I would say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber blows him out of the water

>Haber is also considered the "father of chemical warfare" for his years of pioneering work developing and weaponizing chlorine and other poisonous gases during World War I, especially his actions during the Second Battle of Ypres.

but more importantly,

>Nearly 50% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber–Bosch process. Thus, the Haber process serves as the "detonator of the population explosion", enabling the global population to increase from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7.7 billion by November 2018

Anything past 1.6B is overpopulation, and is driving the holocene extinction, global warming, pollution, etc... all of our big problems scale with population, and removing this natural limitation on our food supply has allowed us to blow the suspension out on all of them

What is a “natural limitation” of food? Should we get rid of mechanized farming, genetically enhanced plant varieties, modern logistics, and everything else that makes the modern world so spectacular and quality of life so high for billions of people as well?

The solutions for the future will be ones that improve technology to allow more to be produced more efficiently. We should look to the future, not “return to monke”.

Public vs private funds. If you told me some private resort with $800/night rooms paid their lifeguards this much, I would think nothing of it.

Being an SRE is a little more of this and a little less scheduled work. You still have standup and plenty of other meetings, though

It's not a UBI experiment until the taxation part of the equation is also included in the experiment. Injecting outside money like manna from heaven is not UBI

Would you argue that:

Missions before Apollo 11 were not moon landing experiments because they didn't land on the moon.

Projects before ITER (hopes to be) are not nuclear fusion power experiments because the reaction is not self-sustaining.

Movie previews aren't audience reaction experiments if the audience didn't pay for the tickets.

Or are partial experiments to learn something in fact reasonable, normal and necessary?

I'm not sure that partial experiments which test none of the putative downsides are of much benefit to a debate though.

I certainly would contest, for example, the suggestion that Neil Armstrong walking on a sidewalk would have represented a moonwalking experiment, because we didn't need to experiment to learn that astronauts are capable of perambulation on earth or learn anything about low gravity from it. Similarly, if you wish to test the hypothesis that a welfare state would be best reorganized on the to each irrespective of his need principle with taxes adjusted accordingly, you're not creating evidence for it by learning that unusually poor people are better off after receiving one off windfall of $7500. The assumption that poor people are better off with more money is already baked into the status quo solution.

I believe the person you're responding to is saying that increased taxation is such a necessary component of any UBI system that any test which doesn't take that into account is flawed.

I understand that and disagree.

Agreed. People love socialism so much until they live inside a socialist country. They believe the mantra you will be able to receive without giving, everybody doing what they love, how better it will be spending time doing music or whatever you love doing.

UBI is only possible if you have taxes way higher than social-democracies in Europe with the current economy we have. The reality is that the economy will tank with UBI and taxes would be higher and higher.

Productive people like me will instantly move to a free country where UBI is not applied. That is where Universal in U comes. They want to force the entire world doing that, so people productive can't escape.

It is nothing new, it was done by the first Christians or communists promising the lala land. In Russia they promised people will do whatever they wanted with their time after people give in.

In reality the moment it was applied in Russia, forced labor was applied, and they took all your money and a terrible dictatorship followed.

In the first Christian communities, they will take all your money first, as you had to sell everything you had for entering the community. Then as St Paul said, the one that does not work does not eat, from the money they had already taken from you.

The experiment has been repeated so many times in the past only people that ignore History would love to repeat it.

Right now, UBI idea comes from the financial elite. They want all your wealth, your autonomy and the power that comes from it.

What's new here is that the sales pitch about shorts needing to be covered has more truth to it (I think, not an expert) than the usual vague promises about a huge turnaround being right around the corner. Usually the argument that other buyers will follow you is based purely on their supposed FOMO

Hopefully google will come to their senses at some point and stop creating roles within the company where the job description is to tie the company's shoelaces together

>How old is the account? How much organic-looking activity has the user done across other subreddits?

these kinds of policies are the death of the throwaway account. many subs don't even allow you to post in the first place now if you haven't ground out a posting history in other subs that do allow new accounts. maintaining anonymity for anonymity's sake has become increasingly difficult over the years on the site

Industrial agriculture has had disastrous consequences in the form of overpopulation, we just haven't felt them yet. Global warming and every other problem caused by overpopulation are all a result of industrial nitrogen fixation and large scale farming producing enough food.

Blaming nitrogen fixing or industrial agriculture for global warming is objectively wrong. The Romans were causing significant rise in atmospheric carbon levels just through the sheer scale of many small fires and deforestation. About the only sources of fossil fuels released were methane ignorantly released from mining and maybe Greek fire if the theory that it really was surface deposits of crude petrochemicals is correct.

Population capacities and thus overpopulation aren't fixed things meaning overpopulation is relative to conditions. It would be absurd to call algae overpopulated if they thrive just fine at concentrations in one epoch with different population conditions just because it would cause red tide in another epoch.

just another crypto pyramid scheme