The future is Idiocracy™

[–]ZealousMathematician149 points150 points151 points 8 years ago (89 children) | Copy Link

[–]UglyPrince2000 75 points76 points77 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AR96 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]commander_zoidberg 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]febreezing_hobos0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]commander_zoidberg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly61 points62 points63 points 8 years ago (80 children) | Copy Link

[–]orphancrippla47 points48 points49 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]ApoAlaia20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mister_Mask25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ApoAlaia3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It was the 'sterilisation' part the one that posed the biggest quandary.

We know that giving the government unusual powers is a slippery slope. There are a handful of countries that have had... severe issues with this in the 20th century, not just the obvious one.

Regarding the 'license to reproduce' there is something similar: adoption; it is often a grueling experience that prospective parents undergo vs 'natural' reproduction. Unsure about what the consequences would be at this point but another thing that history teaches us is that what at first glance look like simple and efficient solutions to complex and multi-layered problems are usually neither one nor the other.

You use the example of the driving license; think on the size and scope of the apparatus set to regulate and enforce such a thing. Now think on what would be required to do the same thing but with human reproduction. Finally consider the abuses that the enforcement of the highway code leads to and transpose them to a government bureaucracy that has been given direct control of its citizens' fertility. You don't need to look far to get some historical examples, look at the recent history of countries that had government enforced birth control policies in the 20th century.

It is becoming apparent that we need new 'things'; new forms of government, law writing and enforcement because the current millennia old framework is fraying at the seams but this is not new, it has been tried before with varying degrees of failure.

[–]fmanly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Without sterilization (or something equivalent like implanted birth control) you can't really prevent stupid people from getting pregnant.

Sure, you can fine them or whatever. But, stupid people do illegal stuff all the time without thought to the consequences. Even with government aid the costs and inconvenience of raising a kid are going to dwarf anything the government could impose as a punishment.

If you want to avoid people on public assistance popping out a bunch of kids, you have to sterilize them.

Besides, in my proposal it isn't mandatory. It would only be mandatory to receive basic income. Now, my hunch is in 20 years most people will need basic income to put food on the table, but most people who are against things like sterilization don't believe that automation will replace manual work so hopefully that isn't an issue.

The problem today is that instead of a messy bureaucracy running things we instead have turned the keys over to the least responsible members of society. Unless you populated the licensing bureau exclusively with single mothers I doubt you could get a worse result.

[–]Philletto3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rick_OShay11 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rick_OShay10 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]squeezeonein9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]fmanly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tikirej 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lilweezy991 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ApoAlaia2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGTOW_Monger0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lipidsly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ApoAlaia1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]lipidsly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ApoAlaia2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]lipidsly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ApoAlaia0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

So applying this logic sterilising all the delinquents among the wealthy and powerful would lead to a healthier ruling class?

Because this looks like a better and easier to implement solution that sterilising the poor and destitute.

There are far fewer of the former than there are of the latter, the financial burden can be offset by appropriating their illegally acquired wealth and perhaps the resulting healthier ruling class, unshackled from the genetic conditioning, will be less prone to the pitfalls of wielding power and more likely to tackle the issues that burden a large swathe of the human population: being weighed down by unscapable societal odds while their genetic makeup compels them to rise and shine.

EDIT: Also, have these genetic markers been identified and established that is a clear case of presence=manifestation and that they do not in turn manifest in ways that are desirable? Many genes seem to have multiple effects, some of them desirable other undesirable and what triggers them doesn't seem to be well understood.

If the answer to both question is 'yes' let's start screening from the top.

[–]lipidsly2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So applying this logic sterilising all the delinquents among the wealthy and powerful would lead to a healthier ruling class?

Healthier how?

Because this looks like a better and easier to implement solution that sterilising the poor and destitute.

Theyre the ones causing the vast majority of societal problems, so youd be wrong

the financial burden can be offset by appropriating their illegally acquired wealth

The problem with socialism and communism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. Less than 40% of americans are net tax payers. The vast majority that dont pay are the poor. Youd implode the country

unshackled from the genetic conditioning, will be less prone to the pitfalls of wielding power and more likely to tackle the issues that burden a large swathe of the human population: being weighed down by unscapable societal odds while their genetic makeup compels them to rise and shine.

This is a bunch of incoherent rambling.

