As stated a few times over. Anyone else would have made these posts they'd been lucky to make $1.. It seems wrong to rip value away from others work all while blindly supporting posts that frankly aren't applicable to any reality involving people and societies as they are and will continue to be.

·
·

Well, The very algorythm the payout system runs on dictates that for every
new vote after a certain amount it literally takes money from other posts to
pay it out.. SO there is that answered.

But that's true for all posts, not just fluffy ones. So if I post something that gets a lot of votes, I'm taking money away from your posts. And if this post gets lots of votes, you're taking money away from me!

As I said in my Disclaimer, I didn't vote for the posts because as you say it was all just a bit fluffy and not much to do with reality. and having read the first one, i haven't read the rest.

It's the same with many of the Steemit sucks or Steemit is broken or Why aren't i rich yet? posts. You read a couple and then it becomes boring, so you stop reading them and move on.

Other people coming to the platform will read them, and they'll hopefully read yours and my posts, to get a good broad view of what it's like here and then decide to stay or go.

As for controlling what's on the trending page and what's hot etc - how the hell does that even work? I've looked at the numbers on the posts and they don't seem to reflect anything. So I don't think it is just the upvote count that puts something on the trending wall.

Maybe someone in the know can tell us how that all works?
Personally I don't have a problem with rants being upvoted, pipe dreams being upvoted, calls for revolution being upvoted, or picture of friggen lolcats being upvoted. (ok, maybe I do have problem with lolcats) because tomorrow it will be different.

There will always be sheeple who blindly follow and like or vote for the stars (cringe) - you know the ones - caught up in the cult of popularity.
But it's a big wide world with lots of people in it who are actually interested in real content, real engagement (like this discussion).

Given your frustration, I'd guess these people are not your target audience. So while your frustrations might be valid, don't blame the shepherd for the actions of the sheep. G out and buy a sheepdog ;-) (a little kiwi humour)

·
·
·

I'm merely expressing my current thoughts on the network for all to see.

What I'd honestly love to see is some sort of donations from these high rankers on behalf of STEEM to maybe get us some media coverage or something... Would certainly beat the current status kuo of "Master posted blindly upvote"..

Perhaps I'm in my own utopian dream world where our higher ups aren't just frigging cash-cowwing off of the reward pool intended for users.. But hey! What do I know.. :D

Also this sheepdog? Is that something one shags or..? (Some crude canadian humour)

·
·
·
·

What!!!???? Shag the dog??!!
What would the sheep think?

Whoops! was that out loud? hehe

I understand your frustrations. But I think at this stage of the game we just need to be a little relaxed about this stuff, and not too focused on who is earning what money.

And I'm not saying you shouldn't be posting posts like this. indeed you should, so it is not all just fluff

And then - as you have done, defend your argument with logic and reason. This is a good thing.

What we should never do is think our betters know more about this than us, so we should just trust them to build our utopia for us and not make suggestions for improvements.

I think the point that my ramble is moving towards, is that this is new, it's different. No-one really knows how it will end. for @ned and @dan etc this is probably a wild caffeine induced ride into the unknown.

They had a vision of something. What we end up with won't be their original vision. It won't be your vision and it certainly won't be my vision.
But it will be something different.

So....... you have seen a problem, you've ranted about it - fair enough. You have some suggestions, some solutions, a cunning plan even.

How do we go about exploring the options, finding the faults, building and then implementing a solution that works for everyone?

p.s. hello to Canada. I miss you :-)

·
·
·
·
·

My cunning plan would be accountability and some monthly budget statements from out higher ups.. Sadly to to fear of the tax man from steemit inc we're unlikely to ever see such a thing so we can only assume all the STEEM / SBD dumped is being used to buy hookers and blow to pack the lambo with.. :D

Rofl. Sheep would think that it's Baaaaaaad. (that was horrible)

Thanks for your replies, logic test and humour good sir. I appreciate you.

The biggest problem are voting bots. Most of posts are just upvoted by bots. Few people actually read and curate. Like you said it's all about greed and money. In my opinion this idea of basicincome stuff was whole idea of steemit in first place. Now when some people steer platform in different direction this actual new tag come out.

·

I do all of my curation manually at the moment and I'll admit I am starting to look into getting onto a curation trail.

between coding, posting, replying and trying to balance "real life" endevours I've simply not enough hours in the day to accomplish all I would like. :/

·
·

I feel you here @klye

·
·
·

I was pretty content with my days accomplishment pre-STEEM launch...

Now I literally cannot find the hours and time I need to accomplish half the things I set out to do in a day.
Oh well, At the end of the day I'm doing something I enjoy and perhaps in the future once everything is coded and runnin' at 100% I can sit back, relax and actually appreciate what I've been building rather than stressin' over it.

·
·
·
·

There was a time in my life when every waking moment was packed with stuff that "had to be done". And then I read this and it changed my whole perspective. Figure out which is glass and which is rubber. ;)

I'm not going to comment on basic income, but I think people on Steemit need to let go of this idea of "deserving posts".

That's no less utopian than what is being criticized on this post.

Value will never be objective. It is always subjective.

Steemit is not a quality contest, it is a popularity contest - only the latter of the two is objective and can be quantified objectively. "Quality" doesn't really mean anything, we all have our own definition for it.

The post most deserving of upvotes is the one that gets the most upvotes. It is simply decided by the market.

·

I agree with you on everything you said, except last sentence. Bots are ruling here.

·

It's not so much the deserving post issue so much as the community knowingly padding the pockets of the author when we all know full well that that idea simply put isn't worth (in my opinion) what it's payout is.

I don't want this to come off as a witch hunt. It's not. I've mad respect for the author for his work on STEEM. However I think we're seeing some heavy sheep mentality and ultimately it's people upvoting on these posts for percieved curation rewards rather than actual content

Basic income is not utopian. It's being experimented with in Canada and probably elsewhere.

Protestant work ethos and religious 'sins' ideas about humanity is what holds policies based on the sovereign invidual back

·

I'm located in Canada and from what I've heard it's only 1 province testing it out and all it is is essentially welfare for everyone regardless of their financial situation.

Which is great, assuming you're piss testing these people and not just handing out free money to degenerates that are just going to siphon it into the black market or wherever else.

The idea of universal income is indeed a utopian ideal. Regardless of how it's spun. Atleast in my eyes anyways..! (I'm often wrong)

·
·

Well you are ranting about assumptions towards people without creating an argument as to why basic income can't work.

We've actually already got a basic income system set up in most modern countries anyways.. It's called welfare or social assistance, And last time I checked all it did was enable obese lazy people to feed off of the society's tax dollars and enables addicts and junkies to do f**K all with their lives.. Do we really want to further expedite the problem by enabling these slothful, weak willed individuals to carry on?

Basic Income has a basic principle in common with welfare, yes. doesnt dis/prove anything.

There is more evidence that people will create and contribute when they have the needs hierarchy met then there is evidence that people will just do nothing. Canadas welfare system does not meet basic needs it's not a model for the feasibility of BI.

·
·
·

Basic income could work, However by simply printing bills or cutting the spending budget elsewhere you'll realize very soon after that what end up happening is you end up breeding a lazy peoples which you're unable to siphon tax money to thrown back into the system.

Money exists as a tool to make trading easier but also to invoke stress on your average person.. This stress motivates people to get up out of bed and do productive things. If you cover everyones basic needs with about 4-5 generations what you'll be left with is a bunch of unskilled, lazy un-sustainable inhabitants and no tax income to support them.

·
·

There was a basic income trial in Canada in the 70's overall the was a rise in employment, the only area's where there was a drop in work was mothers of young children and young people who chose education. It's also been tried in nambia with similar results and there are also a couple of europian countries that will be trying various versions of it over the next few years.
The thing is Utopian ideas have a habit of happening there was a time ending the slave trade, women voting, equal rights for black people, lesbians and gays were all seen as utopian flights of fancy.
Will basic income solve everything of course not there will always be those that skate by but freeing those who are stuck simply because most of their efforts are taken up just trying to meet their basic needs will be benificial to us all.

·
·
·

Interesting!

I'd love to see this study and browse over it..! I didn't realize that Canada had tested this back in the hippy era... However I do note that they are re-testing it again.. If it didn't work in the 70's what's the tweak to make it feasable now?

I think giving a bunch of millennials money will likely be the downfall of productivity and employment rates in the future if they do go through with it.

You don't truly appreciate something unless you've put the work in to earn it. People don't respect money given to them freely as they would money they spent sweat equity and life hours on.

As someone who's been both a slothful lazy ass and worked 16+ hour days for months on end doing physical labour jobs with huge stretches of work and little rest all I've got to go off of is my own personal experience..

Something tells me though basic income it either going to get spent on beer / drugs by your average 18-25 year old with few of those funds actually being used for their intended purpose.. Tis only speculation on my part though

·
·
·
·

from what I can gather the trial in the 70's was successful but political situations changed and politicians pulled the plug without properly going through the results at the time (i don't have a link to the study but I'll get some interesting links to you once the girls are in bed)
Of course there will be those that do fuck all and live off the money but for each one of those people their is someone trapped in a dead end job barely making ends meet who dreams of starting a business, caring for a sick family member, or just so busy meeting their basic needs to survive that it's impossible to focus on the future let alone plan for it and it's those people who will contribute far more than the lazy ones cost.

·
·
·
·
·

Aye, but by enabling a generation of freeloaders you're likely to see the GDP drop, Unemployment rates increase as well as other less than desirable things go on. (I'm merely speculating here but given state of society over here in North America I'd bet my shiny left nut it goes this way)

The lazy ones who are poor get all of the benifits where as the hard workers getting the same baasic income serves as no greater reward when compared to the lazy bum with nothing who eats for free on the govt dime.

I can google it phoenix. No worries. You've got more on the go family / raising an army wise than I do at the moment. :)

·
·
·
·
·

It was called Mincome.
Results were: Better health (still measureable 30 years later, dont know if today) both phys and psych, more education, more divorces (very interesting point)

Regading the useless, take e.g. this: https://thecorrespondent.com/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39
oh, and that one
http://boingboing.net/2015/05/26/poverty-is-a-tax-on-cognition.html

·
·
·
·
·

@klye that last comment rminded me of a chat my grandma had with my uncle when he was having a rant about 80's kids "being a bunch of lazy feckers", It was rare to see my grandma so angry so i remember every word lol, she said "Every generation thinks they worked harder than the next and it's never true, but your generation have some nerve you took everything our generation fought,protested and worked for to make your lives easier. You used it to your full advantage and are now dismantalling all of it for the next gneration making them work harder than you ever had to."
Sadly I think a lot of our generation are continuing the trend our parents started.

The design of steem is that votes do not reflect what people like. So yes I will always upvote any popular author even if I hate the article..... that is how the design of this platform works. In fact I upvote anything that is within 30-45 minutes and has votes, because this is profitable.

·

Ahh, So what you're saying then is regardless of if it's shit or not you'll upvote it simply because the rest of the herd is?

That seems sort of like a design flaw to me that people feel they have to upvote content they wouldn't normally simply because they perceive a reward for doing so.

·
·

Right. The more people vote the more money you make if you vote early but after 30 minutes, to the effect that your vote after 1h is not worth much.

So from a curation perspective you vote on anything that is promising to get votes at 30 min. Any popular author and anything that has received votes already.

I agree it is a horrible design flaw. But I don't think it is being addressed. I do it like a stupid game. It's like logging in your iPhone game and picking up some extra credit just for showing up every other hour.....

·
·
·

Thank you for explaining your process to me.

Eventually I'm going to make a proposal to the higher ups to see if we can somehow skirt this design flaw and shape the current voting system into something that doesn't favour popularity over actual content. :)

·
·
·
·

@klye look into curie and a few of the other curation guilds. That's been the community's solution. @ned votes with one of these guilds too.

·
·
·
·

The problem with this is that it favors bots over humans and that it does not reward quality

Klye I think you're wrong.

UBI reduces costs to the government because you're rolling the entire social safety net into a single program and paying it in cash to everyone. This reduces administrative overhead dramatically. It can be completely automated and all the bureaucrats involved in keeping you from your tax dollars can live on UBI or find employment elsewhere. Eitherway you end up with much smaller government.

Furthermore UBI keeps lazy people OUT of the workforce. This means employers get people who want to work, not those who are showing up just to collect a paycheck.

Not only do the number of available jobs increase, so do the number of small business and cottage industries. The lazy drug addict you don't want to support is actually a business person in disguise, they just happen to be selling a product that has high demand and limited supply. The way to make the black market go away is to legalize the products and tax them.

In the meantime, buoyed by the knowledge that their kids won't starve people will feel more free to do creative endeavours including attempting to start and run a business.

It all works great... For about 5 to 10 years, after which the Basic Income will have inflated out of the market and everyone has to enter the workforce again because the purchasing power of their basic income payment has been washed out by price increases. You see price responds to demand, not supply.

