Whether big or small. We all have that one thing from Scifi we wished were real. I’d love to see a cool underground city with like a SkyDome or a space hotel for instance.
Future.
UBI. Not only is it viable but it works in improving everyone’s lives, not just the people receiving it.
Sure, but have you considered that this would loosen the hold capitalism has on the wage slaves? Won’t someone think of the shareholders‽
Exactly, what are those useless sociopaths supposed to be doing now? Actual labor? Come on…!
At best it would prop up capitalism until we can replace it with something better.
It’s literally just giving people more money to shove into the capitalist system. You don’t change a system by feeding it.
I won’t say it’s a bad thing… but it’s not a solution. It’s a stop gap.
It’s probably a necessary step towards dismantling the monetary system entirely, though.
In the Star Trek future, they couldn’t accomplish that until they perfected Replicator technology.
There were no replicators in TOS
TOS was just the dress rehearsal for the real Star Trek universe.
Is there a specific mention of that, or just something people assume? I googled a single reddit thread, which clearly makes me an expert (/s), and it seemed as though money was really just kind of a fuzzy concept up until they declared they didn’t use money sometime around Star Trek 4.
UBI will be necessary when the combination of AI and robotics creates a permanent 35+% unemployment rate. We will have to institute UBI, or reduce the population by that much. Which objective will each party choose to support, and how will they accomplish it?
Which objective will each party choose to support, and how will they accomplish it?
One leading party often seems willing to accept war as a means to ends they care about.
In a total lack of contrast, the other leading party seems roughly equally willing to accept war as a means to ends they care about.
The bigger question that bothers me is how much war exactly will they feel is needed for any population reduction they feel is necessary?
And will it be more war than the amount of war I would have otherwise participated in, in my lifetime?
War is a useful tool to reduce populations, but fairly inefficient until they start throwing bombs around. It can’t be the only strategy.
Another good strategy is to restrict access to medical care. Make it incredibly expensive, so costly that many people will choose to die, rather then burden their families with the cost.
Another good one is to end childhood vaccines. A good pandemic can wipe out millions. Of course, this is only happening in America, so the wealthy will be able to afford vaccines from foreign countries, and survive any strategic pandemics. I wouldn’t be surprised if Stephen “PeeWee Himmler” Miller released a deadly virus on purpose, something like Ebola, just to speed the process along.
Then there is Climate Change, which is wreaking havoc on our environment, and causing far worst storms and floods. Restrict or even end FEMA, and our annual natural disasters can claim victims with much more efficiency.
Criminalize EVERYTHING, and throw more people in prison, where the mortality rate is much higher. Allow the military/ law enforcement to fire on protesters. Allow police to kill without consequences.
Prohibit Birthright Citizenship, allowing the deportation of millions of American citizens. Don Jr, Ivanka, and Eric are all Birthright Citizens, so they should be deported as well, but we all know that Aristocrats won’t be included.
And if doing all this, and more, doesn’t reduce the population fast enough, we can always go down the proven path of Death Camps.
Why not just distribute the resources themselves, rather than tokens to exchange for resources? If we have post scarcity, we won’t need money
There’s a few reasons. Firstly greed is a motivator, and people work hard if they believe they’ll receive more for more effort. This gets people to go out and generate the resources that need to be distributed. Second, fungible tokens allow people to trade on the open market instead of having to find a particular person who is willing to trade say, a worm gear for a bale or two of cotton. The token is the middle man that allows someone trying to sell something sell to someone who doesn’t have what the seller plans to finally trade for. That’s why money started to exist in the first place.
Even in a communist system, there needs to be a way to transfer the results of labor into the things a person needs. Money is that way. Even if it means everyone gets the same amount of money to buy what they need. Everyone’s resource needs are different. You can’t just say everyone gets the exact same everything.
Finally, we’re not post-scarcity. Not really. Until resource manufacture is so automated that it doesn’t require people to do labor to acquire it, we either pay people to do the labor or we force them to via slavery. For that reason alone, we need money.
As I said to the other person, there can be a donation and request system to make sure everyone gets what they need, without tying money into it and having this weird limit of the amount of stuff people can get, and tying the idea of value to it all.
