Basic Income & Soylent


#81

But can you explain why with logic, or does what I say just make you feel bad?


#82

Dias, the problem is I start reading a lot of the stuff you write (which I actually agree with) pertaining to fiscal policy or economics where you sound completely reasonable…and then I read something you write like in that woman-bashing thread or is anti-science and borderline conspiratorial and I just can’t believe it is the same guy. Plus, that avatar you have smirking at me doesn’t help. :stuck_out_tongue:

TL:DR; I just can’t keep up with you, bro.


#83

Some truths are simply harder to accept than others. I am not anti-science, I’ve simply learned it’s flaws & spot them all the time. If climate change were disproven, a good number of people who’s careers, education & reputation revolved entirely around it being true would be destroyed, so they will lie, manipulate data & scaremonger to keep their jobs. The biggest flaw with science is dependence on a scientific community for reproducibility. If enough people in the community are dishonest for their own self-interest/preservation, that lie is considered scientific truth. And when was the last time you heard of a climate science experiment? Not really enough treatment & control groups, with too many variables, as far as I’m concerned. :laughing:

I’m not against women in any degree, I simply understand that there are two sexes for one single reason: reproduction & that aside from that there’s very little that one sex can do that the other can’t. Without reproduction, there’s no need for two sexes. Women are handicapped by pregnancy, both physically during labor, menstrual cycle, pelvis shape makes running/walking less efficient & pregnancy even reduces gray matter volume, essentially making women dumber for reproducing. Sure, all this might sound sexist to say that men & women aren’t 100% equal at everything in every way, but when you consider all of the variables that make one person unequal/different from another, genetic sex is just one trivial checkbox on a giant list of factors. People need to get over it.


#84

There’s no need for humans incapable of language. But we survived long enough to develop it and look at us now. It would be sad to live in a universe where all that exists is what is practically “needed”.

#HandsUpDon’tShoot or something. Lost my train of thought.

I’m capable of thinking logically while also feeling sorrow. Most people are, actually. For me it requires almost no effort.

My reasons for disagreeing with you are not because I think you’re “logically” wrong. At least in regards to your goals which, I imagine, are for America and the working class to be wealthier, more free and more happy than they’ve ever been. In some sense I think that’s very noble of you. But ultimately it just scares the living sh*t out of me.


#85

[quote=“sylass94, post:84, topic:27058”]It would be sad to live in a universe where all that exists is what is practically “needed”.[/quote]I never said that’s what I want. What you want & what you need are two separate things. I’ve got no idea what Soylent has to do with the idea that “we” don’t need women. in rely to pauldwaite saying he has no idea what Soylent has to do with men not needing women. I said the only “need” men have for women is reproduction. I never said anything about “wanting” women.

[quote=“sylass94, post:84, topic:27058”]But ultimately it just scares the living sh*t out of me.[/quote]That’s because it’s not an easy answer. It doesn’t solve every problem with a single magical brush stroke that & requires people do actual work & take responsibility for themselves. Everybody would like to just do whatever they feel like all day without worrying about complex things like capitalism, but technology advances fastest with real market competition & technology is the only real way to that total freedom we both want. If used properly & without allowing power-hungry control-freaks to dictate how it’s used. It could even be achievable in our lifetimes, but I’m an optimist.


#86

I don’t want total freedom. We have different goals, which is the source of our disagreement. But based on your own goals, the steps you’ve outlined would certainly put America on the road to prosperity (with varying degrees of success).

How can we ever hope to “control” the control freaks without becoming hypocrites? Quite the conundrum.


#87

I only studied economics at a university level for a few years so I’m not really qualified to give a definite answer, but I’m more of the opinion that capitalism trends towards monopolies without government intervention, and monopolies are neither efficient nor free.


#88

I think one of the government’s most important roles is the prevention of monopolistic behavior through antitrust laws. In the United States, this is usually accomplished by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ). Other countries have other similar mechanisms.

However, the government having monopolies over certain industries can be just as disastrous (and in many ways more disastrous) as private companies having monopolies.