Also, have these genetic markers been identified and established that is a clear case of presence=manifestation and that they do not in turn manifest in ways that are desirable?

We have eliminated all other options. Much like DNA before watson and crick, we know its there, we just have found it yet. Although we have found some correlates that are promising

If the answer to both question is 'yes' let's start screening from the top.

You cant fix the problems the 99% cause by killing the 1%

[–]ApoAlaia0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Healthier by removing the delinquents from the pool. Or in your legal system theft, extortion, bribery, racketeering, murder to mention just a few are not crimes?

Once these 'bad apples' are removed from the basket perhaps a different vision, something radically new and never tried before will rise. Imagine what people with the education, the means and the vision could achieve if they were not bogged down by these 'bad genes.'

These are leaders I would be proud to follow and die for. Superior to me in every physical, moral and intellectual level. Gods among men.

I think is worth a shot and the losses if we are wrong would be easily offset; we know from observation that nature abhors a vacuum, there are plenty that will be happy to rise to the challenge; the skills that the ruling classes seem to posses - low empathy, high self esteem, 'the end justifies the means' attitude, a vision that always involves them being on top or else, treating every other human as a resource to be strip mined - are really not absent from further down in the social strata (look at what happened in the USSR if you need a recent example.)

So, I say let's go ahead with the experiment and use the 99% as control group.

If it goes wrong there is plenty of manpower left to deal with the aftermath.

EDIT: A word.

[–]lipidsly1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Healthier by removing the delinquents from the pool. Or in your legal system theft, extortion, bribery, racketeering, murder to mention just a few are not crimes?

Ah. Sure, go ahead. There arent many. Most are in the lower classes, except whites and asians. Poorer whites have the lowest murder rates

something radically new and never tried before will rise.

You can say communism dude. No ones under any illusion you mean something else

Imagine what people with the education, the means and the vision could achieve if they were not bogged down by these 'bad genes.' These are leaders I would be proud to follow and die for. Superior to me in every physical, moral and intellectual level. Gods among men.

These arent the supermen genes, it just makes you not kill people as often. You can still live a mediocre, boring life

think is worth a shot and the losses if we are wrong would be easily offset; we know from observation that nature abhors a vacuum, there are plenty that will be happy to rise to the challenge;

If youd like to kill off the jewish population, be my guest.

[–]ApoAlaia1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Communism has been tried and failed, miserably.

It would seem that we would need to stop being human for it to work. I can as much stop being human as I can stop excreting. I can show some restraint, temporarily, but it will eventually kill me in a rather painful way.

I do mean something truly new. Something I cannot imagine because I am just another grey guy on a sea of grey, indistinguishable from the rest in my mediocrity unless you put me under the spotlight, and if you do what you find is unlikely to surprise you.

Something involving an SAI triumvirate each with its own distinct idiosyncrasy making the top level decisions for the entire species and running simulations about the potential outcomes - ideally existing in some quantum state that allows their existence to be non-linear; except this is something I can imagine so is potentially not a great idea.

I can see how you may derive from what I wrote that I am an advocate for socialism but that is my prose letting me down and probably social conditioning at work in the back of my mind (I was after all a child born in the aftermath of a right-wing autocracy, where as I grew up anything but steering well left was seen as 'collaborationism', 'unprogressive' and 'treachery.')

Except as you say social conditioning is 'not a thing' so is probably just ineloquent writing.

[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's the thing. Modern society has an incredible amount of economic productivity. I realize most people here are very libertarian but the US government already manages to spend $12k for every man, woman, and child living here (and I think that doesn't just include citizens). That is on top of state spending.

Children born to parents who can't afford them are a huge chunk of that spending. They get direct benefits (often paid to the parents). The parents usually end up having diminished income due to juggling the kids, and get stuck in poverty. Both the parents and the kids are more likely to be criminals and so you end up with all the costs of dealing with that crime, including the costs not paid by the government to the victims of that crime. Then that kid is much more likely to do more of the same when they grow up.

And that isn't even talking about heritability of those traits/etc.

If you have the kids being born to families that can afford them and are likely to raise them well, then you start a virtuous cycle. Productivity of subsequent generations goes up, and costs go down. Over time basic income actually becomes less of an issue because nearly everybody has a family.

The costs would be highest at the start, because our society is pretty messed up. That said if automation does displace jobs and necessitate basic income it would come with a huge boost to productivity which could help pay for it.

