Hacker News Reader

>It completely contradicts the survival of the fittest notion (here in the context of work).

It doesn't because working gets you even more money. The contradiction lies in the idea of taxing work to pay for it.

Survive !== having a lot of money. UBI assures that all people are "survivable" w/o any effort. Therefore, there is no competition to survive in any case. Hence the contradiction.

Are you advocating that a good economic system is one that kills people who aren’t working? I just don’t clearly understand what you mean by “survive.”

For those who believe that a good economic system is one that kills the "least fit"...I wonder what their idea of an optimal ratio of fit-to-killed is. Should the policy levers be set so that each year 0.1% of the population starves/freezes/overheats to death, or 1%?

For a system which targets killing off "unfit" people, what would be signs of killing off too many people? Killing off too few?

Instead of a stack-ranking system, is there some minimum bar that they imagine people should have to exceed? I wonder how many people would have exceeded that bar 500 years ago, or 500 years from now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com