#89

[quote=“inquirerer, post:88, topic:27058”]
However, the government having monopolies over certain industries can be just as disastrous (and in many ways more disastrous) as private companies having monopolies.
[/quote]I’m going to disagree.

If it’s privately owned, we can’t do anything about it, and all decisions are driven by profit motives. Everyone get’s squeezed or every penny their worth.

If it’s owned by the government, we can vote (at least for democracies), and all decisions are driven by getting more votes.


#90

[quote=“mellored, post:89, topic:27058, full:true”]

Unfortunately governments are inefficient. This is why government owned industries (whether they be communist or socialist in nature) never out-perform free-market approaches. The very act of being “driven by profit motives” is what creates the efficiency. China learned this and the deregulation/privatization that they instituted has allowed them to be competitive on a global scale.

For the opposite effect, see economies like those of Venezuela.


#91

[quote=“Dias, post:83, topic:27058”]
If climate change were disproven, a good number of people who’s careers, education & reputation revolved entirely around it being true would be destroyed, so they will lie, manipulate data & scaremonger to keep their jobs
[/quote]That goes both ways.

Since climate change has been proven, a good number of people who’s careers, education & reputation revolving around it being false (say… oil companies) will lie, manipulate data & fearmonger to keep their jobs. Or that cigarettes cause cancer. Or putting lead in gasoline causing all sorts of issues.

The groups with with the money and power have far more to lose than the few scientist.

[quote=“Dias, post:83, topic:27058”]essentially making women dumber for reproducing[/quote]There’s no evidence to support that.

Women tend to be more average in intelligence, where as men can run the whole gambit of being really smart, or really stupid. Most likely due to having 2 X chromosomes balancing each other out, vs the 1 for men who get what they get.

There is a small difference between women being more linguistic, and men being more spacial, but it’s pretty minimal, and it’s hard to say which would be better.

Men also tend to be more aggressive and violent. Which is a negative.

Physically, yes they are smaller, and weaker. Though i’m not sure that’s a handicap, since it means less resources. A good bit cheaper and easier to send a 130lb person who eats 1,500 Kcal to mars than a 200lb person who eats 2000kcal. As technology advances, the advantages for being big and strong diminish. Being able to run faster means little when everyone drives a car.

All in all, i’d say men are more unnecessary. Especially since we can much more easily make sperm in the lab, but haven’t gotten anywhere on creating an artificial wombs.


#92

[quote=“sylass94, post:86, topic:27058”]I don’t want total freedom. We have different goals, which is the source of our disagreement. But based on your own goals, the steps you’ve outlined would certainly put America on the road to prosperity (with varying degrees of success).[/quote]I meant freedom in the sense of more free time, not having to go to a job you don’t like just to make ends meat, that sort of thing.

[quote=“codemaker, post:87, topic:27058, full:true”]I only studied economics at a university level for a few years so I’m not really qualified to give a definite answer, but I’m more of the opinion that capitalism trends towards monopolies without government intervention, and monopolies are neither efficient nor free.[/quote]That is true, but when the people in your government are part or getting paid by said monopolies, or oligarchies in this case, government regulation usually exists simply to maintain status quo.

[quote=“mellored, post:91, topic:27058”]
There’s no evidence to support that.
[/quote]https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/pregnancy-brain-means-reductions-in-grey-matter-for-new-mothers/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/12/19/pregnancy-changes-the-brain-for-as-long-as-two-years/
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v20/n2/full/nn.4458.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/pregnancy-can-resculpt-women-s-brains-2-years


#93

On that point, I can agree completely :slight_smile:


#94

[quote=“inquirerer, post:90, topic:27058”]Unfortunately governments are inefficient.[/quote]True.
But it’s better than screwing people over intentionally.

Everyone hates Comcast, which has both lousy service and is way overpriced.
People are just mildly annoyed with the post office.


#95

Did you even read those?

“the most important connections are strengthened and the others are left to wither. Rather than indicating a loss of ability, pruning is generally taken to mean that a brain region has become more specialized.”


