What would you do if you get an extra $1000 every month?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'd argue this would be far worse given the growing technology behind autonomous weaponry and the fact that largely no civil body nowadays outside the US is stocked for prolonged warfare.

Nothing is done without sacrifice.

Props for at least being brave enough to admit your ideas would cause vast human suffering and still sticking to it.

[Kowani]

A robot can do all of those jobs, and cheaper than a person can. Heck, the only ones that we’d still need people for today would be the repairmen for really complex jobs, ‘cause delicate servos are expensive, and perhaps the admen/salesmen while we get past the uncanny valley.

A robot can't caption calls. Not to any useful degree of accuracy. That requires the ability to make inferences, and a manner of thinking that allows for gray areas between "=true" and "=false" that computers simply cannot do, and will not be able to do until we fundamentally change the way they work.

Ah. As if right now, that’s true. However, the computer and artificial intelligence is ever evolving, and although it is not close to being done, it is not implausible. Nor is it feasible for everyone to work by captioning calls.

[Jebslund]

A robot can't caption calls. Not to any useful degree of accuracy. That requires the ability to make inferences, and a manner of thinking that allows for gray areas between "=true" and "=false" that computers simply cannot do, and will not be able to do until we fundamentally change the way they work.

Ah. As if right now, that’s true. However, the computer and artificial intelligence is ever evolving, and although it is not close to being done, it is not implausible. Nor is it feasible for everyone to work by captioning calls.

Not close is an understatement. Barring some kind of freak breakthrough, we're centuries from developing computers capable of doing so. And that limitation applies to every field requiring soft skills, too. Machines are many things, but flexible is not one of them, and there are jobs for which flexibility is needed.

[Ifreann]

We have lives beyond work, no?

Yes, but society as it currently exists is not ready for large scale automation.

I guess we'll have to change society then.

---

Probably for the same reason (or lack thereof) why the human race has existed for more than 200,000 years?

What I’m saying is that if the robots are smart enough to repair themselves, engineer, and design themselves and manufacture themselves without human input than there is no real reason for the robots to continue service to humans. And therefore there’s no reason why robots won’t remove humans from government and all other parts of life.

Human artists would be the next to go as robots would at that point be able to make art just as good/even better than humans

Is this actually the real reason you want to ban automation? Fear of a sci-fi robot uprising? A zeroth law revolution?

[Kowani]

Nothing is done without sacrifice.

Props for at least being brave enough to admit your ideas would cause vast human suffering and still sticking to it.

Thank you, I think.

Ah. As if right now, that’s true. However, the computer and artificial intelligence is ever evolving, and although it is not close to being done, it is not implausible. Nor is it feasible for everyone to work by captioning calls.

Not close is an understatement. Barring some kind of freak breakthrough, we're centuries from developing computers capable of doing so. And that limitation applies to every field requiring soft skills, too. Machines are many things, but flexible is not one of them, and there are jobs for which flexibility is needed.

Laughs in nanotechnology.

[Jebslund]

Laughs in nanotechnology.

*laughs in 'making tech smaller does not mean making it able to deal with gray areas and other nonbinary thinking and interpretation'*

[Sasebo Naval District]

Ignoring the fact of inflation and the fact the money would become useless, save up to go diving to the wreck of the IJN Nagato, the world's most chad warship to ever exist.

Iowa and Yamato are better

While I like them both, neither of them survived getting nuked twice.. Unlike the IJN Chadgato.

[Kowani]

Laughs in nanotechnology.

*laughs in 'making tech smaller does not mean making it able to deal with gray areas and other nonbinary thinking and interpretation'*

Oh, my bad. I thought you meant physical flexibility. In that case, yeah. We have a long wait ahead of us.

[-Ocelot-]

Seriously though inflation would go through the roof. The current welfare system costs 1/6th of of this proposal. I'm left leaning but shit like this is why I dislike the new reactionary far left.

UBI can only exist if capitalism exists. Therefore it's an inherently non-left wing concept.

Inflation isn't necessary for the implementation of a UBI. For one, you could distribute the money in a different currency that could only be used for specific essentials. Like food coupons but broader. Also UBIs are supposed to replace all other kinds of benefits, so it's not just giving everyone 1000$ on top of everything else.

[Torisakia]

Spend it all within 5 minutes like I do with all the money I get.

The idea of Yang and UBI makes me almost, almost want to consider voting. But then I remember that anything a presidential candidate "promises" never actually gets done so in the long run it's pointless.

[Thermodolia]

Yes, but society as it currently exists is not ready for large scale automation.

I guess we'll have to change society then.

---

What I’m saying is that if the robots are smart enough to repair themselves, engineer, and design themselves and manufacture themselves without human input than there is no real reason for the robots to continue service to humans. And therefore there’s no reason why robots won’t remove humans from government and all other parts of life.

Human artists would be the next to go as robots would at that point be able to make art just as good/even better than humans

Is this actually the real reason you want to ban automation? Fear of a sci-fi robot uprising? A zeroth law revolution?

