I suspect the OP may have been written by AI. But look at the conversation it triggered!

So why not socialism/humanism and a resource based economy? — universeness

The free rider problem, among others. And the incentive problem.

If how much I do work (or not) doesn't show in my income, wealth position or status, why would anyone try harder? Especially when the other guy next to me doesn't do shit and gets the same wage.

It's great to get people to do something voluntarily for the collective, but to do everything for the collective is really hard, if not possible. With the experiments it has gotten twisted, corrupt and in the end the system has to be a totalitarian system in order to survive, because otherwise it wouldn't work.

I remember what Stephen Kotkin, who has written books about Stalin, noted that it's not that the Soviet Union just stumbled to the hands of Stalin, the whole system would likely had collapsed without an organizer like Stalin.

If you get more as unemployed than working at McDonalds, who would work at McDonalds? — ssu

Surely such jobs will be automated in the future, automated drive or walkthroughs.

Why just hmmm... enjoy sports or discuss things on a Philosophy Forum than take those orders at the drive in? — ssu

Sounds like good jobs to me. Train in sports to represent you community in friendly physical competitions. Train in philosophy and take part is on-line debate so you can contribute to teaching others about such important topics. why can these not be called jobs for which you are pain the UBI?

Unemployment benefit is never taken away. So basically, you'll get unemployement benefits until 65 years, and then you get state pension. Although they have, I guess, taken the American statistical gimmick that over certain period people aren't unemployed, they are just discouraged workers. As if those looking for jobs are just the ones unemployed. — ssu

so perhaps we need to redefine what a job is. a job should be something you want to do that also contributes to supporting the community/country/planet. Working should be part of living, you should not simply have to work to live, or live to work.

n fact they experimented with UBI here in Finland. The results were a mixed bag, but not so hugely positive that UBI would be implemented in Finland. Here's an official video of the experiment results: — ssu

Yeah, Kenya is trying a 12 years experiment but the money involved seems very small to me. The Welsh are giving those involved £1600 per month but I think they are going to tax their 'overall' monthly earnings so they may lose some benefit money they also get from the UK welfare state.
It seems to me that the positives suggested in the report summary you posted were quite important and substantial ones and based on only 560 euros a month! I hope a lot more movement is made in this direction in the future.

Surely such jobs will be automated in the future, automated drive or walkthroughs. — universeness

Do you personally want everything to be an automate drive or walkthrough?

I think I'd pay that few cents (and likely more) for the smile from the human waiter/waitress gives me when giving my coffee.

so perhaps we need to redefine what a job is. a job should be something you want to do that also contributes to supporting the community/country/planet. — universeness

Oh God, you don't know how scary that sounds! Because, they'll likely try to do that... :grimace:

Contribute to the society... by being a nice person. That's all. Thank you for existing!!!

You should write the next book in the line of "1984" by George Orwell and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". The next dystopian nightmare we would gladly all read.

The American right has worked very hard to portray communism and socialism as 'reds under the beds,' even going so far as the embarrassing McCarthy witch hunts and the disaster of the Vietnam war.
I don't think these are such soiled words in America as they were but I don't deny that right wing politics in America remain terrified of socialism and communism.
The regimes ran and running in Russia, China, and places like North Korea have a lot more to do with totalitarian capitalism than they do with the true tenets of communism or socialism.
The politicians in Russia/ China etc are no different in power and wealth than the rich in America or Europe. There is almost no difference at all between a Russian Oligarch and an American millionaire/billionaire. The only difference is the Russians have a single crime boss to answer to called the premier (used to be called Tzar). The label is 'chairman' or president in China I think.

I suspect the OP may have been written by AI. But look at the conversation it triggered! — jgill

:smile: Does that mean you have enjoyed the discussion or......

I sympathize with your views, China is communist in name only.

People are so afeared of communism that they wouldn't touch these ideologies with a barge pole. It's kinda a slippery slope fallacy but they want to play it safe, the risks are just too high to take the gamble. Apparently suffering outside a gulag is better than suffering inside one. My two cents. — Agent Smith

You need some more small change there, buddy. The US leads the world in incarceration rates. Land of the Free, except...
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=incarceration+rates+by+country+per+capita&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

You need some more small change there, buddy. The US leads the world in incarceration rates. Land of the Free, except...
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=incarceration+rates+by+country+per+capita&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 — unenlightened

It's all maya (illusion). :up:

The free rider problem, among others. And the incentive problem.