Because distributing resources equally is a bad idea since people are individuals. You’re giving 1 chicken to the guy that loves chicken and the same amount to the vegetarian. If instead you give h both the money for 1 chicken they can decide whether they want the chicken or something else.
You don’t need currency for that. You just need a request system. And ideally some form of moral rejection mechanism that refuses to distribute sentient beings as resources. I didn’t say it had to be distributed equally just because there’s no money.
Oh, is that all
Chicken and vegetarian was just an example, also the chicken was implicitly dead in my example so it was no longer sentient, also also there might be non moral reasons, which paint color do we give people for their walls? How often? Etc etc etc.
In the request system you propose there needs to be some sort of pointing or valuation, requesting a car should not be equivalent to requesting an apple. Whatever form of valuation you use for that, there’s your currency. Not to mention that for the requesting system to be able to work the government would need to own all products so it can redistribute them according to requests, and what would it do if 100 people requested something that only 50 were made? It’s a nice idea but it becomes very complicated very fast, whereas using currency takes away all of that complication and gives you something tangible that could be implemented tomorrow instead of in 20 years being very generous.
Just because something is easier to implement doesn’t mean it will work better.
Honestly, that’s the biggest hurdle our current economic systems are facing. People go for the easy option that seems like it should work instead of the longer term plan that has more flexibility and chance for success.
The problem with your suggestion is that it still hinges on the capitalist system to provide for people. And thus is far easier to exploit.
Yeah sure, but you have got to be realistic, you’re talking about a 20/50 year plan even if you get everyone to agree with it. Yes, Capitalism is bad, yes there are problems with UBI, but the thing you’re proposing is impossible, whereas UBI is something that could be implemented tomorrow, and would set a good foundation to move things in the right direction. Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good.
Yes, but if you do it in the form of currency without changing the system in which the currency is used, it’s just feeding that system. Are capitalists suddenly going to be less greedy, and more likely to care about their compatriots instead of eager to exploit them because we give them more power and more money?
No. They won’t. They’ll just find better ways to exploit this sudden surge of basically free money.
Sure, other stuff needs to change as well, but using currency for an UBI is the easiest and fastest way to implement it.
I mean… yeah… that’s what UBI is.
I was criticizing UBI as a concept, not how it’s implemented.
I find it funny who ubi proponents say we need UBI because capitalism failed to have wages match cost of living and simultaneously say UBI will fix it with capitalism.
Housing is expensive because there isn’t enough. If capitalism could fix it, then housing would have at a minimum matched inflation and should have decreased in price because of technology improvements. So giving people more money absolutely cannot fix the housing crisis. UBI would be a handout for landlords.
When demand is the problem in a supply/demand economy, you can’t fix it with more demand (cash).
Capitalism means that they stop building before the price dips below wildly profitable, because capital is risk adverse. Capitalism won’t, not can’t, fix these problems.
A large institution may be risk averse. But a smaller firm trying to gain ground in the market would likely be more than happy to take on the risk and slimmer margins. After all, if capitalism wasn’t okay with slim margins, then restaurants and grocery stores wouldn’t exist.
Yes, and then that smaller firm fails because they take too many risks that have little chance of success. They end up being bought up by the larger firms, and all their assets put towards those higher value investments.
Given that capitalism is a system, not an individual with intention, “won’t” is the wrong word.
Capitalism fails to meet housing demand because it is constrained by regulations about things like single family zoning, setbacks, parking minimums, or minimum floor areas; and because the perverse incentives of current taxation schemes regarding the inelastic supply of land don’t incentivize land owners to put their land to its highest and best use.
Housing is a bad example of capitalism failing because the problems developers face are extremely well known and understood. Remove the frivolous regulations, adopt a georgist tax policy, and build good public infrastructure, and you’ll get far more housing than you currently have far faster than you are currently building it. Could government do better? Maybe… but I have yet to see that evidence.
Capitalism fails to meet housing demand because it is constrained by regulations about things like single family zoning,
That’s not true because when given an opportunity to build housing, developers always choose to build higher margin premium housing. Capitalism incentivizes profit and there’s no profit in cheap housing.
