Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Wassux t1_iui3hka wrote

Reply to comment by CoachAny in Giant farming robot uses 3D vision and robotic arms to harvest ripe strawberries by Anen-o-me

I feel like people always forget that UBI isn't possible at all. Let me explain.

The price of things we buy is determined by the cost of materials and labour, among other things like marketing. But for food these don't really apply except for materials like fertilizer, land, seeds, water, and labour. As long as there is scarcity of materials, removing labour will not remove all costs.

Even if we distribute those materials without costs, scarcity will always be there. If we somehow move past scarcity, the population will explode and we get back to scarcity again, as earth is of limited size.

So how are we going to divide the food? Who gets to have what? UBI will certainly not decide that. Even if we try to spread it equally, how will we limit people in not overusing/wasting materials? The demand will go up while the supply doesn't change. So the price goes up until we're back to square one. It's just pointless.

−9

Economy_Variation365 t1_iuijxql wrote

I disagree with your assertion that the population will explode in a post-scarcity world. On the contrary, as a society's standard of living rises, the birth rate drops. This has been the rule throughout the developed and developing world, and there is no exception that I'm aware of. In fact, the US population would actually decrease if it weren't for immigration.

Even if we achieve almost zero death rate by reversing aging and reducing accident rates, the population will grow at most linearly (assuming each couple wants to have two children). A world population peaking at 10 billion will be quite easily fed, housed, clothed, educated, medically attended etc. by employing advanced automation.

1

Wassux t1_iuilhsg wrote

The birth rate drops when women get more educated and people become too busy. A high standard of living with low employment is not something we have ever experienced. In countries where workweeks are low we see large explosion of population. And which of the two it is we can only guess at. So I mean high standard of living vs low amount of spare time.

Agree with the last paragraph tho.

1

Bakoro t1_iuj6nik wrote

We have more than enough to make sure everyone has their basic needs met.

Once we get a guarantee that everyone gets the basics, it's not unreasonable to instill procreation limits to two per family, and adjust as materials allow.
People who bypass the limits can be put to extra work.

The point is to eliminate needless suffering and waste. The amount of wasted energy and effort in the world is phenomenal.

1

CoachAny t1_iuiawe3 wrote

UBI is not the distribution of food. It is the distribution of money. Also whatever is a scarcity can be automatized, synthesized, or omitted with a better alternative. Once everything is fully automatic a lot of jobs turn into hobbies as long as the people's lives aren't in danger. Conservatives want people to be pushed by the fear of starvation, so they can feel powerful, its unnecessary for the civilization, tho, as we can automate everything.

−1

Wassux t1_iuif3od wrote

But the materials my man, where do we get them from? How do we produce more food if we have no land to grow it on?

1

CoachAny t1_iuiiaw7 wrote

Aeroponics and vertical farming takes care of the space problem, while rare materials can either be mined by automated machines, recycled from trash, or switched for abundant materials in many cases. If these don't work out, let's just hope that the future's ASI can design a nucleosynthesizer. Lmao. BTW there have been lots of experiments with UBI and it works. Conservatives don't like it because they like to be on a pedestal even if it means to sabotage everyone else. That simple.

1

Wassux t1_iuil2q3 wrote

Aeroponics and vertical farming takes care of the space problem for now. That's the issue, what do we do when it doesn't anymore? And where do we get the water from? Because if we keep that up no other animals will ever be able to live on the planet with us.

BTW there have been lots of experiments with UBI and it works. On small groups not entire countries which omits the problem

0

CoachAny t1_iuinwcj wrote

Vertical farms can take the shape of towers and reach to the sky and they can also be built underground. Animal agriculture is definitely something our civilization should cease to pursue. It consumes too many resources and is barbaric. However, lab grown meat seems like the way to go. As for water, it can be made from thin air: all you need is to either wait for temperature to drop and collect the water before the temperature raises in the morning by letting the dew condensed on a mesh which you can shake it out of or you can cool the air down artificially. We should try to imitate termite castles which are passively cooling themselves. Desalination is also an option. BTW good models are meant to test life sized systems.

1

Wassux t1_iuita2k wrote

That's a very naïve way to look at it. I'm a nuclear physicist and I can say with complete certainty that collecting water from the air will never, ever be enough to feed 50 billion people. I can prove it if you want. Won't even be enough to feed anyone.

Vertical farms can be towers and reach the sky, but what I am asking you is what if you run out of space? Not when. Because we will eventually have to choose by making more space for farming or humans, how will we choose on a global scale?

1

usaaf t1_iuiv22u wrote

I think you're proceeding from a false, Malthusian assumption, that is that population will grow without bounds given unlimited resources.

Would you say the developed world is richer than ever ? With more food than ever ? With more stuff, more resources, more technology than ever ?

Most would.

Yet, where is the ever-expanding population growth ? It's not there. Countries like the US have to import people to show any demographic growth. Japan is facing a shrinking population because it does not do this.

The link between 'more food' and 'more people' is not, probably has never been, as clear as the Malthusian approach to analysis would suppose. So the idea that UBI is going to lead to ballooning population just doesn't seem viable, considering the resources humanity has developed in the past two centuries.

Also, the goal of post-scarcity needs to be redefined I think. Most people think it means freedom from want, but it would better proposed as freedom from need. Because as some joker always says "huk huk who gets all the beachfront property," we're clearly not going to solve that kind of scarcity. But we can make sure we live in a world where no one is starving nor do they have to work three jobs to achieve that goal, and then worry about how we'll divide up all the luxury shit later.

1

CoachAny t1_iuize5q wrote

A hydroponic system is best if is airtight and recycles the humidity. As the extreme weather conditions of climate change results in desertification, in general humanity has to build it's habitats similarly to Mars or Moon bases. This way the water conservation is absolute and the collection of additional water is just for surplus and backup reasons. Not to mention reverse osmosis is a perfectly viable solution around oceans. It's a technology which works.

0

Bakoro t1_iuj7iph wrote

Water is a very simple problem to fix, and only doesn't get fixed because greed.

−1

Bakoro t1_iuj6whc wrote

The point of UBI is making sure people have their basic needs met. It's functionally a food and housing distribution, just indirectly.

When instilling UBI, it must be codified that it cover all basic needs, or else we'll end up with the same issue of minimum wage not covering basic needs.

0

CoachAny t1_iujblbg wrote

Thanks for pointing that out. I concur.

2