For concreteness, let’s say the basic income is the same in every city, same for a paraplegic or Elon Musk. Anyone who can vote gets it, it’s a dividend on your share of the country.
I am surprised at section 3; I don’t remember anyone who seriously argues that women should be dependent on men. By amusing coincidence, my last paragraph makes your reasoning out of scope; you can abolish women’s suffrage in a separate bill.
In section 5, you are led astray by assuming a fixed demand for labor. You notice that we have yet to become obsolete. Well, of course: For as long as human inputs remain cheaper than their outputs, employment statistics will fail to reflect our dwindling comparative advantage. But we are on track to turn every graphics card into a cheaper white collar worker. Humans have to be trained for jobs, software can be copied. Human hands might remain SOTA for a few years longer. Horses weren’t reduced to pets because we built too many cars, but because cars became possible to build.
I’m also not the author of that essay (otherwise it would have my name on it), but I do agree with it, aside from a few caveats. Anyway, women’s suffrage is irrelevant to what the essay was explaining. It does not propose to abolish woman suffrage, nor does the author advocate for that.
As for cars replacing horses, humanity would’ve been wealthier, more prosperous, and more eco-friendly if walkable cities and high-speed rail were built instead of cars. But I understand the point that you were making. https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/wiki/faq
For concreteness, let’s say the basic income is the same in every city, same for a paraplegic or Elon Musk. Anyone who can vote gets it, it’s a dividend on your share of the country.
I am surprised at section 3; I don’t remember anyone who seriously argues that women should be dependent on men. By amusing coincidence, my last paragraph makes your reasoning out of scope; you can abolish women’s suffrage in a separate bill.
In section 5, you are led astray by assuming a fixed demand for labor. You notice that we have yet to become obsolete. Well, of course: For as long as human inputs remain cheaper than their outputs, employment statistics will fail to reflect our dwindling comparative advantage. But we are on track to turn every graphics card into a cheaper white collar worker. Humans have to be trained for jobs, software can be copied. Human hands might remain SOTA for a few years longer. Horses weren’t reduced to pets because we built too many cars, but because cars became possible to build.
That’s because almost nobody views humans through a biological realism worldview. For more info, see: Understanding Biological Realism, https://zerocontradictions.net/#bio-realism. In this case, Family and Society in particular is probably the best introduction, out of each of the essays in the list. https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2014/04/family-and-society.html
I’m also not the author of that essay (otherwise it would have my name on it), but I do agree with it, aside from a few caveats. Anyway, women’s suffrage is irrelevant to what the essay was explaining. It does not propose to abolish woman suffrage, nor does the author advocate for that.
As for cars replacing horses, humanity would’ve been wealthier, more prosperous, and more eco-friendly if walkable cities and high-speed rail were built instead of cars. But I understand the point that you were making. https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/wiki/faq