What's a sci-fi thing you feel is achievable with our current level of technology that you'd love to see become a thing?
-
Whether big or small. We all have that one thing from Scifi we wished were real. I'd love to see a cool underground city with like a SkyDome or a space hotel for instance.
Augmented reality overlaying historical photos and 3d models so you can literally see history as your walking.
Imagine being able to visit The White City that was built for the World's Fair in Chicago. Or seeing New York before sky scrapers dominated the landscape.
-
I find it funny who ubi proponents say we need UBI because capitalism failed to have wages match cost of living and simultaneously say UBI will fix it with capitalism.
Housing is expensive because there isn't enough. If capitalism could fix it, then housing would have at a minimum matched inflation and should have decreased in price because of technology improvements. So giving people more money absolutely cannot fix the housing crisis. UBI would be a handout for landlords.
When demand is the problem in a supply/demand economy, you can't fix it with more demand (cash).
Capitalism fails to meet housing demand because it is constrained by regulations about things like single family zoning, setbacks, parking minimums, or minimum floor areas; and because the perverse incentives of current taxation schemes regarding the inelastic supply of land don't incentivize land owners to put their land to its highest and best use.
Housing is a bad example of capitalism failing because the problems developers face are extremely well known and understood. Remove the frivolous regulations, adopt a georgist tax policy, and build good public infrastructure, and you'll get far more housing than you currently have far faster than you are currently building it. Could government do better? Maybe... but I have yet to see that evidence.
-
Capitalism means that they stop building before the price dips below wildly profitable, because capital is risk adverse. Capitalism won't, not can't, fix these problems.
A large institution may be risk averse. But a smaller firm trying to gain ground in the market would likely be more than happy to take on the risk and slimmer margins. After all, if capitalism wasn't okay with slim margins, then restaurants and grocery stores wouldn't exist.
-
The problem it that sound is limited in physical space, so you can move around a room, talking to one person and then another.
Your proposal is like getting two groups of people to stand on opposite sides of a room and then communicate by shouting at each other.
Think of it like two groups of people in separate rooms with a large open window between them. Not everyone is trying to talk one on one to the other group all the time. And sometimes just feeling like you're in the same physical space can be nice.
It's not perfect, but in many circumstances it's worlds better than having tiny portable windows that mostly facilitate one on one conversation.
-
As I said to the other person, there can be a donation and request system to make sure everyone gets what they need, without tying money into it and having this weird limit of the amount of stuff people can get, and tying the idea of value to it all.
What if you make a request and no one wants to donate what you need? Would you not then want a way to incentivize someone to make the donation, or incentivize someone else to make more of what you need?
-
UBI would be amazing for the economy. It's basically Trickle UP economics. The money will still eventually end up in the pocket of some rich guy, but at least it will grease the gears of the economy on the way up.
UBI would be amazing for the economy.
Citation needed
-
the end of scarcity. that's a totally bogus concept that capitalism uses to keep the rich in power. we produce far more than the whole of humanity would need to feed and cloth themselves, and we have more houses empty than there are families. we could end poverty right now, we just choose not to.
The whole "we have plenty of housing if only the greedy capitalists would give it to us" claim is very much false. Empty homes are typically empty for a reason. They are being remodelled, or are searching for new renters, or have been condemned, or are in a legal limbo of some sort, etc. The idea that rich people are buying homes en masse and then keeping them empty makes no sense, since they would make more money by buying those homes and then renting them - then they get appreciated home values and rent money to warm their cold, capitalist hearts.
What is actually happening is far more mundane: people are moving to more desireable areas, and are choosing to live in smaller households. A two bedroom home that used to house mom and dad and Jack and Jill in their bunk beds now houses only Jill, plus her home office. And you can't force Jill to take in a homeless man as a roommate, at least not in a democratic society.
-
We throw out massive amounts of food every year, often because it sits too long and rots.
We have the technology to fix this. Corporations just don't.
If we have the technology to fix this, why arent the corporations using it to make more money on the food they made instead of throwing it away?
-
Capitalism fails to meet housing demand because it is constrained by regulations about things like single family zoning, setbacks, parking minimums, or minimum floor areas; and because the perverse incentives of current taxation schemes regarding the inelastic supply of land don't incentivize land owners to put their land to its highest and best use.
Housing is a bad example of capitalism failing because the problems developers face are extremely well known and understood. Remove the frivolous regulations, adopt a georgist tax policy, and build good public infrastructure, and you'll get far more housing than you currently have far faster than you are currently building it. Could government do better? Maybe... but I have yet to see that evidence.
Capitalism fails to meet housing demand because it is constrained by regulations about things like single family zoning,
That's not true because when given an opportunity to build housing, developers always choose to build higher margin premium housing. Capitalism incentivizes profit and there's no profit in cheap housing.
-
Vegas can make money from tourusm in a desert, a hotel on the moon (with a casino) will do just fine.
According to this article, a tourist space flight is/will cost $450,000. That's just to break earth's atmosphere. Tack on the additional cost of several days of space flight to reach and return from the moon, plus breaking the Moon's gravity to return, plus the cost of building, maintaining, and staffing a moon base. Costs would be unbelievably prohibitive.
