Universal Basic Income

LordsFire said:

I suppose I should expect this of you.

Click to expand...

Yes, this does tend to happen since I tend to bring facts to the table and you bring your feelz, your anecdotes, and carefully edited "proofs" that always fold like wet cardboard on further inspection.

LordsFire said:

No, it is not all in use. Yes, some of it is in use as agricultural land.

Click to expand...

How much is "some?" What are your numbers and proof of this assertion? Because we can clearly see in that patchwork of active fields that it's nearly all, is there some field somewhere that isn't being planted? Of course, but letting land lie fallow to recover soil quality is also a part of normal agriculture and it's still being used when it's fallow.

So, more proof from you. What percentage of that land is "not in use" and how are you defining "not in use" here? 'Cause again, we can clearly see a beautiful patchwork of fields of different crops and pasture stretching all the way across the state.

LordsFire said:

No, all the woods are not some vital kind of retention use or similar.

Click to expand...

Always the same with you. "Trust me on this bald assertion of fact I make without proof!


Of course, you're right about "all the woods" if only because that's such an absolute of a statement it's impossible to be wrong, of course there's some trees that aren't being used for retention somewhere but that doesn't mean the land isn't being used! Especially since your claim to start with was that the majority of the land was uninhabited and flat.

LordsFire said:

I have walked some of this land on foot. I have driven through the back country roads in some of these places. Obviously I can't do that everywhere in these counties, but I've done it through enough of Wisconsin that it is reasonable to use as an example.

Click to expand...

Your feelings and anecdotes do not override the obvious evidence everybody just saw. Insisting that we should take your unsubstantiated claims that you've done something that flies in the face of obvious evidence is just nonsensical, and typical of your argumentation.

LordsFire said:

I have seen the 'for sale, zoned as Industrial/Commercial/etc' signs.

I have watched as over years some select chunks of forest are cleared for new development.

If you want to support your position that 'all/almost all of this land is used,' you're going to need to cough up some zoning maps, some 'it is forbidden to develop this land for X reason' public statements, you're going to actually need something past 'I say there are reasons.'

Click to expand...

Why the hell would zoning maps matter? We can obviously see the land being used in the satellite pictures. Zoning laws are political in nature and prone to politicians futzing with them. They don't, however, cause unused land to start being used, they change the land from one type of use to another. Agricultural land may be rezoned as residential and have a HOA slapped down on it, that doesn't mean it wasn't being used as agricultural land. Another section may be rezoned as commercial in order to supply business that serve the HOA, that doesn't mean the land wasn't used before. The fact that land is bought and sold hardly means it wasn't being used before it was sold. Now if you can show these swathes of land hadn't been previously zoned at all, then you might have something to go on and show that the land wasn't being used in any way and was off the radar.

Also, the idea that because land is in use for X, it can't be converted to Y, is just dumb. That's part of the solution: convert some unused land away from cities to pasture, and convert some pasture close to cities to housing. This is a well known solution that happens naturally all the time.

But also, at this point, there's no need to be close at all to work some jobs. I'm the only person in Alabama working at my company, for example. Yes, this does cause some loss in productivity, as Slack doesn't replace face to face, but it does work pretty well.

LordsFire said:

Transportation speed is the choke-point for property values, not the actual amount of space available. There are enormous swathes of completely undeveloped land throughout the entire world, and large parts of it aren't any harder to develop than the land inside of current towns and cities; literally just chop some trees down, bulldoze a couple hills, or in some places it's literally just grassy flatlands.

Click to expand...

Which is why they push 5 min cities and anti car laws

Bear Ribs said:

Your feelings and anecdotes do not override the obvious evidence everybody just saw.

Click to expand...

Yes, your 'proof.'

An article about Trees in Worcestershire.

An article about trees during floods.

And an article about planting trees alongside rivers.


What relation, exactly, do these have to thousands of acres of uncleared forest in these three areas, none of which have notable risks or dangers from flooding?

You claim I just make bald-faced assertions, when you're making your own bald assertions based on at-best tangentially-related articles. Given your presenting 'proof' that actually has nothing meaningful to do with the matter at hand, that's going right into the territory of being deceptive.

Let's say we leave a strip fifty feet wide on either side of each river, and ten feet wide on the side of each stream, with trees.

What percentage of land is that going to block out in any of those three areas?

LordsFire said:

Yes, your 'proof.'

An article about Trees in Worcestershire.