[–]notacrookatall0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BenGameDev9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ififcanIhaveacoatplz 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eloquentnemesis2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lipidsly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]based_meme2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

There's a strong case to be made for breeding licensing, but forced sterilization infringes upon personal rights, not to mention the obvious ethical issue.

Couples who demonstrate physical, psychological, emotional, and financial health, as well as commitment to each other and potential offspring would be suitable and qualified candidates to have children.

The status quo in the world right now is that there are a lot of stupid and irresponsible people constantly breeding. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that the nature of power dynamics and role allocation means that you simply need the numbers to support societies with a breadth of all required roles.

Another way to put this is the classic, "if everybody has a PhD, who is going to clean the toilets?" The sad fact is that the world needs stupid and unqualified people, so that undesirable, yet wholeheartedly necessary, roles are filled.

The next time you identify a stupid person thank them for being themselves. They won't know or may not understand, but they'll be flattered nonetheless. (When you cannot appeal to reason that simply isn't present, you can appeal to emotion.)

And the lesson to all the geniuses out there is to keep your ego in check, be humble, and know that even you have a role to play.

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]based_meme0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You could impose harsh penalties on the parents who aren't licensed

The problem with this is that you're projecting. If there was a $1M fine for having a kid without a license that would cause you and I to not have a kid without a license. However, you're probably not the sort of person who is going to irresponsibly have a kid you can't afford in the first place, and neither am I.

The kinds of people who go pumping out babies they can't care for are also the sorts of people who don't think about what will happen 2 minutes after they do something let alone over the next decade. A fine just isn't going to make them think twice about it. And if you let them evade the fine by having an abortion you'll get all the pro-life folks screaming about it.

If you really want to prevent irresponsible people from having babies then you will have to implant them with contraceptives or sterilize them, so that they don't have to do anything to avoid getting pregnant.

Now, a lot of people around here are strong libertarian types, and on a lot of issues I fall into that category as well. The libertarian approach would be to let people have all the babies they want, and if the babies starve to death then they starve to death. Maybe we punish the parents for it, but we don't take care of the kids except for whatever charities might voluntarily choose to jump in. That is a completely workable approach, but of course our society would never buy into this. Once a baby gets born the "its for the children" laws will swoop in and you and I will be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up some single mother's mess.

The children wouldn't be second class citizens, but they would have to pay back their upbringing through garnished wages.

I actually have another concept around basic income which is the complete opposite of this, and it is actually completely libertarian, provided you don't consider it a basic human right to be able to have children:

Everybody is sterilized or implanted with contraception across the board before puberty. In order to have a kid you need a license. There are no requirements for the license except paying a fee. The fee will be the cost of an annuity that will pay the child basic income for life, adjusted for the risk of multiple pregnancies. When the child is born they will receive basic income for life paid for by this annuity.

In this system no tax money is required to fund the basic income at all, and everybody is guaranteed to receive it. The system is completely accounted for, so it will never go bankrupt, baring unforeseen changes in life expectancy that mess up the actuarial tables. If you don't want to pay for UBI, then you simply don't have children.

The obvious objection is going to be that only the relatively well-off will be able to have kids. I imagine that an annuity that pays basic income for life might cost upwards of $600k or so ($20k/yr with increases for inflation at a 3.3% withdrawal rate, invested in equities with very low fees/overhead).

[–]Onkel_Adolf1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]FrogMasta272 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mthrowaway52-2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FrogMasta272 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Where does this money to pay for universal income come from?

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Who says I would have to end up dealing with it one way or another? There is no constitutional right to others money, and until 1913 taxes were almost unheard of, and still were for most till the Victory tax.

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

So in other words, pay them off beforehand like a pussy and hope I gave them enough out of fear and they will leave me alone? Naw, we have a second amendment here that says there is an alternative.

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Sounds weak to me. And if i paid everyone less fortunate than me I would be as broke as they are. I would say most who are taking from others sweat are employable, they just refuse to do hard work. I have taken many hard physical jobs in my life when I had no choice. Because I didn't feel the burden for my living was everyone else's responsibility.

When I was a young man, I hitchhiked all over the country. When I was hungry, I would go into the nearest restaurant, explain I was hungry and could i exchange some work for food. I was never turned away.

