Yes that would probably be more appropriate phrasing. Thanks!
I’m wondering, maybe hoping, that the speed of technological change is happening so quickly that we won’t need an interim solution. I think that in the length of time it would take to legislate and vote in something like UBI across multiple jurisdictions, that technology will have enabled new businesses and opportunities across the world. Hopefully no need for a half way house.
Hmm… That’s an interesting idea. I will read the whole blog post.
From the blog post:
“Our proposal is the network becomes a source of income and economic opportunity based on contribution and participation. … We believe incentivising participation is crucial in addressing the final and most divisive challenge – the ambiguity that the rise of technology has created for many people.”
Now I have a disagreement (maybe, I could be wrong ). Fabricated incentives are a form of an attempt of centralized control (with the incentive itself as the centralizing factor). The increasing complexity in society is better suited for a more organic and evolving organization.
Also, having to earn an income, even with this new model proposed in the blog post, is to cement the old money paradigm. Having to earn an income, in the form of money, things, information, cryptocurrencies, tokens or in some other way is what can be called a middleman approach. The money, or the equivalent symbol of exchange, becomes a centralizing barrier between human interactions. Smarter ways of social interactions, enabled and enhanced by technology, remove the need for this middleman barrier.
Law of Rent is all you need to understand why this is flawed. Rents will increase to soak up new money. Always has and always will unless something radical is done with land ownership laws.
How would you see this a fabricated income? Where I think value is provided either through farming, creating apps, content…etc…I would see that as compensation for creativity of for resource provision.
I find it hard to see past having a means of payment in order to compel people to provide values to others. I think we are programmed this way. The payment could be cows, pigs, fiat currency…etc…I do see the borderless, non centralised control aspect of crypto currencies as the next evolutionary step in this ongoing chain. So I don’t see this as a centralising barrier, but a means to facilitate exchange and the technological evolution in this step is to make this as seamless as possible.
What I mean by fabricated incentive is one made for the purpose of attracting people to participate in something. Take the example of an internet forum. Those running the forum could set up a reward scheme where people earned money by participating on the forum and show ads as a revenue stream. That’s a fabricated incentive. If instead people join the forum, read and/or write posts etc out of their own individual interests, then that removes the need for a centralized incentive decided beforehand by the forum owners.
Exponential technological progress will soon make information technology dirt cheap. And later on even material products will become very cheap due to production being powered by information technology. Even services previously provided by humans will increasingly be replaced by artificial intelligence. In a society based on scarcity something like money is useful and more efficient than for example barter. In a society with abundance however, money just becomes an unnecessary obstacle and centralized middleman.
Let’s say that a technological singularity will happen around the year 2045 as Ray Kurzweil has suggested, and that we reach a society with abundance (everything can be made free) in 2040. Then that’s more than two decades away from today. And let’s say that governments are able to introduce a universal basic income within 5 years from now. Then during a period of around two decades the basic income makes a smooth transition possible, from the scarcity-based society of today to the new society based on abundance.
So instead of seeing the basic income as something to hold the old money paradigm in place it’s a temporary tool for enabling a gradual transition into a post-singularity world. During the transition phase products and services become cheaper and cheaper, thereby gradually the need for money dissolves and the basic income is removed when it’s no longer needed after 2040.
You will never have an abundance of time. If you need someone to do something for you, either they will do it voluntarily or you will have to compensate them… assuming only peaceful solutions need apply.
Given that inventions don’t create themselves, even with an abundance of energy, people’s time will still be a limited resource.
Therefore, the need to trade value (barter, credit, money, whatever) will remain a requirement for a very long time.
My idea is that when we get close to the technological singularity then droids will be able to do all the tedious tasks that previously we needed humans to do by compensating them such as paying with money. Even things like agriculture and mining for minerals will be automated with AI and robotics. And 3D printers will print all kinds of products, even things like clothes and food.
Sure, but I see this as quite a different from the farming, content production…etc…rewards within the SAFE Network.[quote=“Anders, post:27, topic:13693”]
Even services previously provided by humans will increasingly be replaced by artificial intelligence.
They will, but I think we will find new and interesting things to work on. Rather than removing jobs, I see technology creating new opportunities as it always has done. So I don’t see barter disappearing anytime soon.
Yes, farming on the SAFE network definitely needs a farming reward in terms of safecoins, at least for many years to come. But for end users I think free usage of the SAFE network without monetary reward will be the big thing.
Sure, but this is just a pipe dream at this point!
We need solutions for the present, rather than for something that may or may not occur in a century or more’s time. Let’s save that issue for people to solve when it becomes a problem.
When money becomes surplus to requirements, it will simply cease to be useful. That will be fine too. Not using something because it is no longer useful is perfectly natural.
True, a technological singularity is just a hypothesis. Some experts believe it will happen although many people also believe it will not happen. Nevertheless, the job loss due to increased automation is something most experts agree on I assume. And to solve that upcoming problem a universal basic income will be a useful solution, even in the relatively short-term perspective.
Money will continue to be used for decades probably. Still, I believe the SAFE network should aim at both the short and long term perspectives. And in the long run new solutions will gradually replace the money model and the need for jobs and even the need for incentives based on monetary rewards. We will still continue to work but it will be work based on what people like to do rather than just having to earn a living. In the future, both taxes and death become obsolete.