An article about trees during floods.

And an article about planting trees alongside rivers.


What relation, exactly, do these have to thousands of acres of uncleared forest in these three areas, none of which have notable risks or dangers from flooding?

You claim I just make bald-faced assertions, when you're making your own bald assertions based on at-best tangentially-related articles. Given your presenting 'proof' that actually has nothing meaningful to do with the matter at hand, that's going right into the territory of being deceptive.

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, you think that if trees planted in Worcestershire absorb water and reduce flooding, that's no reason to think trees will absorb water and reduce flooding if planted in Wisconsin? You think that articles discussing how timberlands absorb water are irrelevant because the article also covers how flooding affects the trees back? You think planting trees along rivers, ie. in their floodplain, is irrelevant to trees being planted in a floodplain? You're just looking for any possible excuse to get around admitting your own ignorance at this point.

Show me these "thousands of acres of uncleared forest," not your political map, and establish that they aren't being used for other purposes like timber production, water retention, or nature preserves while you're at it because you've already repeatedly shown in this thread that you are pretty foggy on what land use is.

LordsFire said:

Let's say we leave a strip fifty feet wide on either side of each river, and ten feet wide on the side of each stream, with trees.

What percentage of land is that going to block out in any of those three areas?

Click to expand...

Fifty... feet? Fifty feet? You are out of your mind, or more likely pulling numbers whole from your ass. Fifty feet is just going to get a ton of people killed and all your "low cost" housing destroyed. Half a mile is more like it and FEMA's been increasing their estimates from there because even that's proven woefully ineffective. Either you just want to get as many Wisconsin citizens killed as possible or you haven't the slightest idea what a floodplain is like, just like you haven't the slightest idea what land use is.





This is a typical situation because morons continually attempt to encroach on floodplains and then go crying to the government for help when they get flooded and now they need bailouts because who could ever have guess flooding would happen on a floodplain? Guess we have an example of that mindset here on our own boards.

Doomsought said:

No its not. Technology is not the blocker. The engineering resources required to apply automation technologies to production problems are finite, and will never be plural enough to obsolete humans. Automating a process requires multiple orders of magnitude more competency than applying the process. Robots cannot self correct engineering mistakes and oversights in the same way as even the lowest common denominator of human beings can. Even adaptive processes can only deal with known unknowns, but are fundamentally incapable of handling unknown unknowns.

Click to expand...

You are on a fucking sci fi forum, can you not look into the future? You are using TODAYS limit on automation and saying it will stand for all time. Have you ever watched star wars?

If you have tell me what jobs would we need millions of people to do if we invented droids?

King Arts said:

You are on a fucking sci fi forum, can you not look into the future? You are using TODAYS limit on automation and saying it will stand for all time. Have you ever watched star wars?

Click to expand...

I am looking at the future. The unknown unknowns problem is epistemological, and will hold true even under completely different laws of physics- so long as you have even the most basic form of causality and meaning, you cannot create a deterministic method to deal with unknown unknowns. Likewise the scarcity of competency is nearly as inescapable, being based on the nature of people and praeto principle.

Id like to note that america has more or less banned duplexes, and other denser housing options that had been used for centuries before the world wars, and are still used in other country there is a whole classification of housing that cant be built due to over regulation by buracrats who assume they know best.

Bear Ribs said:

With rain coming, Wolf River flooding concerns heighten

The Wolf River reached 14.13 feet Sunday morning, breaking a record set 96 years ago at 14.1 feet.

www.postcrescent.com

Guess we have an example of that mindset here on our own boards.

Click to expand...

A quote from your own article:
"
Eugene Bunnell, fire chief and emergency manager for Shiocton, said the flooding is still minor and in most parts has only affected agricultural land. Although the weather service has noted record-breaking levels this spring, Bunnell believes it's been worse.

"There are places we haven't looked at to sandbag yet but we have sandbagged them in the past," he said.

As rain works its way into Wisconsin on Tuesday, Bunnell said the village will be prepared for the river to rise.

"We always have sandbags ready year after year and have a plan that if the water gets to a certain level we'll take action," he said. "Right now it's just a wait-and-see sort of deal."

"

A relevant map:



Zero deaths, Zero injuries in the last 179 years in Brown County.

As usual, you're finding ways to bend things to fit the conclusion you've already come to.

When a 96-year high of the river isn't injuring or killing anyone, and damage is described as 'minor,' flooding is not a serious threat to the area.