Vegas, meanwhile, is built on draining gambling-addicted grandmas' pension funds. You can't target that demo on the moon.
-
Alarm clock that reads my brain activity and only wakes me up at the point in my REM cycle, where i'll feel refreshed waking up.
I just wake up a few minutes before my alarm due to my internal clock. Doesn't matter what time I go to bed.
-
Along somewhat similar lines, I wouldn't mind a fan that monitored my temperature while sleeping and adjusts its speed accordingly.
Totally possible with homeassistant. They also make temperature controlled "smart" beds.
-
Capitalism fails to meet housing demand because it is constrained by regulations about things like single family zoning,
That's not true because when given an opportunity to build housing, developers always choose to build higher margin premium housing. Capitalism incentivizes profit and there's no profit in cheap housing.
There is plenty of profit to be made in cheap housing, just like there is plenty of profit to be made in cheap food. You can go to the grocery store right now and buy a tomato for not very much money, and the store that sold it, and trucker who transported it, and the farmer that grew it will all make money - despite food's famously slim margins.
The situation with housing is more like this: the government has dictated that only 5 acres of land in the country can be used to grow tomatos. And each tomato plant can only grow a maximum of 10 tomatos. If you are a tomato farmer, what do you do? Well, since you can't grow as many tomatos as you want, you start looking for ways to increase your margin on each tomato you sell - selling the most appealing, perfect, organic tomatos you can.
So it is with housing. When the government finally approves the development of some denser housing in a desireable part of town, the developer wants to build the highest margin housing that they can, since they won't be able to build 50 more apartment buildings. So they build luxury apartments. However, if the government said "you can build as much and as densly as you like on any plot of land here", then developers would probably start with more luxury housing, but would likely run out of luxury renters quite quickly. But then they would simply seek out more profit with the slimmer margins available in affordable housing development.
-
Think of it like two groups of people in separate rooms with a large open window between them. Not everyone is trying to talk one on one to the other group all the time. And sometimes just feeling like you're in the same physical space can be nice.
It's not perfect, but in many circumstances it's worlds better than having tiny portable windows that mostly facilitate one on one conversation.
A one on one conversation sounds far preferrable to what you are describing. There would be far too much crosstalk.
-
oh I guess I have to add all without apps. Some of this stuff even then exists to some degree but its kinda sad its not implemented just generally. There is so much computers could do but there just is no incentive to maximize customer capability. If anything they tend to look to monetize any feature or limit it in a way to make it shitty or make money for the company outside of their normal streams. Like schwab has this robo adviser but its way limited and forces you to keep a lot in cash yet at the same time is very slow to rebalance (the reasoning they give for the cash is to deal with rebalancing which should allow it to do it relatively quickly.)
By the way, app is called privacy. Biggest problem with it is that it uses plaid to connect to your bank so you have to trust them with your bank password.
I use it though and love it. Every card can have its own limits like per transaction, per month, per year, or total ever.
-
Socialized healthcare. A living minimum wage. UBI.
A permanent base on the moon. We should have had that 40 years ago, minimum.
The moon base (and/or moon orbit base) isn't just cool, it would facilitate building ships in space that don't have to escape the gravity well. That and asteroid mining (to get materials for ship building) would be such a huge step to having a real presence off-planet.
Mine materials on asteroids, send them to the moon refinery and manufacturing facility, send parts up to lunar orbital ship building facility, send ships to Europa, Ganymede, etc.
-
Sure, other stuff needs to change as well, but using currency for an UBI is the easiest and fastest way to implement it.
I mean... yeah... that's what UBI is.
I was criticizing UBI as a concept, not how it's implemented.
-
A large institution may be risk averse. But a smaller firm trying to gain ground in the market would likely be more than happy to take on the risk and slimmer margins. After all, if capitalism wasn't okay with slim margins, then restaurants and grocery stores wouldn't exist.
Yes, and then that smaller firm fails because they take too many risks that have little chance of success. They end up being bought up by the larger firms, and all their assets put towards those higher value investments.
-
We could be solarpunk. Like, right now. With everything using clean energy and plants everywhere.
That would be so nice.
-
Chicken and vegetarian was just an example, also the chicken was implicitly dead in my example so it was no longer sentient, also also there might be non moral reasons, which paint color do we give people for their walls? How often? Etc etc etc.
In the request system you propose there needs to be some sort of pointing or valuation, requesting a car should not be equivalent to requesting an apple. Whatever form of valuation you use for that, there's your currency. Not to mention that for the requesting system to be able to work the government would need to own all products so it can redistribute them according to requests, and what would it do if 100 people requested something that only 50 were made? It's a nice idea but it becomes very complicated very fast, whereas using currency takes away all of that complication and gives you something tangible that could be implemented tomorrow instead of in 20 years being very generous.
Just because something is easier to implement doesn't mean it will work better.
Honestly, that's the biggest hurdle our current economic systems are facing. People go for the easy option that seems like it should work instead of the longer term plan that has more flexibility and chance for success.
The problem with your suggestion is that it still hinges on the capitalist system to provide for people. And thus is far easier to exploit.
