Ultimately this is aesthetics. Maybe vertical farming isn't the most economically efficient use of land b/c there's no value in GBP that can be assigned to having more open forests but that shouldn't stop a sovereign and we shouldn't have to pretend to have an "optimal" answer.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @UDepravity
> there's no value in GBP that can be assigned to having more open forests You could just pay for a forest access pass. It sounds crazy but there might be something to it. Especially if you had the technology to guarantee sunshine (orbital mirrors!) and fast transport.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You don't have to be bound by an economic mindset that maximizes and optimizes each transaction to show that it's the most Pareto-efficient state. "People should like forests and spending time in them, our state provides this for people's moral, spiritual and physical health"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @UDepravity
True. It's likely that the most efficient way to provide this is a voucher system. Everyone gets assigned wilderness vouchers and they can spend them to access wilderness, which could be private. The government or local associations could also run some.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I understand the appeal of that kind of a solution but ultimately it comes down to an effort to get the approval of a system that hates you. "With vouchers we can improve everyone's well-being and it's provable" Just skip the step where you prove it.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @UDepravity
In the end, I think state benefits should be paid out almost exclusively in vouchers for healthy food, child-stuff, wilderness, sport, etc. Strangle places like this:pic.twitter.com/gR4XYXLZ0M
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
State benefits should be in the form of jobs doing things that benefit the health and well-being of both the state employee as well as the citizen. Think FDR's CCC planting trees, creating trails in parks, etc. Long-term there shouldn't be infinitely many state dependents
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @RokoMijicUK
>Long-term there shouldn't be infinitely many state dependents Longterm, automation is going to make almost everyone uneconomical to employ. What then, banning it and placing tariffs on countries not doing that ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UDepravity @RokoMijicUK
Thinking that automation "makes people uneconomical to employ" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of employment. Employers are in the business of thinking up valuable things for people to do - this doesn't change with any level of automation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @RokoMijicUK
1)I have feeling you haven't been employed much, yet. Sure, atm, if you aren't an idiot and can get up on time, you can usually find employment. But why do you think Hyundai bought Boston Dynamics? You think Amazon wouldn't drop its human warehouse crew if it could ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Great, say they do. The exact same incentive exists - figure out something for those people to do that makes you money. Amazon letting them go means the price of their labor has dropped, too. Entrepreneurs are out there 24/7 trying to think of ways to employ people profitably.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.