= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
...only if the workers don't mind lower wages (such as in a Silicon Valley startup). See, among many other benefits, basic income can serve as a permanent strike fund for those who are still employed. These employed strikers would not receive anything from your solution of "unemployed-only." Furthermore, your targeted solution can be demonized as "lazy-only" and cut by politicians. Look at stigmatized food stamps today. Such drastic cuts are very unlikely with a non-stigmatizing basic income provided to everyone.
On a related note, GiveWell appears to be removing Against Malaria Foundation as their top charity, making GiveDirectly their new top charity. Donating to GiveDirectly may help legitimize the idea of an unconditional basic income. I don't think basic income is as important as mass cryonics, but I still defend it in my upcoming "cryonics and basic income for everyone" website. Here's hoping I finish the website someday.
Basic income is provided to everyone, even to those who choose not to work
Therefore it allows employers to pay lower wages.
...only if the workers don't mind lower wages (such as in a Silicon Valley startup). See, among many other benefits, basic income can serve as a permanent strike fund for those who are still employed. These employed strikers would not receive anything from your solution of "unemployed-only." Furthermore, your targeted solution can be demonized as "lazy-only" and cut by politicians. Look at stigmatized food stamps today. Such drastic cuts are very unlikely with a non-stigmatizing basic income provided to everyone.
In response to
On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor
Whatever your moral position is, government benefits to low-income workers are a subsidy to their employers.
If the government awarded benefits only to the unemployed, many low-income workers would find preferable to quit their jobs if their employers didn't increase their wage. Since employers need employees, employers would find preferable to increase their employees' wages enough that they don't need government benefits.
The net effect would be a redistribution of wealth from employers (especially those who use lots of low wage labour, like Walmart) to the government (and hence to taxpayers).
On the other hand, increasing government benefits to low-income workers would redistribute wealth in the opposite direction: from the government to Walmart-like employers.
Note that neither policy significantly affects the welfare of low-income workers, since their effective purchasing power remains approximately the same.
Therefore, if you think it is morally preferable to redistribute wealth from Walmart to the taxpayers, support unemployed-only benefits (and/or minimum wages), if you think it is morally preferable to redistribute wealth from the taxpayers to Walmart instead, support guaranteed basic income and/or other low-income workers benefits.
if you think it is morally preferable to redistribute wealth from the taxpayers to Walmart instead, support guaranteed basic income and/or other low-income workers benefits.
That's incorrect. Basic income is provided to everyone, even to those who choose not to work. Perhaps you were thinking of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is provided only to low-income workers.
In response to
comment
by
on
[LINK] blog on cryonics by someone who freezes things in a cell bio lab
Furthermore, those ~280 largely specialize in frogs, oocytes, etc.... but not in organ cryopreservation.
Reference? If I understand correctly, most of cryobiological research, including these rabbit kidney cryopreservation results, is published in the official journal of the Society for Cryobiology. Fahy used to be (still is?) a member of the Society and also the treasurer.
For whatever it's worth, focus only on organ cryopreservationists and you'll find the percentage of cryonics supporters drastically increase.
Reference?
I know you skimmed this article, but I encourage you to read it again. There you'll find your answer to Greg Fahy.
"Darwin" cites Fahy on an incident of a paper that was apparently rejected, according to Fahy because of prejudice, though others say it was rejected because it was bad science, he cites him again on uncontroversial arguments for vitrification.
I can't find anything implying that Fahy endorses cryonics as currently practiced. There is clearly a great difference between saying that cryopreservation of whole humans or human brains is an interesting area of research and suggesting people to make arrangments today to be cryopreserved with methods of unproven effectiveness.
Brian Wowk is an organ cryopreservationist who supports cryonics.
I've found this video of Wowk speaking at an Alcor conference. I find it quite balanced.
He mentions all the problematic issues with brain freezing and vitrification. He claims that the vitrification injury may be reversible in principle and in practice with future technology, but he admits that the argument is somewhat "hand-wavy" and won't convince critics.