If how much I do work (or not) doesn't show in my income, wealth position or status, why would anyone try harder? Especially when the other guy next to me doesn't do shit and gets the same wage. — ssu

This is a concern I have heard many many times. How did humans manage to live any kind of life of value before money was invented as an exchange mechanism? Would you not pity the guy who decides to waste his/her life as an unthinking unchallenged useless purposeless couch potato? I Would!
Status will still very much exist. I for one will still admire the people I admire. Carl Sagan remains one of my hero's and that status has zero to do with any wealth he had or position he held.

It's great to get people to do something voluntarily for the collective, but to do everything for the collective is really hard, if not possible. With the experiments it has gotten twisted, corrupt and in the end the system has to be a totalitarian system in order to survive, because otherwise it wouldn't work — ssu

I really don't follow the logic of this. Are you jumping to some historical examples such as the system ran, running in Russia or China? These are not and never have been socialist or humanist even through they may have soiled the labels. Socialism is a democratic system. Russia and China have never employed democracy in any significant way, even under Gorbachev (their best effort in my opinion.)
The word communism comes from common/commune/community are these also bad words?
I am not a great fan of the imagery of the word 'collective' either but 'working for the common good,' is surely a good pursuit and a good purpose to have. I think individual freedom is also essential as is the entrepreneurial spirit but does a well balanced person really need to become 'the king of the world' (as portrayed in some horror story such as Al Pacino did in Scarface?) An entrepreneur should be allowed to own a small business if they want to but not become a 'king of the world' by doing so.
True socialism has never been successfully established because the nefarious global rich have always been able to stop it because they know that its global growth tolls the complete end of totalitarianism/autocracy/plutocracy/aristocracy/monarchy/theocracy and such like.

I remember what Stephen Kotkin, who has written books about Stalin, noted that it's not that the Soviet Union just stumbled to the hands of Stalin, the whole system would likely had collapsed without an organizer like Stalin. — ssu

I was no fan of Stalin, Trotsky or Lenin. None of them were socialists. All three were narcissists.
The Russian revolution got rid of the monarchy and resulted in most of the Russian people being able to move away from a peasant/serf style life. Industrialisation also played a big role as it did in France eventually. Their revolution ended up replacing a king and an aristocracy with an emperor and a plutocracy but eventually, the French people also moved away from peasantry and serfdom.
You can see the slow trudge towards a united planet and one race. It will come. Global socialism/humanism is what it has always been! INEVITABLE!

Train in sports to represent you community in friendly physical competitions. Train in philosophy and take part in on-line debates so you can contribute to teaching others about such important topics. why can these not be called jobs for which you are paid the UBI? — universeness

I was in Buxton for a mountaineering conference in 1985, and met a number of young Brit lads who had pooled their doles to rent houses and go climbing full time. They weren't representing communities - just playing in the mountains and on the cliffs. I didn't envy them - primarily because I wanted a life with more dimensions - rather I found their lifestyles unappealing. But that's on me , not them.

I become irritated when reading in a climbing forum arguments against carrying medical insurance. Why waste the money when you can start a Gofundme account and have others pay your bills?

It's a matter of accepting or avoiding responsibility for your own actions. Call me puritanical, I suppose.

I would support a UBI if it required some sort of contribution to the common good scaled to the recipient's capabilities. Giving away money, no.

Do you personally want everything to be an automate drive or walkthrough? — ssu

Well it wouldn't bother me if takeaway food became such, as long as its quality was maintained! So it depends what you mean by everything.

I think I'd pay that few cents (and likely more) for the smile from the human waiter/waitress gives me when giving my coffee — ssu

So, you advocate for a smiling human female as you pick up you automated takeaway. Maybe some pretty girls would be willing to do that for a good quality UBI and the chance to encounter amazing guys like you and I. Maybe not however, we can only request it. At my age of 58 and with any good looks I once had fading fast, I would settle for a pretty robot with limited vision or what I would consider 'good programming.'

