Hi Jack,
Firstly I’d just like to thank you for taking the time to read my article.
Now I cannot claim to be an expert on Universal Basic Income, and I am not opposed to UBI in its entirety. There are arguments to be had about whether UBI could function in place of, or even alongside, the welfare system as a safety net to protect everyone in society, which I would be more than glad to engage in after further reading. It would certainly improve life for all if successfully implemented, but there are many challenges that it must first overcome.
What I am opposed to, however, is the way that certain parties within Silicon Valley are proposing that UBI is the perfect solution to the oncoming technological revolution that could potentially leave millions or even hundreds of millions of people essentially redundant. To say to the truck driver who is now unemployed because his rig drives itself that he doesn’t need to worry because he’ll be given a salary by the tech company that tool away his job is an optimistic fantasy. Such a financial arrangement — where the taxation of a few big corporations is supposed to sustain the existence of the majority of the population — is precarious and uncomfortable at best, and most likely unfeasible. It would only be a matter of time before the companies, driven by their capitalistic desire for ever greater profits, try to cut corners, which in this scenario would mean decreasing people’s quality of life, or stopping them from being able to survive altogether. Silicon Valley needs to be more proactive in driving the discussion about whether AI should be allowed to replace large-scale employment, and coming up with various proposals to offset the effects of such a dramatic change.
BF
