Hm. OK. If you'd prefer to talk about UBI (instead of my postscript), how about responses to these points:
On 5/4/21 6:35 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > a) How many people need employment for meaning? 10? 1M? How was that data > gathered? Where is that data? > > Worse yet, in a world defined such that you *die* unless you're employed, > it's circular reasoning to argue that employment gives meaning to life. The > only way to escape such a vicious circle is by providing other options. What > if people didn't die because they can't buy food, pay rent, etc? > > b) "The economy" is a diverse rhizome, not a needful entity. The concept of > "productive" vs. non-productive work implies an optimization objective. What > objective do you propose distinguishes productive from non-productive work? > Is art non-productive? Is strip mining productive? > > c) In a world where some people live long lives accumulating billions (soon > to be trillions - Musk? Bezos?) of US dollars, it's difficult to understand > how it might be too expensive. The only way I can make sense of that argument > is if you fundamentally believe in the argument that cumulative wealth is > *necessary* for some tasks (like colonizing Mars). If you believe that > society *must* have cumulative wealth stores (e.g. the government, Musk, > Bezos, etc.) in order to achieve [your favorite objectives], then that > implies the vast majority will need to be poor or near poverty. So, any > attempt to "lift all boats" is "too expensive". > > But the constraining argument is that those crystals around which wealth > accumulates have to come from somewhere. Efficient governments don't emerge > by accident. We don't (yet) know how to engineer the emergence of Musks and > Bezoses. That implies that we need a diverse pool of talent, most of which > will end up non- or less than optimally productive. But some subset of which > will be kernels needed for making progress on [your favorite objectives]. And > that diversity includes non-productive people who can't pay rent, buy > groceries, etc. > > Therefore, UBI is necessary for [your favorite objectives]. On 5/4/21 8:24 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > @ Glen, Thanks but no thanks. I'm just not interested in Ben Shapiro and not > going to waste my time researching him or even discussing him further. So > from my side about Ben Shapiro, I'm outa here and I'm not going to make > anymore comments on Ben. > > My interest when I started the thread was in UBI and I used the video clip > where, IMHO, Andrew Yang gave very good arguments for UBI. If you want to, in > a different thread, discuss Andrew Yang, I will certainly participate. I have > many good things to say about Andrew Yang. > > On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 17:07, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Yes, I understand you might feel that way. But this is part of the > shtick. It's a rhetorical tactic that very smart trolls hone and use well. To > get a better understanding of who you're listening to (one of the Five W's), > this article lays it out well: > > > https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/how-hollywood-invented-ben-shapiro > <https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/how-hollywood-invented-ben-shapiro> > > I also understand the typical reaction to apparent ad hominem. But, as > I've argued on this list before, most accusations of ad hominem are, > themselves, the fallacy fallacy. It may seem like I'm attacking the man, Ben > Shapiro. But I'm not. I'm attacking the *brand*, the troll persona he and his > agent have worked so hard to cultivate in order to colonize your mind. Ben > Shapiro is not Ben Shapiro. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