As for your point about defending my property against others, I would rather spend my resources in that manner than be forced to give it to people who I find pitiful. And if people know you are not just going to roll over and be weak, they will target others who are.

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]tribalbandit1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NeolarX2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iamlikethewindbaby 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nosoupforyou0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nosoupforyou0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nosoupforyou0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Philletto0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Slimpatg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Slimpatg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

What is it? Everyone getting paid the same?

UBI is typically an equal payment to every citizen that has a pulse.

That will really piss off everyone that works harder jobs which is what happens in communist societies.

UBI has nothing to do with getting paid for a job.

Suppose you make $50k today. If UBI were instituted you'd still make $50k, and you'd also get a UBI payment for maybe $12k/yr or something like that. If you didn't work you'd get the $12k/yr but obviously wouldn't get a paycheck. A doctor might make $250k/yr, and he would get the $12k/yr from basic income.

Typically you'd eliminate minimum wage with such a system, so low-wage jobs probably would see pay go down. High-wage jobs probably wouldn't see too much of a change.

You would be giving people no incentive to work harder or to innovate.

Not at all. With UBI you keep everything you make, well, minus taxes, which probably would be higher on higher incomes, but that isn't a huge change from the status quo.

People on public assistance today would actually have more incentive to work, because their benefits wouldn't be reduced if they started working.

Watch Turd Flinging Monkey’s video called “Universal Basic Income is Communism.”

While I like a lot of TFM's stuff, honestly his stance on UBI is generally not super-well-informed.

Whether UBI is "communism" depends on your definition of communism. The thing about communism/socialism is that everybody loves to play with the definition. When they see a program they don't like they'll stretch the definition to call it communism. Then when they want to explain why it will fail, they contract the definition to make it equal soviet-style communism, which of course has failed numerous times.

I wouldn't call TFM "well-educated on economics." He just isn't an idiot, which is the level of knowledge most people have of economics.

In any case, I don't bother arguing for UBI because it is essentially inevitable. When unemployment hits 50% there won't be anything anybody can do to stop it. Granted, the government will probably find some way to screw it up and add 300% extra overhead.

Half the benefit of UBI is that it is simple - you just mail everybody a flat check every month, which means almost zero overhead. Obviously you have to pay for it, but the actual distribution is simple. This is in contrast with most existing welfare systems where there is a ton of money spent trying to figure out who does and doesn't get it, and how much.

[–]Slimpatg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Taxes would have to be astronomically high to afford that. What do you think the corporations and the rich people are going to do? They will move out of the country. Hell all the corporations are already moving out and you’re talking about taxing them 10 times worse. Then who is going to be paying the taxes when all the rich people leave? Hmmmm. Not to mention the country would go to shit because we couldn’t afford anything else like Medicare, social security, military funding, government funding, education, jails. The government wouldn’t even jail people they would just start killing people because they couldn’t afford to jail them and keep them alive. Sounds like communism. I wouldn’t worry too much about automation. The free market will always balance itself out. People won’t have to work as much since goods would be so cheap that you could work a part time job as a waiter and still get by. More jobs will be created as companies will have more of a budget. Upkeep on robots would be necessary. Jobs to maintain and improve infrastructure will be created. It will not be this dire scenario everyone thinks that it will be.

[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Taxes would have to be astronomically high to afford that. What do you think the corporations and the rich people are going to do? They will move out of the country.

Income taxes have been more than double their current rates and yet there are still plenty of rich people here. In general people don't tend to change countries merely because of taxes.

Also, they probably wouldn't have to go up quite as much as you're thinking, because this would be in lieu of many existing social programs.

For example, you bring up social security, but there would be no need for social security if there were UBI. It would already cover reasonable living expenses.

I wouldn’t worry too much about automation. The free market will always balance itself out.

Oh, the free market certainly will balance itself out. Just keep in mind that the free market only seeks to efficiently value things. If the economic value of you as a person is $100/yr, then it will efficiently ensure that you're paid $100/yr. I'm a big proponent of the free market and oppose things like minimum wage, jobs programs, and so on. I'm all for letting corporations run their business efficiently. Heck, if there were UBI I'd even get rid of workplace safety laws - if people think a place is unsafe to work in then they shouldn't work there. I would maintain antitrust law because competition is necessary for a healthy market, and I would maintain laws around truth in advertising and fraud because an efficient market requires participants to have access to information.

