undefined | Better HN

0 pointsunclebucknasty10y ago0 comments

What's interesting about your point 3. is that it speaks to these archetypes we have defined for people.

We have so ingrained in our minds that a person's value to society is defined by his/her economic contribution in the traditional sense (i.e. via a job or business ownership), that we assume that a person who does not work has no value by definition. In fact, they are even morally deficient. So, how can they possibly be of a quality/character as to contribute anything to society via arts, ideas, or otherwise?

It's a sneaky bit of circular logic that, for many, argues against a BI.

0 comments

ebiester10y ago

There's even more to it -- it's that the only thing of value to society is that which can be traded for money.

unclebucknastyOP10y ago

Indeed. When companies that otherwise have the wherewithal choose not to pursue cures or vaccines because there isn't enough profit in it, larger society barely pauses to register the true awfulness of such a calculus.

But, this is the type of stucture that we've engineered to allocate the world's resources--one where human value is malleable and always somewhere along the economic continuum. It's the same structure that precipitates the need for a BI and, sadly, also produces the minds that resist it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse