thank you, this is a better reply at least.

that's the reality of why we doin't provide basic necessities to people today: it would be a lot more difficult to hoard wealth and lord over people if the threat of starvation wasn't a motivating factor. you'd have to pay more for your luxuries because people won't be forced to be part of your luxurious lifestyle. where would we get servants from? well, guess what, there are people who WANT to serve. it just isn't money that motivates them.

it's much simpler than that. people WANT to do things, believe it ot not. most people do anyway. they WANT to contribute. they just don't want to be threatened with starvation and homelessness if they don't do what the system deems worthy enough to be granted those things. we just have to find new ways to motivate people that don't include the get-rich scheme of the bullshit "American dream".

yeah i was brought into this fucked up system just like you. did you think i wasn't somehow? did you imagine the system we've been slaving that's existed for thousands of years somehow precludes me? and again, and for the last time, no one is suggesting that people don't have to do a single thing. that's just a straw man argument you want to argue against instead of the reality, and it's a lazy one. your entitled ass can't see past the stuff you were provided with. you're a useless child of rich parents, i can tell.

I'm done with your lazy privileged ass, sorry. wasted enough time on your straw men arguments. you're a shill whether you know it or not. the system helped you and so you're happy with it. you better hope you die before the system is upended because people like you will suffer when it happens. and it's coming. good luck hanging on to your privilege.

>Have a house in the middle of nowhere and be self sufficient.

you sound like an entitled shithead. yeah, just go and get a house somewhere. jesus you have no clue.

i know where you're going with this. you want it to be black and white, either everyone works slaving away at rigidly structured and segmented social ladder of a society or no one does anything at all and everyone just sits on their ass all day.

this is a strawmen. no one is suggesting that. how you reply next will decide whether i keep discussing this with you or not.

yes they have work to be done but it is independent of where they sleep and the food they eat. they're not making other people rich on the ship. if they're sick, they don't get medical help based on their job. they get fixed, no matter what their job is. just like in star trek, you're right, everyone should have basic needs met and you need to work to get anything else. that's what star treks shows us. star trek isn't a capitalistic utopia.

you read this as aggressively negative? if so, it's a reflection on you pal.

you have to define work differently. it's not just having to do anything a tall. that's not what work is in this context. of course we all have to do things. i make coffee every day. that would be defined as work in your silly argument.

>You need to contribute to society

who says? no one asked to be born into this shitty system. who decides what level of contribution is "enough"? you clark?

>A person living all alone in an otherwise uninhabited universe would be required to either work or suffer.

we need to define what "work" is in this context. and what it isn't. we shuoldn't define it as just doing things, like hunting, or picking mushrooms or even growing your own garden. because people out of work still do things like that. they travel distances and wait in lines, they fix their flat tires and make dinner. they put together furniture and help their friends move. all of this would be considered "work" in your definition here.

the trouble is the word work has many meanings. for it to be work in this context, in what we're talking about here, you have to have an employer. your work will most likely make your employer more money than you personally make from your job. or it's work that your employer does not want to do or can't do well, so he pays you to do it.

can you spot the difference between that type of work and work where you have no employer?

yeah, who would want to live in the best city in the world?

UBI will not help anything. as soon as you set a baseline amount, it can be circumvented. we just need to provide everyone with a simple place to live, even a room, food and medical attention when necessary. everything else you'd have to work for.

you can still have well-fed, housed and clothed poor people receiving adequate medical attention.

i'm in the field too and while you're right, it won't replace them completely, it will absolutely replace the worst maybe half of the people I've had to suffer working with over the decades. and i'd welcome it.

>What could have value without any struggle or work after all?

aren't you forgetting about new stuff? maybe we've been sitting on our laurels telling the same nine stories, reworking the same tired imagery on slightly different mediums for ten thousand years. we need to collectively up our game. we can compete, we just aren't yet. maybe we don't need to yet.

fuck twitter. anyone got a screenshot?

yes, it seems like we're already in the beginning of a long drawn out singularity. maybe it's basically as fast as we can advance right now. there may be other bottlenecks.

It's already happening. we're in the early stages where this "creature" is just learning to talk. it's been a few decades since childbirth but it makes sense since presumably, its lifespan will be a lot longer and possibly defined differently than our own.

well yeah, that's the point isn't it? the question is whether you have a full time staff squashing the debt as it's acquired, potentially wasteful, or you hire a team to come back in once the debt accumulates enough that it becomes a problem then send them off again.

arguments can be made for both positions but it's certainly not anything new.

yeah, i only have 20+ years experience, genius

entire teams are hired to create a product and then not used again.

people already know this. plenty of apps and what not are built by a team of engineers and those engineers are never used again until they want changes made, improvements, new features, bug fixes, etc. did twitter need all these engineers? it was obviously making enough money to keep them on staff or it wouldn't have them. you'd rather that money go to executives and shit like that? this isn't anything new. musk isn't traversing new ground. of course once an app is done few engineers are needed.