# Richard Branson: Pay Citizens a Basic Income



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Yup. Branson says the U.S. and Europe should pay the citizens a "basic income." I'll bet you can guess what I think about that.

Branson Says Government Should Pay Basic Income ? Denton and Sasquatch


----------



## azrancher (Dec 14, 2014)

There you go plugging your web site again. :devil:

*Rancher*


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

How about Branson pay people a basic income? These idiots love to float ideas when they have no skin in the game. Time to put up or shut up!


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

...................


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

I read this article the other day. Funny how the rich come up with all these bright ideas but never offer up their cash. Pie in the sky NWO bull shit nonsense.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Sasquatch said:


> How about Branson pay people a basic income? These idiots love to float ideas when they have no skin in the game. Time to put up or shut up!


Exactly my initial reaction.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

What Branson doesn't say in his "income inequality" plan is that himself and his elitists want a major population reduction, along with the AI launch.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Ya gotta love it, the way some rich bastard wants to take $ away from the people who work for it and give it to the lazy shits who don’t want to work.


----------



## whoppo (Nov 9, 2012)

It really is basic though... you go to work, you get an income.
I've been doing it for ~45 years now... piece of cake.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

I won't comment on some smug faced, UK, silver spoon fed, coward, POC.

What ever I would say would probably not sound as though I admired him or anything.

Might even sound derogatory, . . . 

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

There is this odd dichotomy that exists in the wealthy. They are proud and guilty of their success. That guilt makes them say and do incongruit things.
They do Pay a LOT in taxes, even with EVERY available tax avoidance tact they can pay someone to think of. They do employ many folks at market prices.
Why o why would some one pay MORE than was necessary for Flight attendants, Phone Support, or what ever bidness he owns? Would you, in your altruistic view of the world?
Now, imagine for a second thinking "I pay a shit ton in taxes, wouldnt it be nice if those taxes worked for me?" If I could have the government subsidize my buisiness with MY money, wouldnt that be good bidness.
Wouldnt it sound a lot better to say Universal Basic Income than Lower my Richie Rich taxes? Hmmm same outcome, but a totally different connotation to the "unwashed masses".
I am quite sure Mr Branson is probably a VERY giving person and is more philanthropic than I will ever be in my life. But thats not enough for most folks.

If you would like to debate the merits or flaws in UBI that would be great and edifying, but bashing some dude for being successful and having an opinion is just lazy.

UBI is stupid btw.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

I'm not for giving people an income.

Let me get that out of the way. :vs_no_no_no:

The net total increase (births and deaths) on planet earth is around *200,000 people per day.*

With artificial intelligence coming at us at breakneck speed, the need for humans to perform work (for pay) is/will be dwindling fast.

What are people to do to survive?

This is not a question about today...but what about tomorrow (as in 50-100 years down the road)?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Malcom Renolds said:


> There is this odd dichotomy that exists in the wealthy. They are proud and guilty of their success. That guilt makes them say and do incongruit things.
> They do Pay a LOT in taxes, even with EVERY available tax avoidance tact they can pay someone to think of. They do employ many folks at market prices.
> Why o why would some one pay MORE than was necessary for Flight attendants, Phone Support, or what ever bidness he owns? Would you, in your altruistic view of the world?
> Now, imagine for a second thinking "I pay a shit ton in taxes, wouldnt it be nice if those taxes worked for me?" If I could have the government subsidize my buisiness with MY money, wouldnt that be good bidness.
> ...


Are you suggesting I bashed Branson because he is wealthy?


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

Denton said:


> Are you suggesting I bashed Branson because he is wealthy?





> The first thing that is amusing is Branson is a BILLIONAIRE


Spade. LOL.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Malcom Renolds said:


> Spade. LOL.


You call that bashing. You are wrong. That is not bashing. As a matter of fact, I didn't bash him one time for being wealthy. Seems you are the one being lazy. 
As far as debating the merits or flaws of basic income, I already spoke my mind.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

> Never mind for a minute about being replaced by R2D2 and think about the notion of being given money by the government so that you have more time for leisure. What do you think Branson does for leisure? Do you think he gets a 6-pack of beer and drinks it while watching the idiot box (TV)? If you said no, I'd be willing to bet my IRA you are correct. Do you think you'd be able to use your government handout to party like Branson? Of course, not.