I do disagree with the conclusion that, even if cryonics has a low probablity of success, we should do it. It is the sort of "Pascal's mugging" argument that is not instrumentally rational.
In response to
comment
by
on
[LINK] blog on cryonics by someone who freezes things in a cell bio lab
I can't find anything implying that GF endorses cryonics as currently practiced.
ಠ_ಠ
Be honest. Did you simply ctrl-F and search for his name in that article? If yes, then here is a paragraph you missed: "In 1981, an internationally renowned organ cryopreservation researcher was called into his supervisor's office (the supervisor was also an Officer and Director of the Society) and threatened with dismissal if he continued not only his low profile association with cryonicists, but also his suspension membership. It was also pointed out to this researcher that if his association with or belief in cryonics in any way became public he would never again get grants from the NIH or other routine sources. This individual, who was already wearing his suspension bracelet on his ankle to avoid public comment, was thus faced with a terrible dilemma: a choice between his chance at continued life via cryonics, or his career."
Assuming you won't take the time to read that lengthy article, here is a shorter one. Look for the part about the prominent Southern California scientist recommending cryopreservation for someone severely afflicted with Alzheimer's. Like the Cold War piece above, the Marcelon Johnson article is also written by Mike "Darwin." If his nickname from his schoolmates irks you, then you'll love this piece: Dr. Dave Crippen, Professor of Critical Care Medicine and Neurological Surgery at the UPMC Medical Center in Pittsburgh, compares Mike to - drum roll please - Richard Feynman. For the record, I disagree with that comparison and I think Mike disagrees too (・。・;)
Both of your "Reference?" inquiries were historically answered in the Cold War article above. Assuming you haven't done this yet, google the words "organ cryopreservation" just for fun. Not only does Fahy's name dominate the results, but you should also see a 1988 book by David Pegg, who was mentioned in the Cold War article. Of course, as I made clear to this Reddit user, simple googling can be misleading (I apologize to Less Wrong users for my snark at that link... I tend to get irritated by stubborn individuals...)
Well anyways, it's impossible for me to know exactly how many organ cryopreservationists are currently in their labs - Elsevier searches do not inspire confidence - and their true views on cryonics. For example, here's a recent article on porcine uterus cryopreservation. Who are these authors? Did they show up at the annual meeting of the Society for Cryobiology in June? And even if they did, would they admit to Ben they support cryonics in light of the Society's strained history? Whatever the case, I always appreciated this article by Fahy, where he concludes: "Even after currently-possible manipulations of physics and biology have all been explored, nanotechnology will come into play, allowing someone to enter the field from a wholly new perspective and change the rules of the game in more radical ways than most cryobiologists living today can imagine."
XD
I do disagree with the conclusion that, even if cryonics has a low probablity of success, we should do it. It is the sort of "Pascal's mugging" argument that is not instrumentally rational.
I'm not going to argue the importance of cryonics in a comment section. I just want to focus on simpler corrections for now. Or in other words, please stop insinuating that no cryobiologists support cryonics.
In response to
comment
by
on
[LINK] blog on cryonics by someone who freezes things in a cell bio lab
Most cryobiologists don't know or care about cryonics, because it is the purview of a tiny (< 3000 peple) and eccentric minority.
The Society for Cryobiology doesn't allow cryonicists to become members and has issued statements that describe "cadaver freezing", as currently practiced by cryonicists, as an "act of faith, not science"
Though Fahy is first and foremost a cryobiologist, he has spoken at life extension and cryonics conferences, and he is not at all opposed to seeing his technology used to improve cryonics.
Does he endorse cryonics or is he signed up himself for cryopreservation?
In response to
comment
by
on
[LINK] blog on cryonics by someone who freezes things in a cell bio lab
The Society for Cryobiology consists of only ~280 members (by contrast, the Society of Neuroscience has 40,000 members). Furthermore, those ~280 largely specialize in frogs, oocytes, etc.... but not in organ cryopreservation. For whatever it's worth, focus only on organ cryopreservationists and you'll find the percentage of cryonics supporters drastically increase.
