this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
-12 points (32.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33314 readers
1313 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am asking this question, because there does not seem to be a modern logical solution.

I hear a lot of people say that socialism might solve a lot of problems, but I don't think it has any practicality.

Looking at jobs hiring trends, a lot of businesses are almost stopping their hirings, in favour of investing in automation. Which means 5-10 years down the line, "worker owned" might be closer to fiction.

AI is replacing a lot of jobs now and while the trend that new technologies create jobs, I think that jobs might come after 15-40 years.

Are humanity hopeless?

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] m4xie@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

A large nuclear war would break the systems that cause or suffer from our current problems, and replace them with fewer but much worse ones.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

There is no one solution that applies to multiple unspecified problems.

Pick a specific one if you want actual discussions and answers.

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Overcoming capitalism and creating a socialist federal global republic solves all problems.

Climat change? Due to capitalism. Housing crisis? Due to capitalism. Polution? Due to capitalism. Racism? Today it only exists because people get told to fear for their live and their lively hood being taken away but if that is secured there is nothing that can be manipulated with fear.

Wars? Cant have wars if its all one united federalised republic.

Corruption? Due to capitalism. Uneducated? Due to capitalism. Trump and his friends? Capitalism! Poverty? You guessed it! :D

[–] Pro@reddthat.com -4 points 3 days ago (1 children)
  • Human suffering.
  • Climate Change.
[–] LucasWaffyWaf@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Human suffering is such a uselessly broad, wide sweeping range of things and happenings that you may as well have said "bad things."

[–] Pro@reddthat.com -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

OK, let us try again here.

Poverty and hunger.

[–] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Replace all the social services your country has with a guaranteed basic income. Everyone gets it and it doesn't run out like unemployment benefits. Another benefit, unlike welfare, is the person can keep working.

[–] Pro@reddthat.com -4 points 3 days ago (4 children)

guaranteed basic income

This has been studied a lot of times and mostly there is usually 2 concerns:

  • How you will finance the whole thing?
  • How do people act when you give them extra money?

Now, for the first concern: I had never seen anyone even answer it theoretically.

For the second concern: there is a mixed results, some studies suggest that people productivity gets lower, others suggest otherwise.

I don't see this even applied in a small village.

Just to be clear, I am talking about the widely known UBI, there is NIT and even other universal welfare schemes. IMO, even other universal welfare schemes has their own set of unsolved issues, and very experimental and idealistic in nature.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Why is it that the question of finance is ALWAYS one of the first hurdles when discussing things like climate change and social services, but somehow when it's for the military or Nazi Gestapo, the money magically materializes?

There exists more than enough money to fund it. We just need to extract it from the billionaires who are hoarding it.

[–] Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Here is a map of basic income pilot programs from around the world.

Not only has it been studied, the studies have been taking place for over fifty years. Universal basic income is cheaper in practice than the numerous other social programs that help people who either can't work, shouldn't work or can't work enough to afford their needs.

In a lot of cases the people who choose to work less do so because they have children, health issues or dependants.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

UBI is funded by taxes, it's actually not has hard as it seems because people always do the math in the "logical" way and it isn't actually the right way to consider the cost.

If you give a UBI of say $10,000 a year to everyone (let's just keep it simple) for every citizen in Canada (let's say 40 million people) you'd think that the total cost would be $400 Billion dollars a year, right?

Except that's not how it actually works, what you'd do at the same time is raise taxes (preferably on property, but stupid politicians gonna put it on income instead) so that it balances around a specific income level getting nothing, with people above that level paying in, and people below that amount receiving a benefit. So if you've got a family of 4 (2 adults, 2 kids) with a median family income of say $80k (again, just keeping it simple) you'd raise their taxes by $30,000 a year, and then give them $40,000 a year in basic income. Then you've got a well-to-do family making $150,000 a year that pays $60,000 more in taxes, and only gets $40,000 a year back.

The total "cost" of the program is actually only the net amount transferred. It's easy to understand this if you think through a situation, when you tax someone $40,000, then give them $40,000 the total cost of that transfer is zero.

If you tax one person $20,000, give them $10,000, tax another person $10,000, and give them $10,000, and tax a third person $0 (not working) and give them $10,000 then the ACTUAL cost for the whole program is only $10,000, despite total taxes being $30,000, and total payouts being $30,000. So instead of costing $400 Billion for all of Canada, depending on what number they balance the whole thing around, it could be a reasonable amount and still cost under $100 billion a year.

There's actually a study from the Parliamentary Budget Office of Canada that outlines the more realistic cost.

This would apply similarly to any other country attempting to implement such a policy.

[–] Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Right away it would be significantly less than $400bil. Only adults would recieve UBI, and there would be savings from eliminating EI, Disabilty, Income Assistance, and OAS.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why only adults?