There is plenty of profit to be made in cheap housing, just like there is plenty of profit to be made in cheap food. You can go to the grocery store right now and buy a tomato for not very much money, and the store that sold it, and trucker who transported it, and the farmer that grew it will all make money - despite food’s famously slim margins.
The situation with housing is more like this: the government has dictated that only 5 acres of land in the country can be used to grow tomatos. And each tomato plant can only grow a maximum of 10 tomatos. If you are a tomato farmer, what do you do? Well, since you can’t grow as many tomatos as you want, you start looking for ways to increase your margin on each tomato you sell - selling the most appealing, perfect, organic tomatos you can.
So it is with housing. When the government finally approves the development of some denser housing in a desireable part of town, the developer wants to build the highest margin housing that they can, since they won’t be able to build 50 more apartment buildings. So they build luxury apartments. However, if the government said “you can build as much and as densly as you like on any plot of land here”, then developers would probably start with more luxury housing, but would likely run out of luxury renters quite quickly. But then they would simply seek out more profit with the slimmer margins available in affordable housing development.
Along with UBI, there also needs to be UBH, and other basic needs.
UBI would be amazing for the economy. It’s basically Trickle UP economics. The money will still eventually end up in the pocket of some rich guy, but at least it will grease the gears of the economy on the way up.
UBI would be amazing for the economy.
Citation needed
Free food.
How exactly is free food (or free anything) achievable within our current technological level?
We easily produce enough food to feed everyone with our current technology level. Making it free and available to everyone is mostly a logistics and economic problem.
We have the technology to do this. What we lack is the economic willingness to actually do it. We are literally letting people starve to death because they don’t have the money to buy food. The USA literally pays farmers not to grow food to keep prices artificially high.
On Nov. 15, 2021 the WFP published a spending plan showing how $6.6 billion would be used to provide food assistance to 42 million people in 43 countries. The plan included $3.5 billion for food procurement and delivery, $2 billion for cash and food vouchers, $700 million to develop country-specific programs, and $400 million for administration, oversight, and logistics. Beasley tweeted the link directly to Musk, adding, “You asked for a clear plan & open books. Here it is!”
If 6.6 Billion could end starvation in 43 countries than I don’t see what is stopping us from making food free other than greed.
The Golden Temple in India has fed >50,000 people for free (Langar) every single day for fucking centuries.
First explain to me what technological limits are creating the food scarcity we’re experiencing.
Sounds to me like you don’t understand the question.
The food scarcity is certainly not due to technological limitations, but we very much can’t create food for free. The food you eat is produced by the very hard work of many people, most (probably all) of them severely underpaid. In a fair world it will be these people the ones receiving the fruit of their labor instead of some rich bastards, but I don’t think food will be cheaper, maybe even the opposite.
I understand the question, maybe you don’t understand how the world works.
We throw out massive amounts of food every year, often because it sits too long and rots.
We have the technology to fix this. Corporations just don’t.
If we have the technology to fix this, why arent the corporations using it to make more money on the food they made instead of throwing it away?
Fusion energy. Man, we are so close!
Yeah, you know what they say: only thirty more years.
With adequate funding. That’s the part that always gets omitted. We haven’t been funding the research to make it happen.
I’m confident that we could set up permanent human habitation on the Moon or on Mars with our current level of technology, and that’s featured pretty prominently in sci-fi.
I don’t know if it would actually provide a cost-effective return, but I do think that it’d be interesting to see happen in my lifetime.
Vegas can make money from tourusm in a desert, a hotel on the moon (with a casino) will do just fine.
According to this article, a tourist space flight is/will cost $450,000. That’s just to break earth’s atmosphere. Tack on the additional cost of several days of space flight to reach and return from the moon, plus breaking the Moon’s gravity to return, plus the cost of building, maintaining, and staffing a moon base. Costs would be unbelievably prohibitive.
Vegas, meanwhile, is built on draining gambling-addicted grandmas’ pension funds. You can’t target that demo on the moon.
Well, NASA was in the process of doing that already. It’s still on the calendar, but who knows if Trump will let it continue or not.
