[winter_blue]

A basic needs guarantee (or even basic income) might be the only way to guarantee that a chunk of the population doesn't fall into total destitution.

Once so much is automated, would it not be feasible and practical to provide basic needs (food, clothing, housing, etc) to every human being?

Also, a politically acceptable alternative to basic income might be Keynesian economics:

-> In one case, the government taxes the middle and upper classes, and gives out that money to everyone -- no strings attached.

-> In Keynesian economics, government similarly hands out money to people, but requires them to do something in return for it.

Both involve high taxes and high government spending. I just realized this similarity between Keynesian economics and basic incomes, and I'm amazed by the parallel.

With Keynesian economics, the governments gets to makes people "do stuff", in return for what would've been "free money" with basic income.

If a government uses this to direct the population towards productive and meaningful endeavors, then could this be better? Government could provide "basic income" to all the unemployed arts graduates by funding the arts. Similarly, we could encourage every smart person to pursue pure research, and then instead of "basic income", fund them to do research!

[bravo22]

I agree with GBI for the interim, but one thing everyone is forgetting is that we're resource bound as a race. GBI will deal with the distribution issue but not overall consumption. And I hate to say it but the more prosperous the average family becomes, i.e. less death and hunger, the faster the overall population will grow. At the same time the faster technology grows the less need we'll have for average person to work.

The environmental problems we are experiencing are mostly an issue of our population relative to the environment. Ultimately there needs to be a population control/reduction mechanism.

It won't be easy, pretty, or likely even ethical but it will happen and it will be a source of great conflict.

The alternative is we end up space ferrying before that happens.

[winter_blue]

> but the more prosperous the average family becomes ... the faster the overall population will grow

All statistics point to the opposite. Education and higher income correlate with lower number of children.

In countries like India, the educated middle and upper classes have a very low birth rate -- most families have 1 or 2 kids. It usually the poor and uneducated families that have the most kids.

Most developed countries also have a birth rate that is below replacement. As people get more educated, the human population (for whatever reason) seems to be at risk of collapse / rapid shrinkage.

I don't know why educated people chose to have less kids, but that is what the statistics are telling us.

[petra]

I agree, this seems to be more politically easy to swallow. But i get the sense that basic income just a way to distract the people from the real political fight for a social safety net(and the work needed to get done to make the world ready for something like basic income) , while selling them fantasies that makes their day nicer(money for free, small government, etc).