As computer programmers, I think the one thing it teaches is that nothing is a/the solution. I remember when the default version of rails was going to require like 7 technologies to be able to do the things people wanted.
Programming also teaches that solutions come in tiny elements, that aggregate to a solution, which is usually held together by the flimsiest of margins. I remember a talk where at one point YouTube's big trouble was exporting video thumbnails, which had I think hit the iNode limit.
Programming also teaches that solutions need to address actual problems, and usually only the directly immediate problems. We have all seen the posts of someone who thinks they can write code and just let it scale, and how that never works.
My point to this long preamble is there is that the concept of a solution to nebulous, undefined "problems" is impossible by definition.
My biggest issue (and I have several) with UBI - which full disclosure I am both a fan of and a donator to the UBI test here: https://www.givedirectly.org/basic-income - is that the only way it has a chance of working in the first world is to replace all existing welfare, up and down the government hierarchy (i.e. at ALL levels). The chances of that happening are... what's less likely than a snow flake in hell?
However, UBI as a tool of aid is fascinating. Currently, most aid is poorly measured, and not really that effective. If we could introduce a tool with lower overhead, and help the poorest of the poor for a mere fraction of what it costs in the 1st world, the results could be world changing for the 1-2 billion people with the absolute least. If that proves applicable in more expensive countries, more's the better, but even if it doesn't, and proves to be of value in specific situations, it could still be an unbelievable tool for human progress at the margins.
Comments
As computer programmers, I think the one thing it teaches is that nothing is a/the solution. I remember when the default version of rails was going to require like 7 technologies to be able to do the things people wanted.
Programming also teaches that solutions come in tiny elements, that aggregate to a solution, which is usually held together by the flimsiest of margins. I remember a talk where at one point YouTube's big trouble was exporting video thumbnails, which had I think hit the iNode limit.
Programming also teaches that solutions need to address actual problems, and usually only the directly immediate problems. We have all seen the posts of someone who thinks they can write code and just let it scale, and how that never works.
My point to this long preamble is there is that the concept of a solution to nebulous, undefined "problems" is impossible by definition.
My biggest issue (and I have several) with UBI - which full disclosure I am both a fan of and a donator to the UBI test here: https://www.givedirectly.org/basic-income - is that the only way it has a chance of working in the first world is to replace all existing welfare, up and down the government hierarchy (i.e. at ALL levels). The chances of that happening are... what's less likely than a snow flake in hell?
However, UBI as a tool of aid is fascinating. Currently, most aid is poorly measured, and not really that effective. If we could introduce a tool with lower overhead, and help the poorest of the poor for a mere fraction of what it costs in the 1st world, the results could be world changing for the 1-2 billion people with the absolute least. If that proves applicable in more expensive countries, more's the better, but even if it doesn't, and proves to be of value in specific situations, it could still be an unbelievable tool for human progress at the margins.