Them's the facts amigo! :D

·

UBI reduces costs to the government

How does this math work out? By briefly looking into most of the proposed UBI I've seen it's coming out of governmnt collected taxes... Which basically means your tax dollars goes to support people who accomplish and amount to nothing at the end of their lifespan besides placing a strain on those who've made an honest effort.

As much as I like giving people the opportunity to climb up from the bottom like UBI seems to try and do just giving money to everyone doesn't solve the underlying fundamentals of why we'd even need such a ridiculous thing in the first place.

I pay very little taxes compared to your average worker bee. (being self employed and primarily focused on crypto is my life) But I cannot imagine having 20%-30% of my wages given out to do-nothing under achieving leeches.. You devalue your lower caste minimum wage workers by giving everyone money willy nilly like this. Why would anyone go flip burgers at mcdonalds when they could sit at home and create more hungry mouths to leech off the system.. :/

·
·

Take a look at how much the government spends administering the various social safety net programs. It's literally cheaper to just scrap them all and give everyone $1k per month.

Taxes don't increase here because you're removing the money the government is already spending and just getting rid of the bureaucratic road blocks.

You're already paying these people you don't want to pay. They're already in the social safety net. All this does is give you back some of it.

·
·
·

I'm having problems wrapping my head around this concept as you explain it.

Here (in Canada) you've got to jump through about 20 hoops and constantly be looking for work to get current welfare system payouts. With what you've outlined if just everyone got money for nothing it would in fact end up costing someone more money down the road. (that means you, the consumer, in the end)

·
·
·
·

It's true it would be much cheaper to shill out straight cash then have government bureaucracy manage the countless programs with 20 hoops. And I like the point @williambanks makes, that it gets the lazy people out of the way. I would like to get the government out of charity business but the church's are not doing their jobs.

·
·
·
·
·

That bearucracy provides decent paying jobs though.. You're essentially putting people out of work in order to incubate slackers and do-little's.. that isn't the direction I envisioned as a perfect setup for our species.

(Don't take this as a pro government statement. They are thieves that wear suits at best)

The lazy shouldn't be rewarded, they should be given the same chance as anyone else.. If you don't get up off your ass and forage or hunt you starve. This is nature. regardless of how advanced we tell ourselves we are it would be a MASSIVE step backwards to allow lazy, unmotivated, useless people to breed uncontrollably while giving them all the resources free to do so..

You ever see the movie idiocracy? Start by giving them internet, then memes, then cutting the jobs and then just paying everyone for being lazy plebs and you've basically got the perfect livestock.. The only problem is we don't really eat each other so besides spawning a bunch of wastes of skin I see absolutely no damn point in facilitating the decline of our species in the name of "saving it".

·
·

Arent you devaluating the lower caste minimum wage workers by not allowing them to say "no, thanks" to a shitty job thanks to the UBI? Do you not want employer to actually make jobs where people would like to work at?

·
·
·

Not at all. A workers value is set in my opinion on their ability and how profitable his paid work hours are compared to his overall output of product or service.

No one likes working, If they did they'd call it fun or something right?

Unless you're one of the few self employed folks on this planet you've got to wake up, and force yourself to go to work, slave for some dude who's essentially exploiting your life hours for profit, then get turned around and bent over by the govt with their taxes, then go home to a wife that hates you.

I personally could give a damn less if employers make jobs people want to work at. You're there simply because you haven't figured out your own ways to sell goods or services so you rely on a boss. When in reality that boss views you just as your govt does.. You're something to have cash made off you.

Honestly we should all be self employed and doing what we love, without some friggin' communist "everyone gets a fair share" bullcrap. This planet, Life and Humans simply are not fair, pretending like we want to get rid of survival of the fittest and have it replaced my celebrating and incubating mediocrity is absurd in my opinion.

We want to evolve as a species? You let the lazy and stupid ones die off. You certainly don't feed them and tell them their life means something. If you're simply existing and sponging off a system or host you're a parasite. straight up.

·
·
·
·

What does lazy mean? Isnt it the one who works 60 hours a week to bow money away for unnecessary stuff? Doesnt this guy takes the lazy way instead of learning how to live happy with less material possessions?

Another one who does not differentiate between biological and social evolution and who does not understand the difference between strongest and fittest sigh
I suggest you start by reading about what Darwin meant.