People won’t have to work as much since goods would be so cheap that you could work a part time job as a waiter and still get by.

Why would you hire a human to be a waiter when a computer can do the job at a higher level of quality and less cost?

Upkeep on robots would be necessary.

Absolutely - which is why there will be robots for fixing the robots, and for that matter robots for designing new robots, eventually.

Sure, this won't all happen overnight. As with all automation the jobs that are easier to automate will get automated first.

You should check out Jordan Peterson's talks on IQ. The fact is that people aren't born equal. Some people have more talent/IQ/etc, and some people have less. As automation advances the bar just slowly gets raised higher and higher. Some people will move on to higher-skill jobs, but there will always be people who fall through the cracks.

You also get the bell curve effect. IQ/skills are typically distributed along a normal curve. As you raise requirements to have a job, at first you're at the bottom of the curve, and relatively few people become unemployable. If you make it impossible for anybody with an IQ under 50 to get a job that doesn't effect many people, because very few people have an IQ that low. If you raise the bar to 60 again few are effected. And so on as you get up to 80 or so. Peterson's sense is that we're around 85 right now - if you're below 85 you're basically going to be making pizzas for the rest of your life if you are reasonably disciplined. If that starts going higher you'll see much more drastic effects because the curve is starting to get higher. Once the bar hits 100 you'll have 50% unemployment, and then the disease will actually slow down as raising the bar actually affects fewer people, assuming progress is linear with respect to IQ (which may not be the case - if you believe the singularity folks one day we'll wake up and wonder what happened).

Now, I just chose IQ as one aspect of skill, and you would be right to point out that it isn't the only one, and IQ alone is only a good predictor of employment to a degree (once you get above 120 arguably it is less of a benefit to employability). However, I'd argue that virtually ALL aspects of human performance fit a curve of one sort or another. Once upon a time a strong back was enough for a job, but that was one of the first things to be replaced. Just being able to walk and having reasonable dexterity makes a job impossible to automate if it has to be done on-site as robots can't walk today. However, all of these skills also have distribution - not everybody is cut out to be a carpenter or plumber (and we only need so many of them anyway). And when robots start walking and have reasonable dexterity/coordination/etc those jobs will be at risk.

Sure, I think it will be decades before people become unemployable, but technology advances far faster than evolution. Everything about people is finite, and everything about a person can thus be replaced in time. Maybe if we turn into cyborgs there might be more room for long-term employment, assuming that human-cyborgs are competitive with pure robots (which may not be the case - at least not in the way people typically think of cyborgs where the brain is still human).

[–]Slimpatg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No restaurant is going to buy robots to do a waiters job when they’re paying them $2.30 an hour cmon man. Companies aren’t going to automate everything. It will be expensive as hell. If I owned a company and I automated jobs I would still want people around for security purposes and to monitor the robots and the products their making. People would still want the human element and interaction in their business. We are way too far off from being able to program robots to do everything a human can do. They can do tedious jobs now but they aren’t going to be able to do everything. Low paying jobs are not going to buy robots to replace people since it will cost too much money. Delivery driving jobs are not going to be automated. You think a company is going to purchase self driving cars and buy the robot to pick the food up and deliver it to the customer? No it’s not affordable and if an accident occurred they would be sued to death. If we ever do get to the point of robots doing everything and the world is running on solar power then we can start to think about a UBI. Till then everyone who is a dumbass that can’t find a job or a way to get by is a loser and they should do us all a favor and see an early grave. Sorry life’s not fair. By the way the newer generations are getting emasculated and dumber so I wouldn’t count on them to innovate anything especially be able to understand how to program a robot. We are on a technological decline now thanks to feminism and the war on men. Less men are going to college now and they aren’t pursuing higher learning in fear of these whores and rightfully so. When companies can’t fill positions based on people not being smart enough they will start to lower their standards and train people for the job instead of expecting them to know how to do it already.

[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No restaurant is going to buy robots to do a waiters job when they’re paying them $2.30 an hour cmon man.

You're never going to get rid of the minimum wage unless you first institute basic income, because waiters would be starving on $2/hr.

However, if there was UBI covering the essentials of life, and somebody wanted to work for $2/hr for some extra spending money, and an employer found that to be a good deal, then I'm all for it.

Keep in mind that robots will only get cheaper. What makes you think that they would be any more expensive to maintain than a person?