We could have been doing this since the 70s. Nothing sci-fi about it. The plans to do it are outlined in:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Frontier:_Human_Colonies_in_Space
When humanity turned it’s back on this project, we sealed our fate as a failed planet.
Why think small?
The asteroids are just sitting there.
We could move all of Earth’s heavy industries off planet.
Something tells me you’ve not worked much in said heavy industries. That is scifi hopium.
Just so I don’t waste my time, why don’t you list all the degrees you hold in chemistry, astrophysics, and mining engineering? Then show the research you did that shows why it would be impossible. Please cite as many references as you can.
We could definitely move into industry in space, but a lot of technology still needs to be developed. I think we now have the capacity to launch factories in pieces into space, but asteroid mining remains a technical challenge due as we now know that many asteroids are not so compacted. Furthermore, refining the raw materials in space can’t really be done right now, we probably could figure it out, but parts of the production chain do depend on gravity so we’d need to figure out artificial gravity on a rotating station or do some more direct kind of centrifugal refining. All hurdles we could probably cross. Then comes the question of what you drop back down from space and how you do it. Current heat shield technologies are generally poorly reusable, and even if we were we’d have to be flying the reentry devices back into space. Unless we create a cheap means to protect something from reentry that can be manufactured in space as a disposable, most goods would never be returned to earth. Unless we just refine giant cubes of rare metals and drop them into the ocean to be collected. I think most things made in space would be limited to serving those in space, or in lower gravity locations such as the moon or other asteroid bases. I would love to work on these challenges but there’s very few companies working on these challenges outside of a couple of asteroid capture startups that seem to have no further vision.
Cybernetics
Terraforming.
The formerly-water deserts can be terraformed by just digging holes at specific angles so the shadow protects plants from drying up.
It’s sci-fi not like a “future robot” thing but more of a “hey if we know the math we can do this reliably well” type of thing.
Also those expensive EEG headbands that track your brain during sleep and give you stats can be modified to change TV channel at specific brainwave values.
I don’t know why I haven’t thought about terraforming earth until I read it in a sci Fi book and it seemed like the simplest and best thing to do, over terraforming mars or Venus. We have the tech for bioengineering, cloud seeding (I think), chemicals to help stimulate growth of natural plants (at least for the ocean).
I’ve got good news for you! We’ve been terraforming the planet to be more like Arrakis for a couple decades already!
Ah, the chapterhouse: Dune strategy
Universal healthcare and living wages for everyone.
They said scifi, not fantasy :p
A caring society
Terraform a planet.
Not like those dead rocks out there such as Mars or the Moon though, I mean like terraform Earth.
If we can’t even manage the pollution and climate change right here on Earth, how the fuck they think they’re gonna bring dead space rocks to life?
At the current rate, wherever humans go, we’ll just bring our trashy ways with us…
Terraforming Earth. Making Earth Earthlike.
That sounds like socialism!
That’s called geoengineering generally
And it’s a very bad idea to experiment geoengineering with Earth. You don’t develop in production.
Flying cars.
Asteroid mining.
Maybe a Moon or Mars colony.
End poverty.
Universal basic income/ post scarcity society.
Least to most fictional I think.
We have flying cars. They’re called helicopters. And the limits to us having post scarcity are all societal/political, not technological.
The limit is skill and discipline.
Most people can’t even drive a car that is held on the ground by gravity. You want them to…fly?
Its kinda harder to crash when you add an extra dimention (more space to freely maneuver around)
Flying cars.
Not just no, hell no. I’ve driven in Tennessee.
Yeah I wouldn’t want them with people driving then, I’d definitely want some sort of automation to be in charge especially if there were similar amounts to road traffic.
That may be okay, but not if Musk is within a thousand miles of coding the automation.
Public transportation.
RELIABLE public transport. I guess that’s too sci-fi
[ WWWWWWW sounds in the distance ]
Do you hear that? It’s the Japanese laughing at your comment.
Oh look, another 'Murican “only the US exists” type comment.
Public transportation is common worldwide.
Wow this hits the feels so hard… Like it’s impressive how hard we have worked against this goal…
Slow down there. Keep it reasonable
Mech suits.
