Bender

Basic income for farmers runs into the same problems you pose for UBI: when is someone a farmer? Who is eligible? How many carrots do I have to grow in my back yard? Do I have to sell them? But what if my crop fails? It is already conditional, so what is stopping anyone from adding the other conditions, such as origin or criminal record?

Nobody is forcing them to come. The fact that they do indicates that the new situation of "servitude" is more desirable than their old situation. The length can be debated, but if after that period they get the same rights, that doesn't seem too unreasonable. At least with UBI, they are protected from discrimination afterwards.

No you didn't. Your data predates the decoupling and doesn't address more recent and upcoming evolutions at all. I understand that your main objection to unconditional basic income is that it wouldn't be unconditional. What about European countries that have no republican party. Any reasons why we shouldn't implement it? Perhaps if it works in other countries, those republican conservatives would be less of a hindrance? Perhaps some people do need guidance, but the main problem of poor people is not that they have no guidance -there is already plenty of that- but that they have no money. I am more inclined to empower the individual than to rely on some officials to decide what is best for them.

Yes. Your survey shows that 65% of the right and even 28% of the extreme right supports it. I'm only following this one. Where can I find it? No it doesn't. Even European countries with the best social sec have problems with poverty. The Soc Sec I know relies on lots of control and actively discourages people to work because even a small part time job will loose them their benefits while now they have to pay for transportation and day care. Starting a business with initially small and uncertain revenue is completely out of the question. Moreover, our Soc Sec system pushes millions of people in useless jobs, some of which were created specifically to keep them occupied, and have an excuse for paying them. It also gives employers the power to exploit people and unions the power to screw everyone. My approach to UBI is from the right: more freedom to quit an abusive job, and less government control.

So everyone in the US agrees? I must have missed something... I thought it was obvious that I dislike the idea of a hive mind, although I must admit anecdotes in fiction often describe the experience as blissful.

Utter nonsense. It was Nixon who came closest to implementing a BI. There was also a republican major (I forgot which city) who built free appartments for all homeless. The funny thing about UBI is that the idea finds support and opposition across the entire political spectrum. While I agree with you that you raise important questions and that UBI on its own won't solve the problems of our current system, you left an important issue unanswered. I provided data that there is a decoupling between productivity and job creation and gave examples of why I think that will get worse in the future. How do you suggest we deal with a job shortage in a system that requires people to have one to live a decent life?

Those aren't exclusive. I would also like a justice reform. Everyone adult citizen. Immigration is obviously an issue, but not more than it is now. As for the cost: a major tax reform would be required. Taxing employment and added value is convenient, but not really what you want if you want people to work or to add value. Other options would be to tax eg luxury, resources, real estate, dead money... Denmark IIRC taxes SUV's 180%.

What is the difference between agreeing and reaching the same rational conclusion based on identical preferences? A hive mind is also democratic, btw.

You want everyone to agree about everything so the entire collective can make unanimous decisions in minutes. Personal preferences are out of the question, because with slightly different preferences, people will never reach the same rational conclusions. Sounds like a description of a hive mind to me.

Unachievability is one of the defining features of a utopia. My argument is that the utopia you advocate would be a horrible place, regardless of how realistic it is.

You want a hive mind. Your "utopia" would seriously be a good start for the Borg collective. The only difference is that they replaced the test with forced assimilation, which is a lot more reliable. It would be perfectly rational to eliminate everyone who is not part of the collective. You claim it would be based on morality, but morality is subjective. How can you expect to ever reach total agreement on subjective questions without total indoctrination?

So you agree that you Utopia is a horrible place? Yes, and our justice system can still use improvement. We should stop training criminals and terrorists in prisons.

I never said there is an increase in poverty. I suggested job creation is no longer keeping up with technology and provided examples of why this will get worse in the future. See this graph. Our current economic model cannot handle a large unemployment rates, UBI can, by rendering the concept of unemployment meaningless.