Oh God, you don't know how scary that sounds! Because, they'll likely try to do that... :grimace:
Contribute to the society... by being a nice person. That's all. Thank you for existing!!!
You should write the next book in the line of "1984" by George Orwell and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". The next dystopian nightmare we would gladly all read. — ssu

:lol: What worries you most in the future I am trying to paint for you? Where did I propose anything akin to Orwell's or Huxley's dystopias?
I am writing a book as it happens but its about a life after death, for a few only, not a chosen few only a few who have the correct nonbaryonic foetus.

I sympathize with your views, China is communist in name only. — Agent Smith

absafragginlootly!

I was in Buxton for a mountaineering conference in 1985, and met a number of young Brit lads who had pooled their doles to rent houses and go climbing full time. They weren't representing communities - just playing in the mountains and on the cliffs. I didn't envy them - primarily because I wanted a life with more dimensions - rather I found their lifestyles unappealing. But that's on me , not them. — jgill

But this was just a stage for these boys, was it not? Even the hippies had to grow up. Well, most of them anyway. I dont mind if people want to go chasing rainbows for a while, let them, if the community they come from can afford to let them. Like you, chasing rainbows or climbing wouldn't do it for me full time but if you built your climbing skills to such a level that you could become one of the best at it then would that not add to the status of the community you came from? I would insist that every news program must deliver 50% positive reports as well as 50% negative reports about what's going on in the world. BALANCE! Tell me about the climbing skills some people are gaining as well as the story about the serial killer on the loose etc. Don't just deliver 100% bad news in every broadcast as that is not a true representation of the world we live in.

I become irritated when reading in a climbing forum arguments against carrying medical insurance. Why waste the money when you can start a Gofundme account and have others pay your bills?
It's a matter of accepting or avoiding responsibility for your own actions. Call me puritanical, I suppose.
I would support a UBI if it required some sort of contribution to the common good scaled to the recipient's capabilities. Giving away money, no. — jgill

UBI is about the basic means of survival as a human right, not how to fund climbing expeditions or medical insurance for such activity, all health care should be free..
I agree that people should take responsibly for their own actions but how many people do you know who deliberately cause themselves to be hungry and homeless? Are you talking of those with psychological problems, addictions etc. Are you happy to let such people self-destruct?
If you equate I would support a UBI if it required some sort of contribution to the common good scaled to the recipient's capabilities. with something like 'From each according to their ability and too each according to their need' Then I broadly support this BUT I would not enforce anyone to do a job they did not want to do if such could be accommodated. I would prefer that people were allowed to do a job that they loved doing.

Giving away money, no. — jgill

Money is bits of paper and metal coin. People need resources, not money.
Money is just a means of exchange, we can change that system all together by something like a resource based economy or give people enough numbers/credits in their account to LIVE! and obtain the resources they need to do so.

absafragginlootly! — universeness

:grin:

But this was just a stage for these boys, was it not? — universeness

For some, yes, for others it was the beginning of a lifestyle. Dirtbagging, on the other hand, was and is popular in the US and once again its advocates can go different directions with their lives. I've known some who never really departed that realm, even after improving their finances. And a few who were good friends became wealthy beyond reason because of their drive and intelligence. (The most spectacular being Yvon Chouinard, who, when we camped and climbed together, lived on fifty cents a day, while I lived on a dollar a day. He and his wife created Patagonia and are now billionaires.)

Are you talking of those with psychological problems, addictions etc. Are you happy to let such people self-destruct? — universeness

Of course not. I'm talking about those who are capable but do not supply goods, or services, or entertainment to society but want society to support them while they play. In an automated Utopia perhaps, but not today.

How did humans manage to live any kind of life of value before money was invented as an exchange mechanism? — universeness

They had to barter. Simple as that. The society was totally different and nowhere near the advance system of our society.

These are not and never have been socialist or humanist even through they may have soiled the labels. — universeness

Oh right... so a two hundred year old political ideology hasn't been just misunderstood or missused? Do you understand how much hubris is in this idea?