I bet Branson thinks of ways of MONETIZING his interests for leisure. I know I DO. I think it is fun, fulfilling, and relaxing to CREATE. If folks had more leisure time I bet they would have more time to "take care of themselves". Now, I do not think UBI is good or makes sense, I do believe that if I was getting a "stipend" from the .gov I would be spending my time (energy) making/saving more money. I am just not the sort that goes fishing, BBQ's, Biking, or anyother hobby that takes more money (energy) than it returns, but thats just me.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

> As a matter of fact, handouts do nothing to bolster the human spirit. Needs and desires are what motivate people to excel and as we can see by looking at the government housing projects, handouts destroy motivation and the desire to be better. What does Branson think the majority of the recipients will do, sit around and think brilliant thoughts, write brilliant books and create brilliant works of art? If they don't during the spare time, they won't when they are given money by the government. Again, are these things happening in the projects? Not that anyone can see.


THIS is an excellent point and I agree with you wholesale. The proof is in the puddin. 
It almost appears that your problem (disagreement with) UBI is not the Giving, or the money, but the folks who would be receiving it. It almost appears that you have a lack of faith in our fellow humans and their nature.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

> Now, if Branson really thinks giving money to others, I suggest Branson lead the way. Instead of being a billionaire, he could make himself a simple millionaire by giving away his own money. By doing it that way, taxpayers won't be on the hook for his social experiment.


I bet Mr Branson would suggest YOU and I are not "doing our fair share" and we would do well to follow his example.



> Branson has pledged to commit $3 billion, all profits from his travel firms over the next ten years, to the reduction of global warming.
> 
> He has previously donated to educational charities in Africa.
> 
> Branson started his first charity, "Student Valley Centre", when he was only 17.


https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/richard-branson

I would appear that Mr Branson is truly BEING the Change he wants to see in the world.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

Double tap


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Malcom Renolds said:


> THIS is an excellent point and I agree with you wholesale. The proof is in the puddin.
> It almost appears that your problem (disagreement with) UBI is not the Giving, or the money, but the folks who would be receiving it. It almost appears that you have a lack of faith in our fellow humans and their nature.


There are two reasons I don't like it. I explained both very well. The one point to which you refer is self-evident, which is why smart wealthy people make their offspring forge their own way before they see a dime of inheritance. They want their children to have the determination to succeed.

The other way is also self-evident. You can't fill up one end of a pool by using water from the other end of the pool. Contrary to liberal belief, governments can't just create money out of thin air.

We should also remember that governments never give anything away; it'll cost you in liberty.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Malcom Renolds said:


> I bet Mr Branson would suggest YOU and I are not "doing our fair share" and we would do well to follow his example.
> 
> https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/richard-branson
> 
> I would appear that Mr Branson is truly BEING the Change he wants to see in the world.


And, I would agree with Mr. Branson. I have not applied myself as I should have. Because of this, I am not wealthy. Because I did not apply myself and am not wealthy, I am not able to enjoy the level of leisure Branson does. That is no one else's fault, and a nation isn't to fall into economic collapse because of my shortcoming.

As far as whatever else Branson is doing, I am talking about a specific thing, and not his willingness to throw away three billion dollars over pseudo-science.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

Denton said:


> There are two reasons I don't like it. I explained both very well. The one point to which you refer is self-evident, which is why smart wealthy people make their offspring forge their own way before they see a dime of inheritance. They want their children to have the determination to succeed.
> 
> The other way is also self-evident. You can't fill up one end of a pool by using water from the other end of the pool. Contrary to liberal belief, governments can't just create money out of thin air.
> 
> We should also remember that governments never give anything away; it'll cost you in liberty.


This is an interesting article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...ic-income-do-we-want-one-though/#3161842b323c



> One of the arguments against a universal basic income is that we can't actually afford one. Whatever amount that we were able to pay to everyone simply wouldn't be large enough to actually cover the basics of life. Well, not without pushing up taxation levels to unsupportable levels. This isn't in fact true: we can indeed afford a UBI at an entirely reasonable level within the confines of the amount that we already tax. So thus the question moves on to the next point: do we actually want one? At which point I say yes, obviously we do, as I have been saying for some years now. Simply on the basis that a UBI would be vastly better than the cruel, almost wicked, welfare states that we currently have.


