Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ieeamo 1479 days ago
Just imagine humanity had become so successful, that we managed to give everyone sufficient resources to live a life of their choosing.

How would it go?

5 comments

Don't have to imagine, I'm living it. In my country of Finland every adult citizen is granted free housing, heating, electricity, water, Internet, healthcare and food. If you ask, you can also get extra for hobbies and irregular needs like furniture and appliances.

It's great. I've been able to dedicate my life to the highly uncertain career of computer art research. Never needed to work a job I didn't like. Zero debt.

Is it possibly that good?

Looking quickly at https://www.kela.fi/web/en , I see, for example, that, yes, there are unemployment benefits, but there is a work requirement.

I see that the sickness allowance is tied to income (though there is a minimum rate).

I see that there is an entire section called "Conscripts", which is worth noting.

I see a section that maybe(?) applies to your situation (?):

> Researchers who receive a Finnish grant for at least 4 months must take out insurance under the Farmers’ Pensions Act (MYEL) if the grant amounts to at least EUR 4,131 annually (in 2022). The entitlement to Kela benefits for researchers who receive a grant is based on this pension insurance policy for self-employed persons. The insurance is provided by the Farmers’ Social Insurance Institution (MELA).

Is your work funded by grants from the Finnish government?

In the US, there are various kinds of research grants too of course (none tied to housing, AFAIK, though it surely contributes to work requirements), but they are quite competitive to get, and the getting of them is basically what comprises the fairly high-status career of "professor". (Also some parts of the Defense and non-profit sectors.)

Is that how your work is funded?

I'm really curious.

The specific mechanism is 'basic social assistance / income support'. It is a minimum amount of money that everyone has the right to, and is tied to your actual living expenses. To receive it one has to apply for it, a number of months at a time (varies, 1-6 months usually), and provide your bank account statement indicating that you've received no money from anywhere else (other income is subtracted), and you must send your bills as they come to receive matching compensation.

What you need to understand is that the institution handing them out, Kela, naturally must appear scary and imposing, impenetrable bureaucracy. Because simply giving out money is faux pas. So they have to use language like "this is a last resort emergency support you must only seek when all other options are exhausted". In reality, you simply refuse service from the unemployment office and they'll gladly hand you your benefits without complaint.

If they decline or give you less than you're entitled to (very rare), you simply complain to the complaints processing department and they got you covered. Personally I've never had much trouble.

There is a heavy cultural sentiment for "mooching off the government" in this manner. But my back of the envelope calculation indicates that every bum in Finland receiveing these benefits costs the average taxpayer about $1/month. Some of these people literally do nothing but drink beer for the full amount. I'm working on turning my life-long passion hobby into a career.

You would need an entire restructuring of society. Humans need a purpose to avoid falling into depression. Jobs don’t need to be that purpose, but currently jobs fill that role for a huge percentage of the population (if not the career itself, the purpose of providing for themselves and their family). What can replace that is not completely clear yet.
No so. There are countless thousands of retired people who are engrossed in their hobbies and completely happy.
I don't think we're disagreeing.
I don't see how the two are related. I don't think people find a great sense of purpose in a job if the only thing that job provides them is to not starve to death.
Staying alive has been a huge part of human purpose for millennia.

Why should it be dissatisfying or why should people so easily adapt to the absence of that struggle?

I'm not saying the current source of purpose is the best source. I'm just saying life is currently organized around working for most people. Something (or many things) will need to replace that structure.
Some humans would acquire outsized power so that others are subserviant to them
How would that happen under the assumption that "everyone [has] sufficient resources to live a life of their choosing"?
You can use your resources to set up a self-sufficient homestead, or you can use your resources to set up a well-armed pirate band.
Presumably that doesn't account for people making poor choices, accumulating debt and expenses. It's not really possible for it not to
Violent subjugation using a robot army?
The optimist predicts a new era of enlightenment while the pessimist predicts a great spoiling. Who would do the dirty work and for what?
The way I see it, it would require the dirty work (and probably most non-dirty work) to be entirely automated. Up to and including repairing the automation.
Seems that would put a lot of power in the hands of whoever controls the automation.
The natural environment already provides everything people need, if there aren't too many of them. The "fully automated luxury communism" we seek is already implemented by biology, and powered by the sun. Enclosure ended it.