From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 10:32:00 MST
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>> ### This is not quite true. I conceptualize the overall goal of the
>> society as maximization of my survival and welfare.
>>
>
> The society could frankly care less about your survival and welfare
> per se.
### Do you think so? What else is the point of having a society, if not to
advance one's ends, which for most sane humans means survival and welfare.
---------
>
>> Since the subgoal subserved by the Poorhouse is the minimization of
>> my risk of dying in poverty in a lifeboat situation, the Poorhouse
>> should provide all that is needed for survival at the minimum
>> possible cost, in the unlikely case I might need such services.
>>
>
> Who says a poorhouse is the best solution though? This argument only
> says such very obliquely assuming your scenario gives reasonable
> coverage of all that is important. But that itself is very much in
> question.
### Can you describe a better solution? Better in the sense of providing the
maximum amount of help for those who need it to survive, while using the
least amount of coercion against those who can give help, and without
significant side-effects.
--------
>
>> One of the methods for reducing
>> the cost of the Poorhouse program (important as long as I am doing
>> well - this is the buck part of the equation) is to ask the inmates
>> to work, e.g. clean the grounds, cook, provide gardening and maid
>> services, etc.
>>
>
> So now they are "inmates"? An interesting choice of words. What
> about simply people who have no skills relatively rare enough to
> demand a living wage? Do they all get turned into "inmates"?
### Joining the Poorhouse program is strictly voluntary, and training and/or
physical and mental augmentation for socially useful jobs would be provided.
---------
>
>> The work
>> requirement also reduces demand for this type of assistance, without
>> impairing its usefulness to me (if I am in trouble, I will use the
>> Poorhouse even if I need to work for it, this is the bang part of
>> the equation). Of course, once full automation is available, the
>> relative cost of providing survival assistance to non-reproducing
>> un-enhanced sentients will be essentially unaffected by their
>> efforts. In that case, I could consider a Poorhouse for free,
>> especially for all who forgo reproduction and life-extension.
>>
>>
>
> Why should they forgo life-extension? Who says that we could not come
> up with options that would allow them to revamp their intelligence and
> abilities if they so desired? Who says that even the enhanced need
> to do something for money in order to have enough to live and follow
> their interests?
### I personally would feel very dissatisfied with having to feed
non-contributors for ever. As soon as augmentation is financially feasible I
would request the users of the Poorhouse to either augment and get a job, or
leave. If they can live on their own without a job (i.e., a consensual
relationship of exchange of services), that's perfectly fine with me, as
long as I am not forced to contribute to their lifestyle.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:14 MST