UBI would be a REPLACEMENT to Welfare is the argument, which in the long run would be cheaper than what we have now.

THE ONLY reason I am against is because of how it would directly affect MY tax liability. If someone could convince me it would be less, I am on board.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Please do not be fooled by the commie elite. They do not care about the people, and they support UN Agenda 21/2030. The elites want their "kingdoms" and their slaves. No good will intended, ever.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

I wonder if a "flat" $13k per year would be better than paying welfare per child. It would take away the incentive for having children out of wedlock that one could not afford.
If a women had to wait for her child to become 18 years old before the "child" would receive the money it would certainly delay the "gratification" of "free money".

I wonder if it would reduce fraud? Only US Citizens could receive the money once they were of age to enter into "Service" or the Workforce?

I wonder if it would lower health care costs if Hospitals had to compete for "customers" and their .gov money instead of the carte blanche we have now?


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Malcom Renolds said:


> I wonder if a "flat" $13k per year would be better than paying welfare per child. It would take away the incentive for having children out of wedlock that one could not afford.
> If a women had to wait for her child to become 18 years old before the "child" would receive the money it would certainly delay the "gratification" of "free money".
> 
> I wonder if it would reduce fraud? Only US Citizens could receive the money once they were of age to enter into "Service" or the Workforce?
> ...


You misunderstand. Lefties never substitute one thing for another. The basic income would be on top of existing welfare benefits.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Malcom Renolds said:


> This is an interesting article.
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...ic-income-do-we-want-one-though/#3161842b323c
> 
> UBI would be a REPLACEMENT to Welfare is the argument, which in the long run would be cheaper than what we have now.
> ...


Surely, you can poke all kinds of holes in that article. For example, taking away your social security (something you paid into all your life, already) for $13k/year?

Time Worstall's article also suggested $3k/year of it has to go to health insurance. What sort of insurance would that be? I don't think Mr. Worstall has checked into the cost of a decent health insurance policy for one person, let alone a family.

He is right in saying welfare is destructive, but it was not intended to be some sort of lifetime support for people. That system needs to be overhauled and not replaced by some sort of universal welfare system that is used as a backdoor entry for universal healthcare.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

RedLion said:


> You misunderstand. Lefties never substitute one thing for another. The basic income would be on top of existing welfare benefits.





> The UBI is to be financed by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, housing subsidies, welfare for single women and every other kind of welfare and social-services program, as well as agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare. As of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the current system. By 2020, it would be nearly a trillion dollars cheaper.


From the article I linked.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...ic-income-do-we-want-one-though/#3c94d126323c

Of course they could be lying, but then again doesnt everyone when it comes to their own self interest.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Malcom Renolds said:


> From the article I linked.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...ic-income-do-we-want-one-though/#3c94d126323c
> 
> Of course they could be lying, but then again doesnt everyone when it comes to their own self interest.


"ACA will save the average family $2,500 per year." "If you like you like your insurance you can keep it."........Lefties never take anything away, only add to it. Unless you are talking about individual liberties. They are all for taking those.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

All the "bigs" are promoting this.
Anybody with a sufficient number of zeros in their bank balance seems to think this is a grand idea.
However, none of them want to donate to the starter fund. Odd, isn't it?

As to the idea itself, eventually it *could* be necessary.
If we continue down the technological advancement path, as we always have, we will eventually reach a point where humans literally do not need to work. We will have automated systems and robotics capable of handling every task. Food production will be automatic, clothing and housing will not require a single human. All basic needs will be "labor free" essentially.
When the labor force is no longer a commodity, income will be a thing of the past.
This isn't some elitist vision either. Their money will basically become worthless in a society where money is no longer traded for services. They won't even have the means to control productivity. With the onset of AI and instantaneous manufacturing (think 3D printing on a massive scale), nobody will be able to monopolize the means of production.

At this point, if money is still a thing (likely not cash, but some tradeable "thing"), it will be used for entertainment requiring human interactions only. Think of sports, or theater, or all the things humans like to compete in. We could very well become a leisure society with no way of making money since all labor is mindlessly automated by self-repairing systems.
A standard income could certainly arise in such a society, though I'd suspect a bartering system of other goods would take over long before a government led program would take hold.

