The universal basic income or income: operating debate

philosophical debates and companies.
phil53
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1376
Registration: 25/04/08, 10:26
x 202

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by phil53 » 08/12/20, 16:36

Exnihiloest wrote:
phil53 wrote:...
... an old man has just had covid, he is found to have advanced cancer, instead of letting him go with dignity, he is warned of his cancer before intubating him.
Is that useful, human?

That we warn him is essential if he has his head. In his place, I would have liked to know. We owe the truth to the sick.

I agree with you, but in her I would like someone to let me decide if I want to be intubated or not.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Exnihiloest » 08/12/20, 16:56

Remundo wrote:...
the "resources", precisely, if you do not "plunder the planet", are very limited, and what there is to share ...

This is what they want us to believe. Resources are unlimited, for the good reason on the one hand, concerning raw materials, that atoms do not disappear (or at the margin with nuclear), and on the other hand, concerning energy, because of its availability in phenomenal quantities for millions of years knowing that E = MC².
So if at some point we ran out of something really important, lithium, iron, neodymium or whatever, we would always have the solution to dig into our past waste. Even if the extraction may be more difficult, we trust technical progress and future generations to find the solutions of their time.

One would have had to be very stupid in the 19th century to give up coal in the name of future generations. They needed it for heating or to move their trains. On this principle, not only would progress, for example thanks to industrialization, have been no longer possible, but people condemned themselves to vegetate and to live in winter in unhealthy housing because they were poorly heated.

Environmentalism and its rehashed messages of "limited resources" is exactly that, wanting to sacrifice people today, for the planet and future generations. Needless to say that future generations, faced with this resignation of one or a few generations that will have preceded them, the future will say how many, will not benefit from anything at all from us, while we took advantage of our ancestors, for example with electrification of countries.
Contrary to the appearances it claims to give itself, ecologism is incapable of daring anything for the future. It is the ideology of heritage conservation as if it were necessary to stop at that of the present without creating a new one, the ideology of the management of a sustained shortage, the ideology of conservatism, of the lack of faith in man, and fear of the future. Environmentalism is an anti-humanist ideology which will sacrifice future generations by collapsing current generations.
Last edited by Exnihiloest the 08 / 12 / 20, 17: 01, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Exnihiloest » 08/12/20, 16:59

phil53 wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote:...
That we warn him is essential if he has his head. In his place, I would have liked to know. We owe the truth to the sick.

I agree with you, but in her I would like someone to let me decide if I want to be intubated or not.

Yes, I agree too. And that's the case. Because even if the doctors do not always wait for the green light (with good reason I think), a patient can always refuse to seek treatment.
0 x
User avatar
Macro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6459
Registration: 04/12/08, 14:34
x 1610

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Macro » 08/12/20, 18:02

Doctor I don't want to go to the hospital ... Let me die .....

But let's see mister one does not prevent the other, be reasonable, let me do my job : Cheesy:
1 x
The only thing safe in the future. It is that there may chance that it conforms to our expectations ...
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Ahmed » 08/12/20, 18:23

That's if you have the chance to meet a doctor, there is the possibility (?) To discuss, but imagine that it is a protocol?
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Remundo » 08/12/20, 18:52

phil53 wrote:Remundo, if at least you do not want to reason outside the framework that we are taught, it is a sterile debate.

I reason like a peasant from Arvernes. We have nothing without nothing.
For me the right, the left even the extremes there is no difference even the extremes especially want nothing to change except at the margin. This translates in democratic countries to elections with 49 51% of the vote.

I don't even put my thinking on the political level.
For the inheritance as you say you slashed your ass telling yourself that by distributing better your children would not have more.

In my personal case, it is certain that they would have less. But that is not the guide of my reflection.
If I am entitled to it without doing anything, obviously such a change should be accompanied by education over several years. At least a ten-year plan to put in place a system that breaks everything we know.

you can't imagine how the man (and the woman too) slumps if he knows he will have the right to something without doing anything. And when this right becomes unconditional, it's a very slippery slope ...
During the first strikes in the middle of the 19th century, the workers demanded work, they got it (these idiots as Coluche said). They should have claimed a decent life.
But religion and bosses advertised the reward of work, of course their work was worth more than that of those they exploited.

Religion has long been irrelevant in Western economic paradigms.

The best system has been found in France, with the National Council of the Resistance; where De Gaulle succeeded in bringing together all the vital forces of the Nation, from the Communists to the Rightists, to find a stimulating market economy backed by sufficient social protections. But all this only works through WORK and a common drive where everyone knows that the system will be more or less benevolent.

Inject an RU in there, I can't tell you if it's good or bad, because there are as many RUs as there are political sensitivities. But as you will have understood I am very reserved on this "ectoplasm" that nobody knows how to define clearly, neither in its contours of application, nor in its financing

The UK already exists partially, directly via CAF / social benefits of all kinds, or indirectly via public services benefiting French citizens.
On the other hand, I ask again: how will it be financed? all the rest is just salon discussion.
1 x
Image
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Remundo » 08/12/20, 19:25

Exnihiloest wrote:
Remundo wrote:...
the "resources", precisely, if you do not "plunder the planet", are very limited, and what there is to share ...