If I owned a company and I automated jobs I would still want people around for security purposes and to monitor the robots and the products their making.

You can have robots do security. That is probably one of the earlier jobs to be automated because a robot is actually much more suited to security than a person. They're disposable, so they're not going to go reaching for their gun if they get spooked, but they will be willing to risk their "lives" to catch the bad guy. They'd be a great deterrent too because who wants to go breaking into a building if there is a robot prowling around that can see in the dark, detect sound and IR through walls, has tasers built into its hands, can sprint full out faster than a person indefinitely, and which can capture video of the intruder and have police on their way the instant it sights them?

Till then everyone who is a dumbass that can’t find a job or a way to get by is a loser and they should do us all a favor and see an early grave. Sorry life’s not fair.

So, I will agree that this is a completely practical way to run a country. However, it does not represent the values of a majority of US voters, so you'll never see this happen.

However, because our society isn't proactive it will spend a lot more taking care of people, and do a worse job of it. Frontline had a good episode that showed a man who had cost $60k in ER bills due to asthma issues, and it turned out that what he really needed was a $500 drywall repair in his house. Our society passes laws that ensure he gets his $60k ER care (at your expense when they raise your rates because he won't ever pay that bill), but because of a mindset of not wanting to "waste" money on non-essentials we'll never pay $500 to fix his house.

With something like UBI the recipient can allocate the money however they think is best. Sure, some will waste it on booze and drugs, and we'll need programs to deal with that if it is a major issue.

By the way the newer generations are getting emasculated and dumber so I wouldn’t count on them to innovate anything especially be able to understand how to program a robot. We are on a technological decline now thanks to feminism and the war on men.

This simply isn't reality. You can't have a technological decline unless you literally start burning books and such. Even if the last generation produced 1000 Einsteins and the next only produces 10, those 10 still know everything the previous 1000 did because it is all written down, and they will advance science further during their lifetimes.

You don't need everybody to be able to program robots. You just need a few people to do it, because automation is a force multiplier. You don't need 10x more iphone designers just because 10x as many people are buying iphones. Sure, if you have money coming in you might choose to hire more designers, but the nature of automation is that it is hard to build the first time and easy to repeat. Eventually robots will get to the point where they can design themselves and then you don't need anybody to do the work.

Ultimately you've hit what I think this all boils down to: if you think highly of poor people you're going to want them to get a job. If you think most poor people just don't have what it takes to get a job, then you're going to look for an efficient way to deal with them while writing them off and worrying about how to make the next generation turn out better. And hence the reason I think UBI recipients ought to be required to accept sterilization.

[–]Slimpatg1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is not viable. Jordan Peterson claimed UBI was a terrible idea also if that’s the opinion that you value. This cannot be implemented until everything is fully automated and you are talking about a world that is never going to happen. Just look at California and see what happens when people can’t afford to live there. Companies and people flee. The rich will not stick around. Companies prices will go up due to more taxes and they will lose business and ultimately move their business to another country. You already see this happening. You are dreaming if you think people are just going to accept this. What happens to the single mothers that need their 50k a year to live? Ya I highly doubt we are just going to give them 12k. UBI is a dumb idea and it will turn out just like TFM said. When all the rich people leave or you’re companies go bankrupt you’re fucked. You will be stuck with a bunch of parasites and no host. That’s the bottom line I’m not going to argue it anymore.

[–]fmanly0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Jordan Peterson claimed UBI was a terrible idea also if that’s the opinion that you value.

Jordan Peterson is against UBI for the same reason that he is against MGTOW. He thinks men can't be happy if they aren't on a treadmill.

you are talking about a world that is never going to happen

I'm talking about a world that is inevitable. What will never happen again is a world where literally anybody can get a job if they want to.

However, I'm not to confident that we'll actually solve this problem. I think you'll be more likely to see anybody who isn't a part of the elite starving in the streets before we actually see a successful UBI program, because instituting one requires a lot more forward thinking by average people. The average person is much more likely to be swayed by arguments like TFM's, until they find themselves in a situation where they have no money or ability to provide for themselves or fight for themselves, and those who do have the money and the ability to fight for themselves just wall them off to quietly starve. You and I are pretty unlikely to be in the latter group, assuming this happens during our lifetimes.

