|
|
|
|
|
|
by aoxfordca
4501 days ago
|
|
|
Since when is right to live equal to a basic income guarantee? That's like saying all bacteria, whether benign or malignant, should be given free agar solution so that they can grow and prosper in the world. It just doesn't make sense. |
|
|
AFAIK, no other entity is able to do so, and therefore we are an essential part of the universe, giving it an entirely different ontology. You could eradicate some kind of bacteria, and the universe wouldn't change of essence. If you eradicated humanity, it would (at least, until and IF, it can evolve another sapiens sapiens specie, which is probably, but still seems to take a lot of time, even at the scale of the universe).
But even without taking into account those mechanistic considerations, as a human agent, you can choose to build around yourself (and ourselves), any kind of society you want. So the question is whether you want to build a Nietzschean or a Christian or some other kind of society. Do you want the rule of the Jungle, or do you want some kind of higher civilization? Do you want the brutal application of natural selection, (don't provide any medical care, let the strongest survive and multiply), or would you prefer to let the humanity choose its evolutive path, by applying artificial selection and having even ill-fitted members survive and prosper?
Finally, occidental civilisation, ie. greco-roman civilization, always has been about, and been developed by, citizen having a lavish life of leisure and culture, provided by hordes of slaves. Thanks to the judeo-christianism influence, we now know that slavery is bad, and thanks to the technical progress, we're about to be able to replace it entirely by robots and other computerized systems. The result is that instead of having 2000 citizens, we'll have seven billion citizens, and instead of having a million slaves, we'll have trillions of little robots and computers, to provide us the leisure and culture we want.