·
·
·
·
·

Thing is darwin's theory was written before we shuffled up the definition of what the fittest meant..

Classically I believe he intended the fittest to refer to the best example of the species through dominant traits..

Where as today the fittest is the most motivated, faster thinker and one with the most resources (when mirrored over to humans).

Lazy has all sorts of faces, We're surrounded by underachievers who are more than happy to slave for fiat, pay taxes, procreate, save up fiat (which is devalued by constant printing), then maybe get a few years to actually enjoy their lives as their health fails with all of their worth while years spent slaving for someone else's primary benefit.

Perhaps you're happily employed somewhere.. been there for years and have no other plans than to stick with that job.. But unless that job is actually a career and you're legitimately enjoying what you do I don't consider that any form of fittest. You're merely a slave to money and your own inability to break out of societal constructs pounded into your head from early on.

People have become docile, domesticated and worse of all farmed for the very hours of their lives.. Unless you're doing your own thing, and making your own way (happily) through your life you're not anything close to what I'd want the next generations to be like.

Pretty hard to explain to people how absolutely absurd the "american dream" is... Let alone when we have folks wanting to just give out supplies to people who frankly aren't worth their weight in elephant dung.

I'm not for universal support across the map. I am however all for putting resources into the hand of people whom express traits which are conducive to us moving forwards as a species.

I believe the medical field calls it triage. Supporting everyone regardless of their input or traits instead of focusing resources where they could be used for more than feeding needless parasites is the way to go.

We live on a planet of finite space and resources.. Don't tell me for one damn second "Everything for Everyone, Free" is going to hold up worth a crap once people realise that the lazy parasites are the reason the ones out there working and planting the crops the fields can't eat.

Leveling the playing field out and letting those who have not put in the effort free meals and shelter is honestly supporting mediocrity, frankly those types of people shouldn't get the same treatment as those who actively contribute in positive ways to society.

The fact we even entertain ideas like this rather than instructing people to do what the love and find a way to make a living off of it sort of makes me wonder how fucking brainwashed our societies have become.

Excuse my language in this post.. It just gets me passionate and heated when I hear people propose stupid, ultimately detrimental ideals to our species as a whole under the guise of aide.

·
·
·
·
·

It is clear we wont come together on this.
Especially as a German who would probably have been killed under Hitler because I needed operations to be able to walk I have a dim view on people who dont aid under the guise of the advantage of the species.

Anywa, as I said, get to what is meant by fittest. Compassion IS a trait that could make you the fittest.
Darwins meaning of fittest was "the one most adapted to his environment".
You could argue if we are that, but without doubt the human success is based on our ability to be social, and that includes aid to those who dont fit in the top 10% achievers.

By the way, saying someone is mediocre because he is out of work is completely bullshit. He may just lack the ability to build a big network that puts him into work, because that IS what gets you work. Not your professional prowess.
Just look at Stephen Hawking. He is a good example for several parts of your discussion. One is that he would die without someone else. He would also not have become famous without the help of others. And so on.

·
·
·
·

Ill make one point for discussions sake:

Actually it are the LAZY that are the fittest and the working fanatics the worst.
Because humanity currently does everything to destroy the earth, the living conditions that make human life possible. The workfanatics are the parasites, destroying the ecosystem.
The current "more production!" mantra is the worst for our species.
Lazy people who dont produce so much (and die off) are the best for the ecosystem and arguably for humankind, because when we are back to 1 billion people we can live sustainably and then the working fanatics can be back (hopefully not so bad as now)

·
·
·
·
·

Honestly as terrible as this sounds we're likely to wipe ouselves out before we destroy the planet... My money is that putin and trump get into bed with eachother and try and go after the the chinese (only people with any real gold hold). ( I hope I'm not correct)

Frankly by definition we as humans are parasitic to the earth given our current "rape it all for profit" mentality.

I'll leave you with a koute from one of my favourite songs of all time:

Lamb of God - Reclamation

Only after the last tree's cut
And the last river poisoned
Only after the last fish is caught
Will you find that money cannot be eaten

·

Does not compute. error.

Ctrl+alt+del's himself

This post has been ranked within the top 10 most undervalued posts in the second half of Nov 12. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $24.04 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.

See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Nov 12 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.

If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.

·

Haha, you underachiever :P :P :P ;)

It would be seen as inflationary