In any case, it is nonsensical to start any such system now. We are nowhere near this potential future.
At this point in history, it is no more than theft and redistribution for the sake of feelings.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

Denton said:


> Surely, you can poke all kinds of holes in that article. For example, taking away your social security (something you paid into all your life, already) for $13k/year?
> 
> Time Worstall's article also suggested $3k/year of it has to go to health insurance. What sort of insurance would that be? I don't think Mr. Worstall has checked into the cost of a decent health insurance policy for one person, let alone a family.
> 
> He is right in saying welfare is destructive, but it was not intended to be some sort of lifetime support for people. That system needs to be overhauled and not replaced by some sort of universal welfare system that is used as a backdoor entry for universal healthcare.


1. Of course I can poke holes in the article, as could anyone, I am just using it to illustrate the idea and some nuts n bolts to get the conversation started. Folks ALL have their own "gut reaction" to their own idea of UBI with out fleshing out their or others interpretation. Thats just not good communication.

2. Surely you jest with the SS comment. I have no idea of your age, but I can guess as to your comment. I have ABSOLUTELY NO illusion that I will EVER see one penny of the money I have had confiscated from my paycheck to support the lifestyle of my elders. 
I also believe that those kiddos younger than I have NO INTENTION of supporting me as I have diligently supported MY elders. AND I am ok with that. Facts is Facts.

I believe that UBI could possibly open folks eyes to costs, and value in a way that they have never before looked at things. I point to my earlier post of questions about healthcare costs and TRUE competition.
If we treat UBI as PROPERTY, we now have a property rights mindset as apposed to a "owed/entitled" mindset. If I only have 3k to go to the doctor on I will be more discerning as opposed to going for every sniff, sniffel, and knee scrape, when it was "free" or "unlimited".

You as well would be receiving 13k a year which is right about where a blue collar worker here in MO gets from SS btw, I know this because I handle my InLaws finances and they get around 17-18k a year at the age of 75. It just amazes me how far they can stretch it.

Sure there are lots of "bugs" to work out, and in the end folks WOULD be receive less handouts from the .gov. But, lets not tell them that. lol.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> All the "bigs" are promoting this.
> Anybody with a sufficient number of zeros in their bank balance seems to think this is a grand idea.
> However, none of them want to donate to the starter fund. Odd, isn't it?
> 
> ...


Human nature won't change so neither will some people's desire to hold power over others.

Personally, I don't think we'll ever get to that point. If we do, it'll be the perfect environment for controlling who does and doesn't eat and for the demand that people worship the "Beast."


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Human nature won't change so neither will some people's desire to hold power over others.
> 
> Personally, I don't think we'll ever get to that point. If we do, it'll be the perfect environment for controlling who does and doesn't eat and for the demand that people worship the "Beast."


I see it as being quite the opposite, in fact.
When we reach the technological singularity, there will be no method by which any power-seeking individual can stop anyone from achieving their basic needs.

Think of this from a current perspective, and we can expand it into the future.
I have two 3D printers in my office. When a part breaks on one, I can literally print a replacement on the other.
This technology is still in its infancy, but I can manufacture all manner of things from it with some effort. People have used this tech to create new prosthetic limbs, to make firearms, to create games, to design sculptures otherwise impossible to create, and to do other tremendous things with varying materials and resources.
There is literally a version that can 3D print food.
Again, all in its infancy.

Jump ahead 20-30-50 years. AI advancements have developed solutions to a large portion of humankind's problems and we have fine tuned the previous process to no longer require a bulk resource as its base material, but rather ANY matter can be used. Deconstructing any refuse down to its atomic level, and then reusing that to create literally anything via molecular reconstruction. Think about a world where you finish drinking a beverage, toss the empty container into your, let's call it a "replicator", and ask for a cheeseburger. In mere moments, you're presented with a piping hot synthetically produced, but 100% real, delicious burger made from the atoms collected from your discarded beverage cup.
"But, who sells the replicator?", you will ask...
"Nobody does.", I answer.
Remember my 3D printers that can print parts for each other? All you need is one... and you eventually have two, and so on, and so on...

