One World

48) The Money Tree

Posted 2nd December 2016

As time goes on, more and more human jobs are likely to be 'lost' to robots and computer systems that can perform tasks much more cheaply, quickly and reliably than their human predecessors. How could a human compete with, say, a robot which runs on free solar energy, operates 24 hours a day all year round, is perfectly reliable, and much quicker than the most skilled human? The upside of such automation is the off-loading of mundane tasks, the provision of lots of free time, and the production of an abundance of all necessary goods to sustain health and happiness. The downside of such automation is that humans have ever less employment opportunities from which to derive an income to pay for such goods.

In recognition of the trend for increasing human redundancy due to automated production processes, the idea of a 'universal basic income' is being entertained in some countries. 'Universal basic income' is the concept where everyone is given a sum of money each month, regardless of personal circumstances (including whether or not the recipient chooses to work to earn more money), sufficient to pay for their basic needs.

I think 'universal basic income' is 'a step in the right direction'. It would allow everyone to be provided with what they need in order to live healthily. That is, to be meaningful, the monthly income would be sufficient to allow every individual to afford healthy food, clean water, practical clothing, a comfortable home, etc. People would then be free to follow their heart's desire and contribute to society in the manner which is most satisfying to them. Some people would embark on further education; write a book or play; develop as a performing artist; volunteer to help others; and so on, or simply choose not to work or study at all. There is great potential for 'universal basic income', when applied across the Globe, to free everyone on Earth from economic slavery, and improve the health and happiness of the Earth's population as a whole.

'Universal basic income' is an improvement on the status quo (where currently many suffer through poverty, and many struggle on with jobs they don't enjoy). However, we should aim for perfection, that is, a system where every generation on Earth is happy and healthy for all time to come. 'Universal basic income' falls short of this ideal for at least two significant reasons: -

1) There remains the potential to acquire great financial wealth if one chooses to engage in a high paying job. Therefore, there will remain the incentive to make unethical, corrupt choices which could be harmful to individuals or, indeed, the whole Earth if a great monetary reward is on offer.

For example, exploiting fossil fuel reservoirs as highly profitable sources of energy, whilst suppressing (e.g. through lobbying or buying patents) developments in clean energy sources/clean engines/clean energy storage etc., and encouraging and coercing consumers to buy polluting technology, would contribute to harming public health due to air pollution and climate change, and could put the long term future of the planet as a human-friendly habitat in serious jeopardy. That is, many of the ugly consequences of single-mindedly chasing cash at any cost will remain.

2) Another social issue not addressed by 'universal basic income' is that of poor personal choices and addictions. As discussed, for 'universal basic income' to be meaningful, that is, to free people from economic slavery, it should be an amount which covers the cost of all basic needs for health and happiness. However, the recipient may have an addiction that causes him or her to make bad choices with their money, e.g. gambling, visiting prostitutes, using drugs, alcoholism, extravagant spending etc. Or, simply through poor education in home economics or a lack of will power, the individual may spend their money on unhealthy foodstuffs low in nutritional value or which are actively harmful (and all of these vices will be readily provided for as they are highly profitable as described in 1 above). This would mean that such people, as well as possibly actively harming themselves, would suffer through not having enough money left over to buy what they need to return to good health. They could be given more money, but they may only go deeper into their addictions and/or neglect of their own personal welfare. Now, studies may show that, statistically, most people would be responsible with their monthly income, but we should not neglect the minority who aren't able to manage so well. A perfect system is one where everyone is cared for to an excellent standard, not just the majority to a basic standard.

So, why not just 'miss out the middleman', i.e.money? Why not, instead of giving a monthly amount of cash entrusted to every individual to make healthy personal choices, give everyone what they actually need? That is, actually give everyone a comfortable home; freely provide a healthy, tasty, varied diet; provide a rich variety of excellent entertainment choices (commercial advert free); etc. That is, to counter the threat of corruption driven by the prospect of material reward (money, property, high-priced products, etc.), and to take care of every individual of every generation to be born on planet Earth, I think a 'resource-based economy' (as defined by 'The Venus Project') is required to be applied across the whole Earth. I learned a few days ago that another name for a 'resource-based economy' is a love economy. Now that seems like it could be perfection.    

"Fragile Planet"