I know you skimmed this article, but I encourage you to read it again. There you'll find your answer to Greg Fahy. Also, Brian Wowk is an organ cryopreservationist who supports cryonics. Peter Mazur, one of the most prominent cryobiologists discussed in the previous link, recently referenced Wowk's paper on the thermodynamic aspects of vitrification.
Indeed. Comment like those increase my belief that LW is home to some crazy dangerous doomsday cult that stores weapons caches and prepares terror attacks.
(I still don't assign an high probability to that belief, yet, but still higher than most communities I know)
I came here from OB, and I lurked a bit before posting precisely because I didn't like these kind of undertones. If that attitude becomes more prevalent I will probably go away to avoid any association.
If that attitude becomes more prevalent I will probably go away to avoid any association.
I was going to say: "Well, on the bright side, at least your username is not really Googleable." Then I Googled it just for fun, and found you on the first page of the results (゜レ゜)
Based on a book I just read called Poor Economics by Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee and Esther Duflo, it is true that extremely poor people are much, much less able to make and follow long-term plans than rich people. They suggest it has to do with various facets of a very poor person's life (for example, the difficulty of getting loans or even opening a savings account) and also with the "willpower depletion" aspect, because the everyday lives of the poor include so many small decisions that are made automatically by the societies that rich people live. Also, their research established that poor people, even those poor enough that they can't afford enough food to eat, still spend money on short-term luxuries, like sugary tea.
Good book to read. I would recommend it.
I absolutely love Poor Economics.
In response to
Imperfect Voting Systems
Here is a 30-minute Great Course starring Professor Scott P. Stevens: The science of election methods
tldw: at 28:53, he recommends Range Voting.
That said, I hereby grant you dispensation to dress up in a cloak. I'm probably OK with you playing beer pong, though I'm not really sure what that is.
I'm not either to be honest.
The spanking and the sending people on walks you'll have to negotiate with the spankees and the walkers.
Come to think of it I think I might dismiss the 'spankees' class entirely, abandon the 'walk' notion and proceed to negotiate mutual spanking options with those formerly in the 'walker' class. I don't think I have the proper frat-boy spirit.
I think the people who play beer pong don't even know what it is.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Right, in fact I was referring to payments to those who are working. A guaranteed basic income would not discriminate between the two, thus, in the proportion it was given to workers, it would be a subsidy to their employers.
Unemployment benefits would be sufficient to obtain these effects without transferring wealth from the taxpayers to the employers.
No. To illustrate, look at the starting point of the aforementioned subsidy to employers: the Earned Income Tax Credit. You can only make use of the EITC once you are employed, so all else being equal, the EITC contributes to the idea: "If you don't work, you starve." I may then feel pressured to work at McDonald's or Walmart. By contrast, Basic Income exists external to the market, serving as a base amount for everyone to live on. Since I don't have to worry about starving anymore, I now have more leverage in choosing if/where I want to work. Any amount I earn on top of the base amount is of my own volition for luxury items not needed for my survival. If I later want more money and my employer resists, I can use the basic income as a strike fund.
Three things. First, you seem to be forgetting my earlier point regarding staying power. Even if you rally society today to support your targeted "unemployment benefits" (I put it in quotes because I know you mean it in a welfare context that is wider than merely unemployment compensation), your welfare solution is still at risk of being stigmatized in the future and then cut by politicians. Basic income for everyone avoids this risk, and will have much greater staying power.
Second, you seem to be under the impression welfare is handed out like free candy. In reality, welfare can be a pain in the butt, whether it's the intrusive paperwork, stressful delays, or the threat of fines and probation. Basic income bypasses this mess.
Third, you keep suggesting "taxpayers" and "corporations" are two separate things, even though corporations pay taxes too. Yes, corporations are quite adept at avoiding taxes, which is why tax reform also needs to be a part of this discussion.