I was no fan of Stalin, Trotsky or Lenin. None of them were socialists. — universeness

Really? Or do put Marxist-Leninism or Marxism not to be socialist? Interesting.

. Socialism is a democratic system. — universeness

So you are talking about social democracy (or in the way they say in the US, democratic socialism)?

Well, I think there's a huge problem with that, just as is with the right-wing libertarians when they accept democracy. You see, in a democracy there will be people who oppose you. Hence in an democracy there will be both a left-wing and a right-wing, and the other simply won't fade out! And since a lot of people are OK with private capital, then socialism won't prevail. Just as in the right-wing libertarian democracy social democrats would feel totally fine to criticize the system.

So, you advocate for a smiling human female as you pick up you automated takeaway. — universeness

Or basically having human interaction in your average daily life, yes. And do notice I said waiter / waitress.

At my age of 58 and with any good looks I once had fading fast, I would settle for a pretty robot with limited vision or what I would consider 'good programming.' — universeness

?

:lol: What worries you most in the future I am trying to paint for you? Where did I propose anything akin to Orwell's or Huxley's dystopias? — universeness

When you redefine what is work, you redefine a lot in our lives.

Why is this so troublesome?

Basically there's this extremely stupid (and arrogant) idea of there not being work enough for everybody in the future. That because machines can do so much, there isn't enough for people to do, hence you will have this large idle underclass that has to be fed "tittytainment" to them or they can live all their lives in some virtual reality. Or something like it.

The idea is not only condescending, but show the arrogance and the hubris of those that believe in this. The society doesn't create such huge abundance of wealth that this would be possible. In fact we will likely see this Century peak human population, and then the demographic trend will be like in Japan. Or now in China, actually. Ageing and decreasing population is a real problem for our society, so the idea that there will be too many people and too few jobs simply isn't realistic. We can see this from history: the industrial revolution didn't create large hoards of unemployed agrarian workers roaming the land begging for food as machines had replaced their work on the fields. Computers didn't do this to typists and secretaries either.

The fact is that changes like we don't live in an agrarian society where the majority lives in the countryside and the cities are small. Change from substance farming to industrial farming has happened and that means there are fewer farmers, but the children of those farmers are just in new jobs. And people don't live in the countryside.

So when there won't be those "idle masses because of technology". Why is then redefining work so ominous?

Well, because when our leaders fuck things up and we end with high unemployment (thanks to stupid decisions), they will likely use that lie that the World has changed so much that we should redefine just what work means. If you can hide some percentage of the unemployed away with these kinds of redefinitions, they will gladly use that statistical trick to lie about how great things are and how they have tackled unemployment.

Dirtbagging, on the other hand, was and is popular in the US and once again its advocates can go different directions with their lives. — jgill

Not a term, I am familiar with but a quick internet search led me to think its similar to the term backpacking, which is very frugal living as you travel around the world by thumbing lifts and working for your passage costs.

became wealthy beyond reason — jgill

Its interesting that you feel compelled to use words such as 'beyond reason,' when referring to such personal wealth. I agree, such examples as becoming a billionaire through making outdoor clothing is 'beyond reason,' and as such, should never be possible to achieve.

I'm talking about those who are capable but do not supply goods, or services, or entertainment to society but want society to support them while they play. — jgill

You are describing most of the children of the rich and many of the rich themselves. The workers manufacture and distribute the goods and provide the services and entertainment (so its their society that supports/maintains the rich). The rich owners quickly become little more that the conductors of the orchestra. Don't you think that the workers should get an equal share of all profits? I think we should sort out the imbalance between what owners and such people with titles like CEO or company director etc, earn first, before we worry about those who abuse basic benefits systems. It's like jailing all the junkies instead of going after the real problem of the kingpins who control drug manufacture and distribution.

They had to barter. Simple as that. The society was totally different and nowhere near the advance system of our society. — ssu

So people can survive without the money trick, yes. We just need a modern system of exchange which works better than the barter system and is fair for all and provides a basic economic parity. I think the human race is smart enough to do that.

