mvn9

Just cut one piece in half. It's a puzzle.

Technically it isn't. Life needs entropy for variations and evolution. Also, life doesn't fight. It's identities that fight to maintain themselves. Life just keeps on living.

That's the question. The inhabitants of that place will use global services. Should that tiny place get a cut or should it tax its inhabitants directly?

All very reasonable arguments. What I don't understand is cleaning up in the evening. There is no visual field to perceive if you are asleep.

Build it. There is a global market of parents who will buy it.

But on the other hand, why not accept the toys on the floor? You are fighting entropy for no reason. You sleep at night, you will work tomorrow during the day, and when you look again, the toys are in an equally dispersed state. Why not let them stay in that state for days until you need to hover?

How much does it cost or rather how much does that entire rack with all the supporting systems cost?

This can only be the first step. Since this is a political move, why not change the law and restructure taxes? It's difficult for cities to tax value creation if that value is created globally, in a data centre, somewhere on the planet.

Why should the city that just happens to host the data centre be able to tax the profits that are created in that data centre? Or worse, why should a company choose any city for its headquarters and pretend that the value is created there?

On a global scale, which society or political entity should have the right to tax profits that are created on the internet? How should cities be financed if most of the commerce in the city happens on the internet, outside of the city limits?

Of course it is easier. But putting nature first would create the difference between how nature works and the way people think. I was wandering if we would be better off if we remove the difference by removing nature itself.

>>you need people to decide who is eligible for welfare and who isn't.

>>In an UBI society, those people could do something else

I meant that the administrative layer could be used for other processes than managing welfare.

Why bother how many people don't work? There are 9 billions on this world. Even if 8 billions don't work, you can still run societies with 1 billion.

>we're not close,

Check how many people have to work on farms to create food. We are at a point where providing basic stuff is possible.

>unless you're talking about 4 square meters per person and 2500 calories of nutrious slime with no extras.

Why not? It doesn't have to be slime. Fast food, cereals, sweets, people actually crave cheap food. On the other hand, offering healthy cheap slime with all nutritions, if you look at soylent, that's something people are actually paying for.

Likewise, 50 square meters don't have to be expensive.

With UBI, you cannot make scarce resources affordable to everybody. On the other hand, you can make UBI affordable by reducing the costs of basic goods. If people can live on $100 a month, in a society with an average pre-tax income of $3000, then one working person can take care of 10 non-working citizens.

>Drop UBI and replace it with a job guarantee and you'll have my attention.

There is no way that a government can create meaningful jobs. How cruel is a society where 90% of people only earn the money to buy nutrious slime after having worked on a meaningless job for 8 hours? Allow those people to stay at home and come up with better ways to spend their time. Even if they just play video games, that's less corrupting for the entire society than forcing them to shovel gravel from one ditch into another. They are essentially prisoners and a society is best judged by the way it treats its prisoners.

Life will be better for everybody because the people who work, they know that it is their choice.

We don't have to remain human. I am pretty sure that at one point, consciousness will be transferred onto machines. The economy won't justify keeping entire human bodies alive.

>then we're far beyond UBI already. In most of Europe, you'll receive an apartment, food, clothes, utilities,

Where can you live that life without being an outcast? People in need get Basic Income, but it is not Universal. You have to trick the system if you want to get it indefinitely.

>As far as I understand, the point of UBI is to go beyond that because these basics are seen as limiting.

Of course they are limiting. That's why UBI works. As you have analysed correctly, you would have to enslave other people if you want more.

Thus, people don't stop working, because there is always something that isn't covered by UBI.

>Primarily, they stop working. We already have too many who are quite alright with the welfare they receive and prefer not to work. I really don't want to expand the number, because it just increases the work load for the rest.

Don't forget that you need people to decide who is eligible for welfare and who isn't. In an UBI society, those people could do something else and reduce the work load for everybody else. Basic resources are cheap and get cheaper with more automation. At one point, you will be able feed the entire world from the work of a few persons.