|
|
|
|
|
by TaylorAlexander
1694 days ago
|
|
Thank you. I should say that critically, this scheme is not dependent on advancement in technology. It does take advantage of the fact that computers can perform labor for free, but there are examples of the elimination of hunger and equitable distribution of food without using any advanced technology. Specifically the Sikhs in India [1] serve over 1 million free meals a day in facilities all over India, and in Vienna Austria housing is built by the city and distributed equitably [2]. Advanced technology changes what is possible, but we can do this without advanced technology. 3D printed homes for example don’t really solve the problem as framing a home isn’t expensive: it’s the land and finishing the home that cost the most. [1] https://youtu.be/qdoJroKUwu0 [2] https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl... |
|
At thresholds of 5% combined with high automation mean such social programs won't be as vehemently contested and their absence might even be viewed as a unnecessary cruelty.
Some mutant hybrid of what the Sihks do in India, and these automations might be interesting:
https://mobile.twitter.com/TechAmazing/status/14397489959166...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDmDWq7wc8
+ a quick google of food factory gifs/videos
A hybrid mutant that maximizes yield, minimizes cost and labor, if such a permutation is realistic and technology-wise permitting.
Socialism partially generates such an antagonistic response (at least in the USA) because how much of a burden it is on others, Minimize that burden might change the fundamental collective consciousness to how people view what the government should provide.