I have no doubt now that the outcome of the search for the best AI will be the human. More precisely, a self-aware, informed and educated, true proletarian, whom no capitalist will manage cheating.
Until then, I'm also certain that many doctors, all the lawyers, accountants and priests will join the rest of the jobless pack in queues.
So, until then, these bullshitters should focus on promoting unconditional basic income before it's too late. The rest of the "middle class" is also welcome. Informed proletarians would not mind this either.
All in all, it follows that the Unconditional Basic Income is the optimal way to fund the artificial intelligence effort.
The exoneration of a man accused of the worst of crimes, genocide, made no headlines. Neither the BBC nor CNN covered it. The Guardian allowed a brief commentary. Such a rare official admission was buried or suppressed, understandably. It would explain too much about how the rulers of the world rule.
We all heard these words: democracy, freedom, society, state; but do we have a common understanding of them? Here's a suggestion:
We can't have it where some people (say, 1%) are thousand times more powerful than others. A democracy is meaningless if individual people's powers are incomparable to one another, so a universal limit on personal wealth is necessary for true democracy.
This limit should be measurable, adapting in time, and decided by the whole society in a universal/mathematical way. Therefore:
Democracy is possible only if the total personal wealth is limited to an amount equal to a max lifetime (~130 years) of average wages.
One can't have freedom while one is bound to accept abuse for a living.
Therefore, freedom is not possible/meaningful without the unconditional basic income.
The unconditional basic income (UBI) covers the resources necessary for a basic human living in dignity: shelter, energy, food, sanitary services.
The source for UBI is the effort of the entire society, a tax system.
A society is not possible without democracy and freedom as defined above, but it also requires universal education, communication, transport, maybe more. Call them social services.
So a state (as a social organization to make possible all the above) is necessary, and its meaning is to provide/protect/guarantee all of the above, to all the people in the society, the tools of this process are science, industry and exchange and the overall global name for the results of these activities is economy.
So now we all know, in simple terms, what we have to achieve.
What Max Horkheimer had said about Fascism and capitalism already back in 1930s - those who do not want to talk critically about capitalism should also keep quiet about Fascism - should also be applied to today’s fundamentalism: those who do not want to talk critically about liberal democracy should also keep quiet about religious fundamentalism.
"liberal democracy" not liberal democracy. FTFY.
There's no democracy where the zombie wealth of a few shuffles lives over the entire world with no responsibility whatsoever: that's a liberal mix of private dictatorships into a transvestite democracy breeding irrationalities, among them, religions, and amid these, fundamentalisms. That's what education as a commodity brings. That's what a for-profit society becomes: a few superrich surrounded by darkness and sorrow.
The personal wealth of each person should be limited to a statistic of the society that person's living in; more precisely the total personal wealth of each person should be limited to a (maximum) lifetime of average salaries per its national economy, updated automatically and periodically.
This is a fix for both kinds of tribes: "liberal democracies" and religious fundamentalisms.
Because of the lack of the above limit, we still don't know yet:
Who made those bullets?
Who made those guns?
Who sold them?
Who's driving uselessly cars in the cities consuming oil ultimately funding this criminal mess and the criminal mess in the middle east?
After we all find the answers to the above, what is there to do?
The rational algorithm "How to get rid of terrorism in 8 steps":
0. Limit the total personal wealth to a (maximum) lifetime of average salaries per own national economy, updated automatically and periodically.
1. Arrest the chiefs of the companies which produced and sold guns and ammunition to citizens which should not carry guns and their commercial intermediaries in these transactions. These are supporting international terrorism. Send them in jail for life or block their bank accounts, or exile them, or ban their entrance.
2. Ban all guns that can kill at a distance; torrents don't do that, bullets do.
3. Reinstate the death penalty for those who killed.
4. "Randomly" search houses of any religious persons for guns and ammunition: if found, exile their families and strip them of citizenship. Jail their providers.
5. Only allow armament in the country's military defence.
6. Withdraw from any war you might be involved in, use bikes, trains and internet instead.
7. Watch George Carlin --- Religion is Bullshit and George Carlin - Life is Sacred
8. Repeat until we all enjoy living again and consent to having children, if ever.
Earth 2100: yet another proof of how medieval is the american thinking, even when it's progressive: "Caspian fever" (not Chicago fever or texan fever). And if the energy problem gets solved, guess what an american thinks: we will then have electric cars. So that's the salvation, yet another product that can be sold per capita, producing return on investment. More brainwashing is impossible.
To quote "by tackling climate change, you end up tackling energy, you end up tackling food, you end up tackling water resources.[...] You could change this vicious cycle into a virtuous cycle." The kind of upside-down thinking: when producing profits, no need of governments to interfere or tax, no need of somebody else to tell you you shouldn't drive a car burning an irreplaceable fuel. But beyond crisis, OK, tackle climate change and you end up tackling the rest :).
Only by limiting the total personal wealth to an amount equal to a lifetime of average wages, you end up tackling energy, you end up tackling food, you end up tackling water resources.[...] You could change this vicious cycle into a virtuous cycle. Then you tackled global warming if it's not too late.
A person in the first 1% financially rich of the american population is equivalent, in terms of financial wealth, with about 150000 persons in the financially lowest 80% bracket. His/her capital is a headless beast moving everywhere to transform anything into profit/return on investment/interest rate: it never cared if lives are involved, or if the planet becomes a desert.
That means that, on average, a person in the top 1% bracket can hire or dispose of 175000 persons in the 80% bracket. That's the democracy we're talking about here.
So we have, for US: 763*FRB*LEV=763*10*20=152600.
For E.U.: 763*FRB*LEV=763*10*60=457800.
So, the capital of one person in the first 1% financial bracket, can hire/dispose of 152600 persons from the "bottom" 80% in US and 457800 in EU.
Next time somebody talks about democracy, or about acting for climate change, either slap him or tell him the above.
If the limit proposed here would be in place, all the fast profit activities which are the most distructive today by externalising more consequences would disappear; they will be replaced with acts negociated in larger numbers before moving some stupid shit that makes fast money and leaves everything else dead.
Any politics starting from anything else is pure bulshit.