[–]Slimpatg1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nope you’re wrong. We are trying to get rid of the welfare state. Not create more of it. You’re so wrong it’s crazy. You claim to want more jobs but then want to tax companies out the ass which cuts jobs and inevitably destroys companies or makes them move while also raising the price of all goods and increasing inflation. WOULD NOT WORK. “The average person is much more likely to get swayed by TFM’s argument” lmao. People much smarter than you are completely against UBI. You don’t know shit from your own ass. QUIT THINKING ROBOTS WILL TAKE OVER EVERYTHING. You are frustrating as fuck to argue with. You’re argument is saying that every company is going to buy robots and program it to do every job and say fuck humans while also assuming the company will even be there in the first place after they get taxed twice on their income. It’s unreal, you are not thinking at all and are assuming people will act a certain way when they won’t.

[–]fmanly1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We are trying to get rid of the welfare state. Not create more of it.

I think you're on the wrong sub. This is /r/mgtow. It has nothing to do with shared economic values.

You claim to want more jobs but then want to tax companies out the ass

I don't want more jobs and never claimed to want more jobs. I also said nothing about corporate taxes, which I'm not a huge fan of, because they're so easy to play shell games with.

People much smarter than you are completely against UBI.

Plenty of smart people are in favor of UBI. I'm not really aware of any studies that show a relationship between intelligence and support of UBI either. And you don't know how smart I am in any objective way. You only know that I disagree with something on you, which is hardly an objective measure of intelligence.

You’re argument is saying that every company is going to buy robots and program it to do every job

I think they're likely to end up owning robots. I didn't say they would program them to do every job. Though certainly they would be programming them to do jobs until somebody figures out how to program a robot to program other robots.

while also assuming the company will even be there in the first place after they get taxed twice on their income

I never suggested that companies should be taxed at all, let alone taxed "twice" on their income, whatever that means.

I do think economic productivity or wealth needs to be taxed, but there are many ways to do it besides corporate taxes. Personally I'm more in favor of wealth taxes, as that is where most of the money is anyway and it would tend to encourage wealth to get invested more productively as capital vs just sitting around making people feel secure.

[–]Slimpatg1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It’s funny how you direct me to Jordan Peterson and then claim he’s a dumbass on certain subjects cause he doesn’t agree with MGTOW. He doesn’t make that argument about men needing drive you are just assuming that’s what he thinks. Taking a smart person and picking and choosing which arguments you agree with. By the way companies that choose to fire a shit ton of employees and replace them with robots will probably be boycotted and lose a ton of business. People aren’t just going to be cool with it and continue to buy their products. It will be considered inhumane. Robots will be here to do jobs that people don’t want to do. THAT’S IT. Stop scaring people into believing they aren’t going to have jobs. When a new innovation comes out people are always scared for their jobs at first and then they adapt and new jobs are created. Taxes would be so top heavy that people in the middle class wouldn’t work that much harder to get to the upper class because they would be making almost the same amount of money after taxes. People who are content making 50k a year would stop working after making 38k a year, stifling innovation and decreasing productivity. You won’t be getting another response from me. I’ve shut your argument down in every way possible.

[–]fmanly1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

He doesn’t make that argument about men needing drive you are just assuming that’s what he thinks. Taking a smart person and picking and choosing which arguments you agree with.

Well, by all means cite his actual argument then.

I never accept any argument merely based on who is making the argument.

By the way companies that choose to fire a shit ton of employees and replace them with robots will probably be boycotted and lose a ton of business.

Uh, tell that to the auto industry. You can't stop progress with boycotts.

When a new innovation comes out people are always scared for their jobs at first and then they adapt and new jobs are created.

And every time it happens some people are left behind. There is nothing wrong with that, it is just progress. Not everybody who used to assemble cars became a robot designer. And not everybody who currently designs robots will become whatever the next job is once robots are designing themselves.

Taxes would be so top heavy that people in the middle class wouldn’t work that much harder to get to the upper class because they would be making almost the same amount of money after taxes.

First, people will do work even if it isn't financially worth it just because they enjoy doing it and find meaning in it.

Second, millionaires aren't going to stop trying to become billionaires just because they don't need the money. That is already true today.

People who are content making 50k a year would stop working after making 38k a year, stifling innovation and decreasing productivity.

That seems pretty unlikely. If they can do the work chances are they will, because $62k buys more than $50k. If people aren't content making $49k/yr they aren't going to be content making $50k.