No. It’s because they are a national security issue and they will cause mass unrest due to the massive amounts of unemployed people

[Satterthwaite]

40% would probably go to making investments, 40% would be spent on necessities (utilities, rent, etc), and the final 20% would be a designated "Fun Fund" where I basically get to do whatever I want with it.

[Chestaan]

I guess we'll have to change society then.

---

Is this actually the real reason you want to ban automation? Fear of a sci-fi robot uprising? A zeroth law revolution?

No. It’s because they are a national security issue and they will cause mass unrest due to the massive amounts of unemployed people

In what sense is that different from most technological progress?

[Washington Resistance Army]

No. It’s because they are a national security issue and they will cause mass unrest due to the massive amounts of unemployed people

In what sense is that different from most technological progress?

Gee, it sounds like technology is advancing faster than society. Again.

In a way never seen before. When we settled down into farming the former hunters and other tribe members had new occupations. When the industrial age began we could move into the factory lines. But with truly mass scale automation? You're worthless. Mostly everyone is, and most of the wealth created by that system isn't going to flow into your hands, it's going to flow into Amazon, Walmart, McDonalds etc etc. Without serious societal revamping beforehand automation would be a disaster that would lead to vast amounts of unrest.

[Ifreann]

I guess we'll have to change society then.

---

Is this actually the real reason you want to ban automation? Fear of a sci-fi robot uprising? A zeroth law revolution?

No. It’s because they are a national security issue

So are the systems we rely on now. Sure, maybe someone could hack the farmbots and cause a famine. Maybe someone could firebomb the fields and cause a famine before we ever invent farmbots.

and they will cause mass unrest due to the massive amounts of unemployed people

Why would unemployment cause unrest if we have robots providing for the material needs of the unemployed?

[Chestaan]

[

and they will cause mass unrest due to the massive amounts of unemployed people

Why would unemployment cause unrest if we have robots providing for the material needs of the unemployed?

Yeah see this is the point and it's why socialists oppose Luddism/Luddites. Less work producing the same or greater output should mean a better quality of life for everyone. If the system gets in the way of that then the system needs to be changed. Having to suppress technological progress that has the ability to better everyone's quality of life is absurd.

[Esternial]

I'm working on getting my motorcycle license and it ain't cheap - and I don't even have a motorcycle yet.

So it'll probably go to that.

[Purpelia]

Why would unemployment cause unrest if we have robots providing for the material needs of the unemployed?

Mostly because the people who have invested billions into developing those robots, building them and buying them have zero interest in handing out the products of their labor for free. It's the same reason why capitalists won't pay us workers more a tiny fraction of the money we actually produce working for them.

[CHUCK NORRlS]

Spend it all within 5 minutes like I do with all the money I get.

The idea of Yang and UBI makes me almost, almost want to consider voting. But then I remember that anything a presidential candidate "promises" never actually gets done so in the long run it's pointless.

Something tells me Yang is a rare exception.

I'm working on getting my motorcycle license and it ain't cheap - and I don't even have a motorcycle yet.

So it'll probably go to that.

Nice. For me, I feel comfortable with just a car. I might save up additional money for any necessary maintenance or repairs.

[Tulov]

Save it until I had enough to get better business equipment and a little to fall back on for the inevitable breaking and other problems, then quit taking it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Save it and buy an awesome suit of plate armor after saving up sufficiently.

[Xmara]

Use it to pay off the house faster, and then when the house is payed off, make some massive car payments and get that taken care of. Then tackle my student loan debts, and after that, save it for the future.

[Rostavykhan]

$1000? Barely pay off bills and necessities.

On the plus side, all the money from work can be used for investing and/or leisure.

[Ifreann]

[

Why would unemployment cause unrest if we have robots providing for the material needs of the unemployed?

Yeah see this is the point and it's why socialists oppose Luddism/Luddites. Less work producing the same or greater output should mean a better quality of life for everyone. If the system gets in the way of that then the system needs to be changed. Having to suppress technological progress that has the ability to better everyone's quality of life is absurd.

Under capitalism, if someone invents a new way of manufacturing widgets that halves the required manpower, it's a whole mess. Widget prices collapse as the market is flooded with cheap goods, people lose jobs left and right, the people with the new technology might form a widget monopoly for as long as it takes for someone else to figure out the trick.

Is the answer here really to ban new technology? We only need so many widgets, if we can make that many widgets with only half the manpower then shouldn't we just let all the widget workers switch to 20 hour work weeks?

---

Why would unemployment cause unrest if we have robots providing for the material needs of the unemployed?

Mostly because the people who have invested billions into developing those robots, building them and buying them have zero interest in handing out the products of their labor for free. It's the same reason why capitalists won't pay us workers more a tiny fraction of the money we actually produce working for them.

Then I guess we'll have to seize the means of production.

[Krasny-Volny]

The money would be put into a fund for paying recurring monthly expenses.

$1000? Barely pay off bills and necessities.

On the plus side, all the money from work can be used for investing and/or leisure.

Basically this. I'd use my actual paycheck for leisure. The stipend would be used for monthly bills.