So much of this discussion is beyond my comprehension. It is way too abstract. However, I do have some tangential questions that have not been addressed here; perhaps they have been considered in the materials that I have not viewed.
My first question has to do with any increase in population because of the lack of work and other activity in people's lives. There are anecdotes (perhaps even research too; I do not know) that when a large segment of the workforce is unemployed due to seasonal constraints, that the birth rate explodes thirty-nine to fifty weeks later until these individuals return to work. Then it tapers down. Would having a permanent Basic Income result in a population explosion in 30-40 years that will need even more funds to disburse, and so on?
My second question has to do with evolution. We evolved with advanced brains to survive in a hunting and gathering mode. Lifespans were relatively short (compared with today.) I am sure early Man did not have problems with obesity, high blood pressure and other issues that plague us today. Some species like coyotes have adapted to man's presence. They can survive equally well in the wilderness or in urban settings. Other species have declined or become extinct because they could not adapt to changing climates, urbanization or Man. Yet others have evolved with variations or mutations that enabled the species to continue on, but slightly different from its ancestors. What is in store for Man in 2,000+ years if most of us have no need to work, exercise our brains and our bodies, and actually have some purpose to our lives?
Veblen has some thoughts on this (Wikipedia)
In
The Theory of the Leisure Class, Veblen writes critically of conspicuous consumption and its function in social-class consumerism and social stratification.
[37] Reflecting historically, he traces said economic behaviors back to the beginnings of the division of labor, or during tribal times. Upon the start of a division of labor, high status individuals within the community practiced hunting and war, notably less labor-intensive and less economically productive work. Low status individuals, on the other hand, practiced activities recognized as more economically productive and more labor-intensive, such as farming and cooking.
[41] High status individuals, as Veblen explains, could instead afford to live their lives leisurely (hence their title as the leisure class), engaging in symbolic economic participation, rather than practical economic participation. These individuals could engage in conspicuous leisure for extended periods of time, simply following pursuits that evoked a higher social-status. Rather than participating in conspicuous consumption, the leisure class lived lives of conspicuous leisure as a marker of high status.
[42] The leisure class protected and reproduced their social status and control within the tribe through, for example, their participation in war-time activities, which while they were rarely needed, still rendered their lower social class counterparts dependent upon them.
[43] During modern industrial times, Veblen described the leisure class as those exempt from industrial labor. Instead, he explains, the leisure class participated in intellectual or artistic endeavors to display their freedom from the economic need to participate in economically productive manual labor. In essence, not having to perform labor-intensive activities did not mark higher social status, but rather, higher social status meant that one would not have to perform such duties.
[44]
Perhaps we can have a new liesure class?