You won’t be getting another response from me.

I think I've heard that one from you already... :)

[–]Slimpatg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If someone is continuously looking for a job then they should be able to collect unemployment until they can find one. But they would need to be constantly looking for a job and we would need people to monitor them to make sure that they are. It is wrong to assume that a company would just not hire people if all the applicants who applied weren’t qualified. It would be a rotating door of employees until they find the right one who learns how to do it. Humans are capable of great things when their life depends on it. People would be so grateful to that job that they would be giving 250% of the effort that someone gives now since jobs nowadays are taken for granted especially by women. Jobs are hiring women that don’t know what the fuck they’re doing and don’t even want to be there just because they need to fill that position. Seems reasonable to hire a man that would bust his ass.

[–]fmanly0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So, none of this is going to change the fact that companies will hire unqualified women over qualified men. That is gynocentrism and UBI has nothing to do with trying to cure that.

Ensuring that people are constantly seeking jobs costs money because somebody needs to do the babysitting. If unemployment starts going up towards 50%+ you'd end up paying 5% of the population just to confirm that the other 45% are still jobless.

One of the benefits of UBI is that it requires basically no administration. Sure, the tax side would still require administration as it does today, but the benefits side does not, because as soon as somebody gets a birth certificate they would go into a database and a computer would start mailing them checks (or maybe you start it at age 18 - no harder to administer).

[–]MyLittlePonyofDoom-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]turtleh-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DreadPirateRosco2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Besides, think about our quality of life in terms of creature comforts. Even if you work at McDonalds, if you're in a small enough town you can still afford your own apartment, arrange for public transportation, make your own lunches, buy plenty of food, have a flat screen tv and cable, money for a movie or good restaurant for dinner every few weeks. Your apartment will have AC and heat. You'll be able to afford a smart phone. You're connected. And if you do your job, you'll advance in the ranks and afford even more comforts for yourself. What's the problem? Historically, that's the jackpot! People from third world countries are clamoring to get into our country and are happy to take our shit jobs. Anyone with a measure of competence and drive can do well for themselves in a modern 1st world country.

[–]utopista1141 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kaczan343 points44 points45 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceIce12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]brokenduck2 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sal-the-Gunzerker 32 points33 points34 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sidel37 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway468195 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShrunkenHed30 points31 points32 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank the sjw liberal take over of academia for this rise of the idiocracy. They care more about their feelings than reality.

[–]JayJayEcks14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]game_r8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]robowriter5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]commander_zoidberg 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MadPreacher1AD18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BokehClasses19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]W00jie16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kira666711 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]L3v0raS 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]deadBeefCafe20141 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChaiR6195 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jarwanator5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Idontgotnopancakemix3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SomeDuder274 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bartmichaelds4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]monty932 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eightgaydiamonds2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thewowdog0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robowriter2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dan_Vanedzin2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManmadeDoomsday2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]247spyz4life1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iceklimber1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AppreciateYa 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I lived in a tent for months so I could afford to work only part time in order to build skills full time.

Literally sacrificed living in an apartment to live in a tent for 5 months on a farm at one point, in order to spend several entire full-time work weeks learning skills.

That was 5 years ago. Was making $13/hr after that, with my first job using the design skills. Soon after, $17/hr and 21/hr for basic website design. Now, after another job and grad school data-related courses, I make $50/hr at my first real web programming job.

Next job I expect to pay about $65-75/hr.

I've lived a year of my life in a tent to pursue skills and adventure. And bitches are complaining about having no skills... try making temporary lifestyle sacrifices in order to take time off from regular work to build more valuable skills.

Bitches will never understand skills.

Why? They have no drive or social conditioning to accumulate resources. Men do. That's why we build skills-- society tells us our value is dependent upon our resource accumulation ability.

[–]b_a_heel1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iamthedoorway12 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CyberPunk880 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Futureman9990 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]relevantretriever0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shimakaze40 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]frikabg0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Philletto0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FreeManIsFrank0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bleumetl 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OptimusFried1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	The future is Idiocracy™
Author	sopun
Upvotes	714
Comments	132
Date	December 16, 2017 8:39 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/7k9dlk/the_future_is_idiocracy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/the-future-is-idiocracy.523378 https://theredarchive.com/post/523378

Comments