Oh right... so a two hundred year old political ideology hasn't been just misunderstood or missused? Do you understand how much hubris is in this idea? — ssu

Socialism/humanism is a lot older than 200 years. Its been around since we came out of the wilds.
It is easy to understand and setup. The Epicurean commune system was an early respectable attempt at a humanist system but it was unable to defend itself against outside forces.
The servile revolts (the 1st led by Eunus, the 2nd by Salvius and Athenion and the 3rd by Spartacus), The Russian, French and Chinese revolutions, the English civil war, etc all started as socialist/humanist movements but true socialist are the first one targeted by the forces mustered against such movements.
The nefarious opportunists amongst your own rank and file often destroy the original purpose of historical attempts. So socialism/humanism has never got far enough to become fully established as a way of running a large civilisation. NOT YET anyway but as education reaches more and more people, socialist/humanist movements are not so easily usurped by outside forces or inner corruption. It therefore remains, as it has since our days in the wilds, INEVITABLE. The nefarious can only keep trying to do what they have always tried to do, DELAY IT.

Really? Or do put Marxist-Leninism or Marxism not to be socialist? Interesting. — ssu

Much of what Karl Marx wrote is socialism and humanism yes. Lenin sometimes spoke like a socialist but Lenin was a mass murderer who ended up personally owning 9 Rolls Royce cars. You must act like a socialist not merely talk like one. You must be judged on what you do not what you say you will do.

So you are talking about social democracy (or in the way they say in the US, democratic socialism)?

Well, I think there's a huge problem with that, just as is with the right-wing libertarians when they accept democracy. You see, in a democracy there will be people who oppose you. Hence in an democracy there will be both a left-wing and a right-wing, and the other simply won't fade out! And since a lot of people are OK with private capital, then socialism won't prevail. Just as in the right-wing libertarian democracy social democrats would feel totally fine to criticize the system. — ssu

As I have already stated, the label socialism has be greatly soiled in the US by the capitalists because they are terrified of it, so any American description of the term will be dubious.
If socialists cannot convince a majority of the population of a society, through reasoned argument, that their tenets will benefit all and be a fair and equitable way to live then they should not gain power. If they do gain power then they must demonstrate that they can be trusted and that they will do what they said they will do and if they don't then they cannot continue to hold power and they must step down and if they don't willingly step down they are not socialist and they must be removed.
The democratic process is the core of true socialism.

Or basically having human interaction in your average daily life, yes. And do notice I said waiter / waitress. — ssu

What kind of life of isolation are you living? You will get lots of human interaction, if you choose to interact with real people such as friends and family and even strangers when you go out for a walk or meet socially in pubs etc. You don't need to rely on visits to takeaway food shops for your doses of human interaction so I am sure you can live with such systems becoming fully automated.

Well, because when our leaders fuck things up and we end with high unemployment (thanks to stupid decisions), they will likely use that lie that the World has changed so much that we should redefine just what work means. If you can hide some percentage of the unemployed away with these kinds of redefinitions, they will gladly use that statistical trick to lie about how great things are and how they have tackled unemployment. — ssu

People don't need money they need resources and purpose. We need a socialist/humanist system such as a resource based economy to provide every human born with what they need to live a comfortable life from cradle to grave based on need and ability and we need to facilitate the aspirations and individual freedoms of each individual as much as is possible within the local circumstances presented.
I am not interested in those who opine that such goals are utopian. I will be a part of the group who will continue to struggle to make such a global socialist/humanist system a reality. I do not expect to see such a system fully established in my lifetime but I do expect to see further movement towards it. I am already aware of many examples of such efforts. The race remains one between a global socialist/humanist way of living and the alternative of our extinction.
There is nothing as mundane as hubris involved. Socialists and humanists simply believe we can do better than we are doing at the moment in how we live and how we enact our stewardship of this planet.
We still have not even left our little home nest. If we are to become an interplanetary/interstellar species we must first become a united species/planet.

We just need a modern system of exchange which works better than the barter system and is fair for all and provides a basic economic parity. — universeness

What do you mean here by 'basic economic parity'?

And what do you have in mind when saying "a system that works better"?

With any medium of exchange there likely is a measure of value, be they dollars, pack of cigarettes or squirrel hives. What is wrong then with this having store of value?

Do you have something against money in general, or is your criticism about the current monetary system?