We have them IRL… Kinda. They’re just hydraulic powered limb-augmentation things but there’s absolutely no reason they couldn’t be like an Alice from Aliens. Shit; we could probably do MechWarrior mechs just not the same scale right now, or even an Iron Man like suit if time was spent trying.
The most fictional thing about a lot of these is mostly the power source. How do you power it? But a tank with legs could just be powered by a normal engine.
I’m an engineer in R&D and have briefly worked on an exoskeleton project. The reason we don’t have mech suits is that the capitalist market doesn’t demand them much, at least with our current technology.
There are two primary markets for them: medical, and manufacturing. I worked on the medical side–the big challenge there is making devices that are light enough that the mech helps more than it hinders. The biggest challenge is power: batteries are heavy. As we continue to figure out more efficient power storage and efficiency techniques, you could see more of these devices out in the wild.
The manufacturing market is growing, though most applications there are less “mech suit” and more “assistive arm” type of things.
So you want wanzers.
Seriously though, realize that if we ger Mecha, it’s going to be more like Armored Core. Or a game set in an AC4 AU, Metal Wolf Chaos.
Do you want the US President (especially the current one, to have something like that, and be told to believe in his own justice?
IDK why they would need to be that big. I don’t even think physics would allow them to be that big. The scale of these things in fiction is pretty absurd. Especially the big walker boss in AC6. Your AC is already like 4 stories tall, and that thing makes you look like an ant.
Reasons I can think of for the size:
- Ammunition is large and needs to be stored carefully so it doesn’t explode. And this thing will either need extremely heavy batteries, or carefully protected tanks of fuel onboard - or both. So that’s going to massively add to the weight.
- Human beings are soft and squishy. We’d need huge amounts of suspension for the purpose, plus the matter of armor. Think about how large a jet plane really is, or a tank.
- Physical laws around mass and movement. Tanks are as small as they are because treads are effective at transferring torque and creating linear acceleration. If they were just on wheels, they would need to be larger. Legs would require huge amounts of mass to safely support the machine, and we’d need to have excellent stabilizer systems in addition to the suspension mentioned above so that you don’t fall flat on your face
- Passive cooling (which would probably be necessary for safety - you don’t want a sniper stopping your whole mech by shooting a few fans) requires wide surface areas to dump the exhaust heat.
That’s all I can immediately justify, but basically, it would have to be huge.
And this thing will either need extremely heavy batteries, or carefully protected tanks of fuel onboard - or both. So that’s going to massively add to the weight.
This is the sole reason we can’t have mechs until we develop high energy portable nuclear power, or discover something equally as capable.
A rocket launching satellites is like 90% fuel, the structure is remarkably similar to the thickness of a tin can, and it only carriers a few thousand pounds of payload, all while only running for a minute or so before being empty. We simply don’t have the power capability for anything approaching a large mech without it having to be wired to a power grid.
We already know what a president with a robot body is like.
I’m going to go against the trend here and say that libertarian corporate city-states actually sound pretty cool. They’re generally not portrayed positively in fiction but I think they might work well in practice. I’m a lot less optimistic about cooperating with all my fellow Americans in order to govern the whole country democratically than I used to be. Choosing to move to an independent city-state with a government that I agree with (albeit one I don’t elect) might work better.
Gonna be hard to move to Amazonia if all you’ve got in terms of money are Zuckbucks.
You’ll get more interest in an anarcho-syndicalist zone.
Found Peter Thiel’s account
yeah, being blacklisted and exiled from modern society all because I called great leader “Fuckerberg” in 2010.
so fucking cool /s
Look at the companies that are really successful. Telecoms, Amazon, Nestle… the big ones. Note the trend of every single one of them doing the absolute most unethical shit they possibly can to make a quick buck. Do you really want to hand them things like a military/police force, or authority over your civil liberties?
Not to say that existing governments aren’t also abusing those powers, but do you seriously think your life would improve if you gave that power over to fucking Comcast or something??
