As we discussed earlier when talking about Universal Basic Income, we touched on the idea of imposing high taxes on wealthy corporations that own the means, i.e., algorithms and robots, of production. The idea is to then distribute this money among people so they can cover their basic needs. But what is and what isn’t a basic need? Are these premises correct?
The way I see it, Universal Basic Income, while it may provide a better standard of living for many, does nothing more than keep people in check, preventing social, political, and economic unrest that could threaten the well-being of the new tech-rich and the political class. Even so, thinking in the long term, one aspect I highlight about this idea is that it seems right to me that we aim to protect human beings and not jobs per se. We must protect human needs and the sense of belonging and individual importance in a diverse society.
There is no universally accepted and agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a basic human need. Just as today in most of the world, access to education is considered a basic need in modern societies, and recently the internet seems to be joining that list of needs, previously churches played a similar role as they took care of people’s eternal souls rather than something as fleeting as the human body itself. Biologically, we need between 1,500 and 2,500 calories daily to generate enough energy each day, but I doubt governments will decide to cover just this standard. The latter may vary from country to country, but what cannot vary is the fact that the prevailing needs of human beings are physical issues, such as access to air, water, food, and warmth. Only after these needs are met can we worry about security, order, and law, and finally fight for our freedom. We can try to invert the order of the factors on this list, but it doesn’t work. Freedom would be useless if someone else can steal our food and not be punished for it.
Today, an average person can enjoy a higher standard of living than their ancestors and many influential historical figures. Consider the food available in supermarkets, access to electricity and gas, and the vast information we can access from our mobile phones. However, we always want more, and therefore it is likely that by 2050 or 2100, despite having a Universal Basic Income and a safety net with better education and health, a person may not feel satisfied due to growing inequality and stagnation in social mobility.
Undeniably, technology has enough potential to raise the standard of living for all humanity. After all, beyond production costs and task automation, as Peter Diamantis says, scarcity is often merely contextual. To cite an example, the U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that humanity consumes 410 quintillion Joules each year. That’s 410 with 18 zeros behind it. The crazy thing is that approximately every hour and a half, the planet is touched by 430 quintillion Joules. And the Sun, according to scientific consensus, still has 5 billion years of life left before it goes out forever. That, for us, is so hard to measure that we could say the Sun is a virtually unlimited source of energy for humanity. The energy is there, but we still don’t have the capacity to capture it all for our consumption. There is no doubt that the future will be green, and therefore the improvement and reduction in the cost of technology that allows us to capture and use solar energy is key. This is a clear example of how scarcity is sometimes contextual and an accessibility problem. Is it the only one? No. Hunger and access to food is another example. While in the United States, more than 30% of the food produced is thrown away, worldwide, 1/3 of the food produced also goes to waste, while in the case of fruits and vegetables, waste approaches 45%[181]. On average, a family of four in the United States wastes food worth $1,500 annually, while at the macro level, considering all actors, food waste in that country is estimated to reach up to $160 billion[182]. If we want to illustrate this further, we can take into account the estimates of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which indicate that in 2018, 103 million tons of food were wasted. What can we compare it to? The Statue of Liberty! But not just one of them. The famous statue erected on the Hudson River, off the coast of New York, weighs 225 tons. This means that the total amount of food wasted by the Northern power is equivalent to more than 450,000[183] times the weight of the Statue of Liberty. This means, among other things, that the hunger problem currently affecting more than 690 million people in the world is not because we do not produce enough food. It is not necessary to increase production but to improve distribution and ensure accessibility.
It is not Henry Ford’s fault for mass-producing cars, nor John D. Rockefeller’s for exploiting the oil industry. Humanity does the best it can with the knowledge and tools it has at a given moment. The automotive industry and the oil industry allowed us to make giant strides. Today, however, the available technology and evidence regarding the climate crisis force us to accelerate the transition to clean energy and transportation models based on public services or the on-demand rental of Uber driver services, which, in addition to saving natural resources and reducing visual and noise pollution in cities, ends up being cheaper for the average user. Not to mention the carbon footprint of a vehicle running on fossil fuels versus one running on renewable energy.
Modern computer systems, smart sensors connected to the internet, robotics, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and 3D printing are all technologies that invite us to think that a world for nearly 9 billion people, with clean energy, affordable housing, healthy food, and quality education, is possible. In fact, access to the internet, as information technology, has had unprecedented growth in human history, not even with the mass production of books, radio, or television. Today, more than 60% of the world has access to the internet, compared to 42% in 2015, and a mere 8% two decades ago. Today, 80% of Argentina’s population has a smartphone and is active on social networks[184]. The challenge then becomes how to organize ourselves so that everything else is also possible.
[181] Beauty (and taste!) are on the inside. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). Viewed on July 12, 2021, at http://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1100391.
[182] Cooper, R. (2021). Food Waste in America: Facts and Statistics (2021 Update). Rubicon: Software Platform Offering Smart Waste and Recycling Solutions. Viewed on July 18, 2021, at https://www.rubicon.com/blog/food-waste-facts.
[183] Cooper, R. (2021). Food Waste in America: Facts and Statistics (2021 Update). Rubicon: Software Platform Offering Smart Waste and Recycling Solutions. Viewed on July 18, 2021, at https://www.rubicon.com/blog/food-waste-facts.
[184] Argentina. (2022). DataReportal – Global Digital Insights. DataReportal. Viewed on February 15, 2023, at https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-argentina.