Re:Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated
by cycomanic on Monday February 15, 2021 @07:49AM
(#26142223)
Well I did not say anything about the cost of UBI, I was not even necessarily advocating for UBI, I simply was giving an example were I had heard a similar "trust the evidence" argument.
That said, answering with "napkin math" to a complex costing problem like UBI is exactly the problem and why we should listen more to scientists.
Unfortunately, many of us engineering types are way too quick to make very strong statements based on essentially no expertise except for some math and engineering education. Interestingly in my observation this behaviour is less prevalent in scientists (i.e. people coming from a science opposed to an engineering background). Obviously, this is only anecdotal, but I would be interested if others have observed this.
One of the main counterarguments to the universal basic income is that napkin math does not work out. You don't even need to get the "science" involved, just relatively simple algebra. Humanity does not have the resources for the majority of the population to receive benefits out of thin air. And no, $3200 AMZN is not really a resource most people would feel comfortable surviving on, unless they can exchange it for something of an actual value.
p.s. the Amazon bit is related to the "let's divide the wealth of the billionaires and we all will live happily ever after" mantra.