As I have already stated, the label socialism has be greatly soiled in the US by the capitalists because they are terrified of it, so any American description of the term will be dubious. — universeness

So just talk about then social democracy. UK Labour and the various Social Democrat Parties of Europe. Works as a political party in other Western countries and hasn't been such a ruinous totalitarian experiment as Marxism-Leninism has been every time it has been tried.

If socialists cannot convince a majority of the population of a society, through reasoned argument, that their tenets will benefit all and be a fair and equitable way to live then they should not gain power. — universeness

Democracy actually works by reaching some kind of consensus. Socialists can ask for something, conservatives ask for something else, some agreement has to be found between the two. It's naive to think that one side can convince everybody to back their agenda by reason, that simply doesn't happen. That's not only democracy, it is reality

You don't need to rely on visits to takeaway food shops for your doses of human interaction so I am sure you can live with such systems becoming fully automated. — universeness

So you would be fine meeting your friends in a pub that is fully automated? Would you prefer also fully automated restaurants? Yeah, I have no problem with the vending machines. Yet what you describe are a bit bigger vending machines, ones you walk into (or drive through).

We need a socialist/humanist system such as a resource based economy to provide every human born with what they need to live a comfortable life from cradle to grave based on need and ability and we need to facilitate the aspirations and individual freedoms of each individual as much as is possible within the local circumstances presented. — universeness

But your providing, providing people what they need from cradle to grave, not that they would work for this (with their abilities and own motivation).

Socialists and humanists simply believe we can do better than we are doing at the moment in how we live and how we enact our stewardship of this planet. — universeness

So your answer is what? To give a committee or some central power the role to decide about the means of production, distribution, and exchange? That's it? That will improve our stewardship of this planet?

Hasn't worked so well in history.

What do you mean here by 'basic economic parity'?
And what do you have in mind when saying "a system that works better"?
With any medium of exchange there likely is a measure of value, be they dollars, pack of cigarettes or squirrel hives. What is wrong then with this having store of value?
Do you have something against money in general, or is your criticism about the current monetary system? — ssu

Free comfortable housing, food, water, power, education, medical and social care for everyone born on the Earth, from cradle to grave. Such a system would work better compared to the current one as people would not have to compete for the basic resources of life and store such in excess as they are afraid of a change in personal circumstances which would mean they can no longer provide for themselves or their dependents.
In something like a resource based economy, a method of exchange is not required. Automation would be used as much as possible to gather, manufacture, store and distribute resources to people as they require it.
When it comes to access to technology and entertainment. Any new or existing device which can assist a human in their job or their life would be given freely. Any one who wishes to collect items can collect old devices no longer in common use or used in recycling.
Anyone who wants a castle with 20 bedrooms and 8 bathrooms etc, cant have one.
Access to entertainment, social activity, alcohol, legal drugs etc would need to be debated.
For example, to go to a music concert, we might have a system where you would indicate your wish to attend and a computer might choose those who can attend to capacity. The rest will have to watch on TV or through a AR (augmented reality) system. We might even keep a small credit type system, which can be added to by earnings for doing certain jobs that the community needs. Everyone would receive a regular fixed amount of credits to spend on things like your own choice of clothing, your entertainment, your hobbies etc but you could earn extra credits for doing any required community services which currently cannot be or are not automated.

So just talk about then social democracy. UK Labour and the various Social Democrat Parties of Europe. Works as a political party in other Western countries and hasn't been such a ruinous totalitarian experiment as Marxism-Leninism has been every time it has been tried. — ssu

I do only type about democratic socialism/humanism, I don't advocate for any political parties. I would not allow political parties, just independents. If a majority of independents are elected who declare themselves as democratic socialists/humanists then they will influence every decision made by any authority formed from them for the fixed time frame they are in authority. New elections must be held every 4 years.