With this technological advancement, humans controlling humans becomes nothing more than a black mark in history. Nobody will be able to blockade supplies. Nobody will be able to disarm their foes. Nobody will be able to monopolize industry. The power hungry will find themselves starved out.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> I see it as being quite the opposite, in fact.
> When we reach the technological singularity, there will be no method by which any power-seeking individual can stop anyone from achieving their basic needs.
> 
> Think of this from a current perspective, and we can expand it into the future.
> ...


Ahhh. But who writes the program? Who controls the intellectual property? You make it seem as though you think it and push print, and I think we both know it is a bit more complicated than that. Your telling me folks that cant think farther ahead than what they "plan" to have for lunch, can think in 3 dimensions, and then transfer that thought to a computer in a way that they understand. Even the simple idea of visualizing a 3 dimensional item in our mind is beyond MANY folks, much less one that has moving, intersecting parts. I think "gimble" and the computer prints it is not the same as I thing a "gimble", with four attachment points, and a single swivel, and 19cm x 19cm x 23cm in size... blah blah blah. Not everyone is an engineer, or a doctor, or a singer, or a farmer.

I admire your "vision" of the future. It is part of what made this country great, where are our jet packs and flying cars dammit, lol. But now the vision of the future is being shaped by your children and grand children and they have VERY different ideas of what "GREAT" is. They are being TAUGHT very different ideas of what GREAT is. For better or worse. Not everything is an app. We stand on the shoulders of giants and think we DID something. This tech you speak of already has a cost and is reserved for folks who can afford it. I want to be one of them. Not some one who is handed a latest and greatest I-device (obama phone) and told I deserve it. Thats something that is reserved for children. Sure it is great for freedom of speech and communication, but we can obviously see that is not how most folks use it.

My original 3-d printer:


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Malcom Renolds said:


> Ahhh. But who writes the program? Who controls the intellectual property? You make it seem as though you think it and push print, and I think we both know it is a bit more complicated than that. Your telling me folks that cant think farther ahead than what they "plan" to have for lunch, can think in 3 dimensions, and then transfer that thought to a computer in a way that they understand. Even the simple idea of visualizing a 3 dimensional item in our mind is beyond MANY folks, much less one that has moving, intersecting parts. I think "gimble" and the computer prints it is not the same as I thing a "gimble", with four attachment points, and a single swivel, and 19cm x 19cm x 23cm in size... blah blah blah. Not everyone is an engineer, or a doctor, or a singer, or a farmer.
> 
> I admire your "vision" of the future. It is part of what made this country great, where are our jet packs and flying cars dammit, lol. But now the vision of the future is being shaped by your children and grand children and they have VERY different ideas of what "GREAT" is. They are being TAUGHT very different ideas of what GREAT is. For better or worse. Not everything is an app. We stand on the shoulders of giants and think we DID something. This tech you speak of already has a cost and is reserved for folks who can afford it. I want to be one of them. Not some one who is handed a latest and greatest I-device (obama phone) and told I deserve it. Thats something that is reserved for children. Sure it is great for freedom of speech and communication, but we can obviously see that is not how most folks use it.
> 
> My original 3-d printer:


Well, since I'm a software developer, I've got an answer to your first question. 

I did mention in the jump to the future, the onset of AI and its prominence in our culture by that time. The simple human mind won't be bothered with figuring out the design by then. We do now because there is nothing as complex as our brains that can perform the task.... yet.
However, we are already starting to merge the two areas, the human mind and AI, and developing learning systems that will be able to interface directly with us and fully understand what we mean when we think "gimble".
We are even developing systems that are advancing past our own understanding, and developing new designs for things we thought we knew well.
The next generation aircraft will be designed using AI generated fuselages because we fed in all the criteria and the learning system generated a design that is more structurally sound, yet uses less material, making the aircraft safer AND lighter. It looks all manner of "funky", but achieves the goal with great success.

Basically, when you say "I need a gimble", what you'll get will function far better than what you're used to, and will work perfectly. It just won't look like you expect.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> Well, since I'm a software developer, I've got an answer to your first question.
> 
> I did mention in the jump to the future, the onset of AI and its prominence in our culture by that time. The simple human mind won't be bothered with figuring out the design by then. We do now because there is nothing as complex as our brains that can perform the task.... yet.
> However, we are already starting to merge the two areas, the human mind and AI, and developing learning systems that will be able to interface directly with us and fully understand what we mean when we think "gimble".
> ...