Corporations are predictable - they try to make money. If their profit motive aligns with my own interests, then what they do will be good for me. Amazon, for example, sells me all sorts of things for low prices and with great customer support. My interests and corporate interests won’t necessarily align and that’s why exit rights are so important, but at least I will still be dealing with an entity acting more-or-less rationally.
If their profit motive aligns with my own interests
Their profit motive does not align with your interests - not by choice. Their hand was forced by labor and consumer protection laws. Take off the legal constraints, and suddenly their business model includes things like slavery, child labor, unsafe work conditions, insane hours, monopolies… these aren’t crazy-extreme hypotheticals, they’re things we’ve had to actively step in and say “no!” before because they were actually happening.
Companies are not your friend. They’re not even a symbiotic parasite: they’re a barely contained cancer.
Plenty of other people’s interests don’t align with mine either - these days, it seems like most people’s interests don’t. What makes a corporation less reliable than my fellow Americans?
Divisions of power. Notice how shit things are getting under the Trump administration due to his (successful) attacks on our checks and balances.
Handing the reigns over to a corporation would be a similar situation, except that a corporation doesn’t waste half its time playing golf or shitposting on twitter.
Imagine a Trump that doesn’t eat, doesn’t sleep, isn’t stupid, and doesn’t have any legal framework to tell him ‘no’ …and can’t just be assassinated by a fed up civilian. Literally no checks and balances, including vigilante justice.
…also did you see the bit about slavery and monopolies and such? Kinda seems like we’re glossing over that to address relative alignment of interests, which is moot as fuck when things like slavery and monopolies are on the table.
The problem is capitalism and corporations. We don’t need fiction to see those two don’t work, they don’t work in real life.
the end of scarcity. that’s a totally bogus concept that capitalism uses to keep the rich in power. we produce far more than the whole of humanity would need to feed and cloth themselves, and we have more houses empty than there are families. we could end poverty right now, we just choose not to.
Well more accurately, some of us did chose that for the whole of us
you got me there. there’s plenty of us who would love to see everyone get a fair share.
Not just capitalism, but all forms of corrupt, greedy governments.
which are all capitalist, thank you for agreeing with me.
deleted by creator
At no point did I even give the barest, most minute, even microscopic hint that corruption and greed were exclusive to capitalist societies. So I would not, in fact, be mistaken about anything I said.
The whole “we have plenty of housing if only the greedy capitalists would give it to us” claim is very much false. Empty homes are typically empty for a reason. They are being remodelled, or are searching for new renters, or have been condemned, or are in a legal limbo of some sort, etc. The idea that rich people are buying homes en masse and then keeping them empty makes no sense, since they would make more money by buying those homes and then renting them - then they get appreciated home values and rent money to warm their cold, capitalist hearts.
What is actually happening is far more mundane: people are moving to more desireable areas, and are choosing to live in smaller households. A two bedroom home that used to house mom and dad and Jack and Jill in their bunk beds now houses only Jill, plus her home office. And you can’t force Jill to take in a homeless man as a roommate, at least not in a democratic society.
The idea that rich people are buying homes en masse and then keeping them empty makes no sense
Yeah, which is why Zillow’s house flipping business was a disaster and they’ve backed out of doing that. Capitalism does not make sense, you’re absolutely right, and unfortunately we’re at the tail end of its collapse so we get to deal with the last gasps of a system that never made sense, was never sustainable, and prioritized short-term profits over long term financial stability.
None of that changes the fact that we don’t live in a world where people need to be homeless because we can’t house them. Nor do they need to be hungry because we can’t feed them. And the only thing holding us back from feeding and housing everyone is mindsets like yours, where you’re so stuck in the old way of doing things because that’s all you’ve ever known that you can’t even imagine a better world. The funny fucking thing about that is there used to be a time when nobody could imagine a world without kings and emperors, but guess what? Just like the power of kings, the economy is a fantasy. We made it up, it’s a bunch of nonsense rules, and at any time we can just decide not to listen to that bullshit.
And before you start in with any “what abouts” or other nonsense, consider for a second that you’re simping for a wholly imaginary system that has no basis in reality or a physical existence, and also that I do not care to listen to your brain react with shock and horror at the idea of things being different.
Goodbye, and good day.