We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. What if a child decides to rebel against their indoctrinated parents/the hive mind? Does it get kicked out. Why would the perfectly rational parents even care about their imperfect children being kicked out?

We appear to be reaching a stage where jobs become obsolete faster than they are created. Eg: once self-driving cars are a fact, they will replace human drivers at an enormous rate, rendering a large percentage of taxi drivers, truck drivers, etc unemployed in a matter of years. Administration is also automated everywhere, although the government is now keeping that "problem" at bay by creating more arbitrary administration. 1) there is a strong correlation between better health care and population decrease. Rich people who have better access also have less children. 2) apart from the decrease in population, health care costs would decrease dramatically due to a drop in stress or poverty induced health problems.

It was. Nixon would have implemented a kind of basic income if it wasn't for the fear of empowering women. Those aren't exactly free countries, so there are other factors at work (pun not intended). Experiments in Namibia and Canada show only 10% of the population stopped working. That's not too bad considering the amount of useless jobs that only exist to keep people busy and justifying paying them. There was also a significant increase in entrepreneurship. Surveys of people who win "win for life" where you get 1000-2000 € each month also show that nearly none of them stop working. Rutger Bregman wrote some interesting books on the subject with lots of examples. Here is one of his texts in English.

Exactly. Although I must admit that if I had to judge a science project, I would be impressed with a 14 year old successfully implementing the PID, even if using one didn't really make sense. How are they heated and where are the sensors positioned? How important are the I a D actions? I have seen a PID in an industrial machine as well, but only for the primary control with hot or cold water. The water itself was still heated with bang-bang. (What is a "deceit furnace"? Google didn't provide a useful translation.) Edit: another application of PID in temperature control would be for controlling the temperature of a continuous flow.

For linear applications where you can control in both directions, the sensor are sufficiently reliable (in case of the D-action) and the potentially added accuracy is actually worth it. Position and implementation of sensor and heating element will have a bigger influence here than the choice between controllers. To reverse the question : if PID controllers are so great at controlling temperature, why don't room thermostats use them?

No offense, ALine, but your Utopia sounds like horrible place with little freedom, no privacy and lots of judgement. The idea of a morality test is rather "utopian". Having people redo a test as often as they like makes it completely pointless, and a psychopath could pass simply by lying.

That is an interesting theory: so people have evolved to be irrational to avoid existential angst?

This an example of where the details matter. In the unconditional variant, the government has no control at all. That is not a problem, but a feature. The concept of "free riding" would no longer exist. While definitely an issue, it is hard to predict the long term financial effect. In some implementations, it could replace social security. Drop the AI takeover and and this is a big advantage. Everyone could work less and pursue other interests, if they want to. It is ridiculous that we stop technological progress out of fear of losing jobs. Obviously the tax system would need to change drastically. Currently we mainly tax labour and added value, which is a very stupid thing to do if you want people to work and add value. I could go on about this for quite a while, so I'll add only one pro and con. Pro: freedom of work. Currently most people do not feel free in one of the most important aspects of their lives. Con: the transition period will be hard while companies and institutions addapt. It could last several electoral cycles before the benefits become apparent.

Is there a specific implementation you want to limit the discussion to? BUI has been used for different systems. My personal preference goes to the unconditional variant, where everyone gets it. Do you also want to discuss feasibility?

I would guess for the same reason that my Gps keeps asking me to take a U-turn long after I decided to take a shortcut. It is computationally a lot easier to stick to a known path and only deviate slightly rather than calculate a completely new path. Our brain has the additional "problem" that it reinforces used connections in the brain, so once a certain irrational connection is made, it will be favoured in the future, or analogies are drawn too quickly.

Citation required. The studies I read about come to different conclusions. Yes there is. It just flattens out after the basic needs are covered. Evil corporations will have a hard time exploiting people and making them unhappy when they can simply quit their job without risk. Then why are our prisons filled with poor and/or dumb people?