Yes, you're right about the savings on other programs assuming the amount for the basic income is high enough to cover those people.

[–] Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's generally accepted UBI wouldn't go to children, barring some special circumstance maybe, though not that I've come across. Kids don't get income assistance or disability cheques either. Throwing $1000 a month to a 10 year old would be insane haha.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Think about that critically for a moment. Do children not have needs? Shelter, food, clothing?

Why should they not get a basic income?

[–] Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

Of course they have needs, that's what the parents are meant to provide for. It's illegal for a child to earn an income in developed countries already, 10 year olds are not allowed to have a job.

Are you suggesting the gov't give $1000 a month to every 4,5,6 etc year old? Or is it meant to go straight to the parents? $1000 per kid is insane, and couples would be popping out as many kids as possible. Imagine getting $10k every month because you had 8 kids. The system would be abused significantly more than child benefit programs already are, and the kids would suffer the most.

Canada for example gives out child benefits every month to help with child needs. There's a UBI pilot program starting in 2026, and you need to be 18 to apply. $1200 for singles, $2000 for couples, and $1800-$2400 per month for couples with kids. Generally, most UBI proposals that I've scome across have a couple of things across the board, namely being over 18, and making less than X amount per year (the Canadian pilot is less than $30k). Throwing that much money at kids is a recipe for disaster.

Hugh Segal, Canadian Senator was in charge of a UBI study many years ago. He stated that if all of our government handouts, over 60 at the time, were replaced by a UBI the country would save several billion dollars.

I'll try to find that study.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

I mean I think you've already asked a similar questiom before, I'll re-iterate:

Automation is built by working class people, so it's only fair for the results of that automation to also benefit the working class, basically: Universal Basic Income.

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

All problems have their root in capitalism. So lets stop treating the symptoms but rip out the roots!

[–] Pro@reddthat.com 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Remove Capitalism, then what?

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago

Wdym then what? socialism. Working towards a united global federal republic. With strong seperation of power and strong defended democracy that never no one could pull a lenin/stalin/mao

[–] quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You just need to solve greed.

[–] Pro@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

How do you do that?

That is from my opinion, impossible to achieve.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

Capitalism encourages it. Socialism discourages it.

It's a start.

[–] auginator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Fire the firer

[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Humanity thrives on revolutionary new ways of social organisation. This is the end stages of the current one that is about to eat itself. Nobody knows what comes next. My personal guess is that humanity will keep doing this cycle of improving itself and letting decadence and greed make revolution inevitable many many many times over. People in every epoch of history so far have proclaimed it to be the last and yet here we are. For the good and the bad, it's all part of the biological programming that makes humanity what it is.

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

We haven't had a series of assassinations for at least 2 generations. Just pointing it out.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"How do we get out of this well? I don't think ropes have any practicality."

If you want to control the allowed extent of suffering, you need a government that attempts to do so. There is no alternative. Social programs and regulations are what keep us safe from greed, nothing else.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

OP asked the question but doesn't want the answer.

A lot of world problems could be solved if humanity as a whole had a bit more compassion and empathy for others

[–] Crampi@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Nobody says "end capitalism" ? On Lemmy ? Really ? I'm so disappointed 😠 But yes that's the solution

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago

There. I did it. Its strange no one suggested that.

[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Do you want a quick and easy solution that could never work but would fit in a reply on Lemmy?

[–] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.

[–] hondaguy97386@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Nuclear Armageddon. /s obviously...

[–] remon@ani.social 2 points 3 days ago

I plan on dying before they affect me.

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 1 points 3 days ago

There's probably about 3x as many people as there should be, but there are no good solutions to that. I think a Logans Run style setup might work as long as there's a cool laser show and some cool music to go with it I think it could gain popularity as a spectator event.

[–] sadTruth@lemmy.hogru.ch 1 points 3 days ago

Maybe this or (preferrably) that.

[–] lemmyuser68@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 days ago
[–] Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

One last fuck party before we let the moss take us.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -4 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Mister Tickle.

Oh, sorry. I thought we were listing our favourite fictional characters.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nobody with any integrity to them denies the existence of Jesus

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The historical person may have existed. The mythical figure I know you're talking about is a fiction.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The historical person most likely existed, according to historians. I couldn't find any evidence that Matthew and John's accounts of Him and Mark, Luke, Peter and Paul's writings of Him are fictional

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Isn't the fact that those accounts disagree with each other, and are in fact sometimes contradictory (and that important stuff such as trinity, holy ghost, all came much later) cause to suspect that a lot of core modern Christian tenets are not based in historical truth?

Certainly there was a historical Jesus who did some stuff and inspired a religion. That much I think is indisputable.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago

They don't contradict/disagree with each other and the trinity is mentioned early on in the Bible. First in Paul's letters, then in Matthew's Gospel.