Democracy actually works by reaching some kind of consensus. Socialists can ask for something, conservatives ask for something else, some agreement has to be found between the two. It's naive to think that one side can convince everybody to back their agenda by reason, that simply doesn't happen. That's not only democracy, it is reality — ssu

Yeah, I know how democracy works. People will vote for those who can help them live the kind of life they want to live. It's up to socialists/humanists to convince people that they can provide the best and fairest sociopolitical system that will be benevolent to the vast majority of stakeholders and prevent the nefarious few from gaining power and control over the life and fate of that vast majority I mentioned.
If the socialists cant convince the people to elect them and give them the authority to start to make the required changes then they can keep electing those who maintain the current systems and continue to suffer accordingly. Usually when they have suffered enough they will return to democratic socialism/humanism.

So you would be fine meeting your friends in a pub that is fully automated? Would you prefer also fully automated restaurants? Yeah, I have no problem with the vending machines. Yet what you describe are a bit bigger vending machines, ones you walk into (or drive through). — ssu

I tend to be interested in the people I go to a pub or restaurant with or the other people in the restaurant/pub. If your socialisation is attracted more to the pub or restaurant staff then I can appreciate your issue with an automated staff but its not a big concern of mine. Perhaps you could get a human to serve you when you go to automated pub or restaurant and give them some of your assigned credits or you could barter and they serve you then you serve them. I am sure a future automated pub or restaurant could accommodate such personal requests.

But your providing, providing people what they need from cradle to grave, not that they would work for this (with their abilities and own motivation). — ssu

Humans need to have purpose who knows what jobs/activities there will be in the future. I would imagine that research and development would be enormous. Working with automated systems and developing more of them. Working with climate control and ecosystems would be very big, to maintain all fauna (including humans) on Earth as well as all flora. Space exploration and development would become massive as well. I would hope that each human would be able to pursue whichever activity most attracted them at whatever stage of life they are in. Have a look at the brief youtube videos I posted earlier on the Venus project (RBE).

So your answer is what? To give a committee or some central power the role to decide about the means of production, distribution, and exchange? That's it? That will improve our stewardship of this planet?
Hasn't worked so well in history. — ssu

What do you mean by your rather flippant 'That's it?' That's always been it! Control of the means of production, distribution and exchange is the core issue we have been fighting over since homo sapiens arrived on the scene. It was also a big issue for all hominid species. Yeah your right it hasn't worked so well in history, due to the rule of the nefarious few over the majority, due to totalitarianism/autocracy/monarchy/aristocracy/theocracy/plutocracy/capitalism. So the sooner we nullify such systems permanently, the better things will get for all of us.

I think the OP is a bit too long, I've done this before so, it's nothing personal. If you can make it more concise, then it should be easier to understand.

Going off on the title of the thread, sure, money is a fiction (illusion), but it's a real fiction, just like Harry Potter is a real character in the novel, or Winston Smith is an illusion in 1984.

Doesn't make it stop working as it does, until enough people change the way they perceive the value of paper, things will remain as they are.

Doesn't make it stop working as it does, until enough people change the way they perceive the value of paper, things will remain as they are. — Manuel

I can't help but recommend the Spanish series, Money Heist, on Netflix.

To really make us slaves, a two part program would work best. Pump money into the economy through central banks and pull civilian resource out using investment scams to fund covert programs. Special Access Programs.

Speaking as a member of the underclass and a layabout by trade, I can assure you that my revolutionary fervour is fed by starvation. This is not a new theory I am promoting - bread and circuses has long been known as the basis for a peaceful society. — unenlightened

Yeah, but it's not the starving street dwellers that are committing the serious crimes and stirring up revolutions. They're mainly looking for their next fix.

Moving up a rung on this social ladder, we have those who already do receive public assistance, and there being a correlation between crime and poverty, we see these folks in our criminal justice system disproportionately. So you argue we need a better class of underclass, so let's increase their public assistance until they have a pleasant enough existence to be incentivized to choose their current existence over a prison cell.

The better solution, I'd suggest, is to correct the inequities so these folks can meaningfully participate in this society we've created and enjoy it's great wealth, as opposed to leaving them with few other options and then offering them just enough to pacify them. Our charity under the envisioned system of greater public assistance is not rooted so much n altruism as it is in crowd control,. But as they say, it matters less why you feed the hungry than just that you do I guess.

My concern with your suggestion is that it will ignite a different revolution, this one from the right, as it declares a fundamental failure in the system these folks are successful in. and one they have a great desire and great means to defend.