Re:The threat of technological unemployment
by Kalium on Tuesday December 27, 2016 @06:18PM
(#13267139)
You know, it occurs to me that this radical idea you describe has a name. It seems like maybe people have tried to get their previously with revolutions.
Re:The threat of technological unemployment
by Gargoyle on Tuesday December 27, 2016 @06:44PM
(#13267300)
While it resembles some concepts of the past, it doesn't resemble any actual implementations of those concepts, so I intentionally avoid attaching those labels to it. They do not accurately describe what eventually needs to happen.
Re:The threat of technological unemployment
by Kalium on Wednesday December 28, 2016 @01:28AM
(#13268837)
I will say only this: you may wish to think long and hard on how all previous attempted implementations went in the same undesirable direction. It's perhaps possible that this is somewhat less than entirely coincidental.
Right. And what I'm getting at is removing those Other People from the equation. I see that as a completely essential part of the process, and one not many people have come around to yet.
We can't have overlords of any sort for this to work out well. Not a government handing out checks. Not a few companies in Silicon Valley handing out checks. Ownership (if the concept even survives) of the sources of production and wealth generation must be shared equally by all.
For it to work out well, at least.
We can easily not go down that radical path, of course. Continue with small modifications to the systems we have. No doubt that's what we'll try at first. But as you're pointing out, that's not going to be a satisfactory solution. I agree with you on that point.
So I think it's worth looking at what the ideal would look like and then try to find the least painful path in that direction.
UBI as currently envisioned is a half-measure. A stopgap at best.