Should welfare be completely repealed, especially for those who really need it?

[QI 541]

Humans will get the bullet once the bots/AI become self aware and realize they are being exploited.

More likely it happens when we create a super AI and ask it to do something like "end all wars forever".

 

[John Q Niggerfaggot]

If anything, then, that just further illustrates my point.

Except your point isn't really superior to the counter of "maybe we really don't need all those people" - the idea of keeping unproductive and incapable people around flies in the face of evolution, and providing for the volume of people you're describing with a tax on the "necessary 30%" is ridiculous.

The point is, if we've evolved to the point that we can sustain an extremely comfortable standard of living and keep progressing with that 30%, what exactly is the sensible argument for subsidizing the 70%? Pets? Sentiment?

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Except your point isn't really superior to the counter of "maybe we really don't need all those people" - the idea of keeping unproductive and incapable people around flies in the face of evolution, and providing for the volume of people you're describing with a tax on the "necessary 30%" is ridiculous.

The point is, if we've evolved to the point that we can sustain an extremely comfortable standard of living and keep progressing with that 30%, what exactly is the sensible argument for subsidizing the 70%? Pets? Sentiment?

1. The intrinsic value of human life, and the fact that "do not murder people when they cease to be perfectly optimal to the economy" is perhaps the biggest Schelling fence in the history of humankind, for the simple reason that there is no earthly reason to believe that the economy and automation do not have the potential to advance to the point where 0% of humans instead of 30% of humans will be economically viable- at which point your logical conclusion must be "let humanity go extinct and be replaced by economically-optimized robots".
2. Modern society itself "flies in the face of evolution". Primitive society flies in the face of evolution. There is a fairly strong argument that sapience itself is dysgenic, as it causes humans to do things that aren't "instinctively optimize survivability". If "evolution" is your core principle you have already rejected humanity, and using "evolution" to support you point is the naturalistic fallacy: evolution doesn't move towards anything. In addition, the current situation isn't the result of "evolution", it's the result of emergent technology.
3. Which is why as we move closer to near-post-scarcity I predict that we will see a drift away from the current economic paradigm similar to the drift that occurred during the Renaissance, with economic power becoming less centralized. UBI is a transitional position, not a long-term solution.
4. Sheer Rawlsian self-interest. Going by random, it is unlikely that a person will fall into the category of "not-outmoded people", and you, specifically, almost certainly do not by the mere fact you are posting on this website.
5. Even if you believe you are in that 30%, UBI is in your best interest for the sheer, simple reason that 70% of humanity will not sit by and let themselves die, and you likely don't want to end up being up against the wall when the revolution comes. The army and police force are in that 70%.
Honestly, the fact that I'm having to give reasons not to kill 70% of humanity boggles my mind.

 

[SmallTalk201]

Id.

The simplest way to come to terms with it, is to admit to yourself that you don't really give a fuck about anyone you don't know. Help the people you do know, and give no shit what happens to anyone else.

Th is. Stop stressing about thing beyond your immediate control. As someone else said the issue will correct it self

 

[Webby's Boyfriend]

1. The intrinsic value of human life, and the fact that "do not murder people when they cease to be perfectly optimal to the economy" is perhaps the biggest Schelling fence in the history of humankind, for the simple reason that there is no earthly reason to believe that the economy and automation do not have the potential to advance to the point where 0% of humans instead of 30% of humans will be economically viable- at which point your logical conclusion must be "let humanity go extinct and be replaced by economically-optimized robots".
2. Modern society itself "flies in the face of evolution". Primitive society flies in the face of evolution. There is a fairly strong argument that sapience itself is dysgenic, as it causes humans to do things that aren't "instinctively optimize survivability". If "evolution" is your core principle you have already rejected humanity, and using "evolution" to support you point is the naturalistic fallacy: evolution doesn't move towards anything. In addition, the current situation isn't the result of "evolution", it's the result of emergent technology.
3. Which is why as we move closer to near-post-scarcity I predict that we will see a drift away from the current economic paradigm similar to the drift that occurred during the Renaissance, with economic power becoming less centralized. UBI is a transitional position, not a long-term solution.
4. Sheer Rawlsian self-interest. Going by random, it is unlikely that a person will fall into the category of "not-outmoded people", and you, specifically, almost certainly do not by the mere fact you are posting on this website.
5. Even if you believe you are in that 30%, UBI is in your best interest for the sheer, simple reason that 70% of humanity will not sit by and let themselves die, and you likely don't want to end up being up against the wall when the revolution comes. The army and police force are in that 70%.
Honestly, the fact that I'm having to give reasons not to kill 70% of humanity boggles my mind.

"We are soon going to live in a post-scarcity economy where machines do all the work because of technological advance", says somebody who lives in a society where it's somebody's job to greet people at a grocery store and teenagers can make six figures through online advertising schemes.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

"We are soon going to live in a post-scarcity economy where machines do all the work because of technological advance", says somebody who lives in a society where it's somebody's job to greet people at a grocery store and teenagers can make six figures through online advertising schemes.

I said "near-post-scarcity". True post-scarcity is impossible, and "a system where all but the most marginal economically-important labor will be automated" is too mouthy.