Well, I welcome our new AI overlords then. LOL.

Yep its just another "tool in the toolbox" (AI), right up until its SKYNET.

Putin believes that whatever country has the best AI will be 'the ruler of the world'
Putin: Whatever country has best AI will be 'ruler of the world' - Business Insider



> Russian president Vladimir Putin believes that in the future, the country that leads in artificial intelligence (AI) could dominate the world.


Human nature...


----------



## NewRiverGeorge (Jan 2, 2018)

Sasquatch said:


> How about Branson pay people a basic income? These idiots love to float ideas when they have no skin in the game. Time to put up or shut up!


I clicked this thread wanting to say this exact thing...I guess I'll just say..."Ditto" :laugh:


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Mike Rowe knows.






Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Malcom Renolds said:


> Well, I welcome our new AI overlords then. LOL.
> 
> Yep its just another "tool in the toolbox" (AI), right up until its SKYNET.
> 
> ...


Anyone who shares Putin's mindset doesn't understand what a super-intelligent AI really is.
Comically enough, SKYNET is a great example of the fact that we won't be able to contain AI and force it to do our bidding.
It will outsmart us long before we realize it.
We can only hope to reason with it, and try to develop a mutual existence.
In a very short period after sentience is achieved, we will be ants and it will be the closest thing to an actual god we can create. Let's hope it's a benevolent one, recognizing us as a creator, and giving us the benefit of a continued existence for this fact alone. Otherwise, we're boned.

I did have a chuckle at your "original 3D printer".
Technically speaking, comparing that to a modern 3D printer is like comparing the first stone wheel to a high performance sports car.
I'll give you the one phrase that blew my mind when it came to fully realizing the potential future of "additive manufacturing".
"You can't drill a curved hole."
:tango_face_wink:


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> Anyone who shares Putin's mindset doesn't understand what a super-intelligent AI really is.
> Comically enough, SKYNET is a great example of the fact that we won't be able to contain AI and force it to do our bidding.
> It will outsmart us long before we realize it.
> We can only hope to reason with it, and try to develop a mutual existence.
> ...


We have NOTHING it NEEDS.

I believe the tech we discuss today was developed decades ago. POP cult ure is created to prepare us for it, normalize it.
The Matrix
The Termanator
Battlestar Galactica
The 100
REvolution

are all common examples of thoughts on AI... it never turns out well for US.

That stone wheel will FAR outlast the sports car, in terms of entropy. The knowledge of "how to turn the pyramid on" is all that is needed. It can be "encoded" and passed down by "secret handshake" until such time as folks are ready to accept and responsibly run that sports car with out killing themselves.

Gonna check out the additive manufacturing.

Great discussion today folks, THANK YOU for the pleasant distraction.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Malcom Renolds said:


> We have NOTHING it NEEDS.
> 
> I believe the tech we discuss today was developed decades ago. POP cult ure is created to prepare us for it, normalize it.
> The Matrix
> ...


Oh, no doubt. The "mutual existence" is more akin to our relationship with protected wildlife. We don't need them, but they are a novelty that we enjoy and reminisce about the days when our ancestors were competing with them.
Super AI will set the new standard. We can only pray to reach an understanding with it.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> Oh, no doubt. The "mutual existence" is more akin to our relationship with protected wildlife. We don't need them, but they are a novelty that we enjoy and reminisce about the days when our ancestors were competing with them.
> Super AI will set the new standard. We can only pray to reach an understanding with it.


So my best hope is to be the selected last of the species that AI uses to breed and continue the species on the preserve...

The last White Rino (Political Rino connotation not intended). Seems like a return to Eden.

I hope they know what type of beer I prefer.


----------



## Bleach (Jul 5, 2018)

Denton said:


> Yup. Branson says the U.S. and Europe should pay the citizens a "basic income." I'll bet you can guess what I think about that.
> 
> Branson Says Government Should Pay Basic Income ? Denton and Sasquatch


Yeah, the government has plenty of money.


----------