This is what they want us to believe. Resources are unlimited, for the good reason on the one hand, concerning raw materials, that atoms do not disappear (or at the margin with nuclear), and on the other hand, concerning energy, because of its availability in phenomenal quantities for millions of years knowing that E = MC².

Of course if resources are limited ...

the fact that the atoms keep themselves is not enough, when you have rust in front of you, you do not have pure iron. When you have a mountain in front of you, you don't have crushed ore, when you have a slick of crude or gas under your feet, you don't have gasoline in a can or a propane cylinder , etc ...

ACCESSIBLE resources are scarce, and in a world with potentially energy scarcity, resources with an EROEI lower than 1 are no longer accessible.
So if at some point we ran out of something really important, lithium, iron, neodymium or whatever, we would always have the solution to dig into our past waste. Even if the extraction may be more difficult, we trust technical progress and future generations to find the solutions of their time.

since recycling is never done at 100%, it pushes the problem of shortage to a later date without preventing its occurrence. And this under the optimistic assumption that there is always cheap energy to run the recycling industry.
One would have had to be very stupid in the 19th century to give up coal in the name of future generations. They needed it for heating or to move their trains. On this principle, not only would progress, for example thanks to industrialization, have been no longer possible, but people condemned themselves to vegetate and to live in winter in unhealthy housing because they were poorly heated.

The question of "progress" is indeed not settled. For example currently the overconsumption of fossil hydrocarbons allows 8 billion humans to live, including a few hundred million in wealth. It is a digital and qualitative progress, but it is also a huge setback for the environment, and the irreversible destruction on a human time scale of important resources (biological and mining in the broad sense)
Environmentalism and its rehashed messages of "limited resources" is exactly that, wanting to sacrifice people today, for the planet and future generations. Needless to say that future generations, faced with this resignation of one or a few generations that will have preceded them, the future will say how many, will not benefit from anything at all from us, while we took advantage of our ancestors, for example with electrification of countries.

to say that resources are limited is an indisputable fact. Afterwards, I'm not too much of a “Khmer Greens” fan either.
Contrary to the appearances it claims to give itself, ecologism is incapable of daring anything for the future. It is the ideology of heritage conservation as if it were necessary to stop at that of the present without creating a new one, the ideology of the management of a sustained shortage, the ideology of conservatism, of the lack of faith in man, and fear of the future. Environmentalism is an anti-humanist ideology which will sacrifice future generations by collapsing current generations.

In fact, we have to find a middle ground between frenzied decline and excessive extractivism. For this we need to limit demographic growth, to lower consumption per individual, and to make our sources of energy and materials mainly renewable ... a whole program! Technically it is not impossible ... technically and to a certain extent, huh ...
0 x
Image
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Ahmed » 08/12/20, 21:59

... in a world in potentially energy shortage, resources with an EROEI of less than 1 are no longer accessible.

You are optimistic: in reality everything stops before reaching 1, since the operating costs must also be taken into account.
1 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Exnihiloest » 10/12/20, 21:49

Macro wrote:Doctor I don't want to go to the hospital ... Let me die .....

But let's see mister one does not prevent the other, be reasonable, let me do my job : Cheesy:

Excellent! : Lol:
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Exnihiloest » 10/12/20, 21:56

Remundo wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote:
Remundo wrote:...
the "resources", precisely, if you do not "plunder the planet", are very limited, and what there is to share ...

This is what they want us to believe. Resources are unlimited, for the good reason on the one hand, concerning raw materials, that atoms do not disappear (or at the margin with nuclear), and on the other hand, concerning energy, because of its availability in phenomenal quantities for millions of years knowing that E = MC².

Of course if resources are limited ...

the fact that the atoms are conserved is not enough, when you have rust in front of you, you do not have pure iron ...

Fault ! You still have that much iron, and when you have energy, you can always go back and extract the pure iron from the compound. It's elementary physics / chemistry. But energy, we have it.
Do you think pure iron comes out of mines ?! that pure aluminum comes out of the mines ?! Minerals are generally never pure. And among the iron ores, there are iron oxides. So getting the iron out of the rust, or the ores, it's all the same. You should educate yourself before expressing yourself.

In fact, we have to find a middle ground between frenzied decline and excessive extractivism. For this we need to limit population growth

We understood that. Given the sums planned to be swallowed up for a useless fight against CO2, ecologism is likely to succeed, because all this will be reflected, especially in the poorest countries (but I hope that they will not be so stupid to sabotage themselves, that the Western democracies), by deaths and by a standard of living which will hold more survival and will oppose (perhaps) to the human proliferation.
Ecologists are neo-Malthusians, we know that. And we verify once again that they are counterproductive, because it is the increase in the standard of living that decreases the populations, not the opposite!
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Society and Philosophy"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Bing [Bot] and 186 guests