#96

If the post office was the only way (government mandated) to ship packages, they would be both less efficient and more infuriating.

Perhaps we just agree to disagree…


#97

[quote=“Dias, post:78, topic:27058”]Agreed, but giving people money won’t reduce crime.[/quote]All evidence says it does.
Crime rates in poverty are double those without. And if people get out, they stay out.

[quote=“Dias, post:78, topic:27058”]The only real solution is to make law enforcement unprofitable & eliminate victimless crimes[/quote]I disagree that it’s the only solution, though i defiantly agree that it’s part of the solution.

Particularly with a flat fee. $180 is a huge amount to a poor person, but barely registers for a rich person.

[quote=“Dias, post:78, topic:27058”]
Free market in healthcare seems to be the only real solution. Reintroduce competition into business & basic health insurance would probably drop to around what car insurance costs, depending where you live.
[/quote]Mostly agree.

The issue with health care, is both that costs are not equal, and not optional. You can’t just choose to not buy the million dollar life-saving surgery, and you can’t afford it on your own. So unless we decide to let people die, we need a mechanism for the healthy to pay for the sick.

Also, how you improve the free market is to just give people money. Then they can buy what they want.
Universal basic income is very much a free market approach.

[quote=“Dias, post:78, topic:27058”]Quality, not quantity[/quote]Why not both?

[quote]Our educational system is largely an over-glorified daycare until highschool[/quote]I disagree.

Modern society has drastically improved with everyone knowing how to read. Something you do before highschool. And even with the lowest paying jobs need to know how to add up money and give change.

[quote]many college degrees are worthless[quote]I agree. But that has more to do with the fact that collages are for profit. Free market will sell things if there is a demand for them, irrelevant of their worth.

[quote]Schooling needs to take better advantage of technology…
Last year I took a summer class for the hell of it after having been out of college for years & it was like pulling teeth. I could have learned everything that was taught in that semester in a week if I didn’t have to listen to a professor struggle to get the barely-awake class to participate at 8am. [/quote]Agreed.

You might want to look at wgu.edu. It’s currently where i’m going. You study at your own pace.
Or rather, do all the studying first, then sign up to to take tests and get your degree in a few months.

Technology changes faster than pretty much anything else ever. Everything else is slow by comparison.

[quote=“Dias, post:78, topic:27058”]If your customer(boss) doesn’t think they’re getting their money’s worth they’ll “shop” somewhere else.[/quote]Buying people is slavery.

Freedom would be the other way around. Where bosses are the ones who sell jobs, and workers can choose to take it or go somewhere else.


#98

[quote=“inquirerer, post:96, topic:27058”]If the post office was the only way (government mandated) to ship packages, they would be both less efficient and more infuriating.[/quote]But more so than Comcast?
Which is only efficient at taking people’s money.

edit: And as evidence, comcast has lower approval ratings than congress.

I think we can both agree that free market competition is best, and arguing about which of the other options is worse is a bit of a moot point.


#99

I really don’t know that much about Comcast as I don’t believe I have ever used any of their services. I know they provide cable (and I guess internet) in some parts of the US, but there are so many sources of tv (and internet) that I can’t imagine they are really a monopoly anywhere. If people are unhappy with them, I don’t understand why they don’t switch to something else.

True enough. :+1:


#100

[quote=“inquirerer, post:99, topic:27058”]
I really don’t know that much about Comcast as I don’t believe I have ever used any of their services. I know they provide cable (and I guess internet) in some parts of the US, but there are so many sources of tv (and internet) that I can’t imagine they are really a monopoly anywhere. If people are unhappy with them, I don’t understand why they don’t switch to something else.[/quote]They are the ONLY cable and broadband internet service in large areas of the east coast (hence monopoly). Also, you can’t buy just internet from them, it’s the package deal or nothing. It’s $60/month for something that cost $25-30 in areas with competition. It also only has a 20% customer satisfaction rate.

Time Warner is in a similar situation, I think.