Same thought: Thesis+Antithesis=Synthesis I've tried a few times to see how this can be done. In my view it is the single most important task. This book is a Thesis. There are comments that proffer the antithesis. Can it be written to show both sides and then the synthesis. I am wirting a book that appears to be a complement. But why write two books? What if we could write a book that built the thesis, antithesis and synthesis collectively. Keep adding authors that endorse one view or the other or the synthesis, so some may ony endorse what is already written, but they would still be an ''author'. In other cases they may add a new insight that is endorsed by all others authors, or genreate another antithesis that has to be synthesised?
We need a way to balance the needs of society (for people to work to produce what is required to provide a 'reasonable'' life for everyone), vs the creative needs of each of its members. Money as a measure of value (as ooposed to cost) is a way for each peson to signal their needs/wants. Giving people a 'set amount of UBI' will only by chance lead to a balance. The best way to achieve a UBI is to allow the market to set the rate such that the demand for labour is met without inflation. Youcan start small, gradually increasing the amount and see what happens. At some point people will cut back hours or drop out of work. Once it starts to become hard to hire people, we know that we have reached the limit. There are other things we need to do to ensure balance, but too long to post as a comment. Perhaps we could talk: [email protected]
If money is seen simply as the measure of the value provided, then a higher paid job should not have any negative stigma attached to it. In fact, it should be applauded. It means that a person is contributing more according to our collective appreciation (the market). The question is what the money is then spent on. If it is spent on art and music and other cultural pursuits it is rewarding those who create. If i is spent on a fine yatch, it is also reqarding the designer and the tradespeople who craft it. We whsould not be looking to restrict 'consumption per se. We should be averse to consumption that destroys the bioshpere or enslaves people in its production
Need to separate out the 'price' effect. Spending $1000 for a haricut may temporarily satisfy some psychological need. But it consumes no more thatn a $100 cut. In fact, the amount of real wealth consumed by the rich (food, fibre, minerals, land, etc) is a tiny proportion of the total consumed by the vast majority of people in developed countries (just think of all the roads and power and water grids and clothes and food and homes and office buildings etc that are used by the population). There is also a huge amount of creativity that goes into creating different things and services. 'Positional' conscupmtion is not the problem, so much as extract, process use and send to waste. We need to move to a circular used based economy
Agreed, all public decision making should be public. No private contracts. But the state should not be permnitted to go snooping into anyone's personal beliefs or habits without just cause. As you say, radical openess requires radical democracy and rule of law, that also protects against tyranny of the majority.
How do you address concerns that information about each person can be used by authotarian and totalitarian states to control their citizens, or that insurance simply becomes (even more) spreading your own risk, rather than sharing risk
Albert, I'd like to talk with you about a slightly different view. While cost to copy/distribute may be zero, the benefit may be considerable (which you allude to in social terms), but the benefit may also be particular to the consumer of the content. The payment of money by the consumer simply recognises the value. The more people prepared to pay, the more value provided by the creator. We need a way to signal this value through micro payments. These payments recognise the limited amoutn of attention we each have plus the emotional and cognitive benefits derived from the content
The explanation could be unrelated to attention. "The Great Filter" treats this question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter So perhaps most civilizations evolve the capacity to self-destruct before they evolve the wisdom to not do so.
There's definitely a case to be made for this but there are also very strong historical counterexamples. Rarer perhaps systemically but systems of knowledge have flourished under oligarchies, monarchies, theocracies, etc.
agreed. and these practices are example of how powerful the impulse to share and create are, not simply romantic indulgences but things intelligent people find the courage to do in the face of torture or death