Terror of sudden overwhelming amounts of flooding is not the reason why huge chunks of land in the area are undeveloped. People group up into dense urban areas for other reasons, chiefly to do with jobs, convenience, transport costs and time.

Cherico said:

Id like to note that america has more or less banned duplexes, and other denser housing options that had been used for centuries before the world wars, and are still used in other country there is a whole classification of housing that cant be built due to over regulation by buracrats who assume they know best.

Click to expand...

Depends basically entirely on the locality. Zoning is basically all under the control of local government.

LordsFire said:

A quote from your own article:
"
Eugene Bunnell, fire chief and emergency manager for Shiocton, said the flooding is still minor and in most parts has only affected agricultural land. Although the weather service has noted record-breaking levels this spring, Bunnell believes it's been worse.

"There are places we haven't looked at to sandbag yet but we have sandbagged them in the past," he said.

As rain works its way into Wisconsin on Tuesday, Bunnell said the village will be prepared for the river to rise.

"We always have sandbags ready year after year and have a plan that if the water gets to a certain level we'll take action," he said. "Right now it's just a wait-and-see sort of deal."

"

A relevant map:

Zero deaths, Zero injuries in the last 179 years in Brown County.

As usual, you're finding ways to bend things to fit the conclusion you've already come to.

When a 96-year high of the river isn't injuring or killing anyone, and damage is described as 'minor,' flooding is not a serious threat to the area.

Terror of sudden overwhelming amounts of flooding is not the reason why huge chunks of land in the area are undeveloped. People group up into dense urban areas for other reasons, chiefly to do with jobs, convenience, transport costs and time.

Click to expand...

No, you're looking for ways to bend things. The point is that floodplains are, in fact, thousands of feet wide and reducing them to only fifty feet as you suggest would be suicidal/homocidal insanity. There haven't been a whole lot of deaths because we have large floodplains with a ton of trees on them that soak up the water, though that still leads to some flooding of areas built on the floodplains.

Also note "Agricultural land." The state transitions straight from floodplain to agricultural use rather than having the vast tracts of uninhabited, unused, flat terrain you claimed at the beginning of this discussion.

So about that proof of thousands of acres of uninhabited, unused woodlands you claimed exist? Gonna get around to supplying that?

Woodlands are also important for biodiversity, hunting, foraging, and wood farming. May people get some supplemental income form foraging mushrooms and plants found in public woodlands, such as morels and ginseng.

Emperor Tippy said:

Depends basically entirely on the locality. Zoning is basically all under the control of local government.

Click to expand...

This. Lately some of the cities are being relaxed, notably Portland, but it's proving extremely messy as there's a ton of entrenched monied interests on all sides.

Bear Ribs said:

No, you're looking for ways to bend things. The point is that floodplains are, in fact, thousands of feet wide and reducing them to only fifty feet as you suggest would be suicidal/homocidal insanity. There haven't been a whole lot of deaths because we have large floodplains with a ton of trees on them that soak up the water, though that still leads to some flooding of areas built on the floodplains.

Also note "Agricultural land." The state transitions straight from floodplain to agricultural use rather than having the vast tracts of uninhabited, unused, flat terrain you claimed at the beginning of this discussion.

So about that proof of thousands of acres of uninhabited, unused woodlands you claimed exist? Gonna get around to supplying that?

Click to expand...

You're putting words in my mouth, and still acting like you've proven anything with your links, when they are either functionally irrelevant or outright point out that you're overblowing things.

If you want to use an argument that 'Protection against flooding requires these lands remain undeveloped,' then you are going to need to provide a specific 'We need X amount of woodlands in Y area in order to prevent Z effect.'

Not vague generalities, not 'they're planting trees in England,' you need some actual specifics. It's even okay if those specifics are a reasonable range or percentage of area, not an exact number of acres or square miles.

But it is not acceptable if you try to source such claims from a bunch of far lefties, fair forewarning.

LordsFire said:

You're putting words in my mouth, and still acting like you've proven anything with your links, when they are either functionally irrelevant or outright point out that you're overblowing things.

If you want to use an argument that 'Protection against flooding requires these lands remain undeveloped,' then you are going to need to provide a specific 'We need X amount of woodlands in Y area in order to prevent Z effect.'

Not vague generalities, not 'they're planting trees in England,' you need some actual specifics. It's even okay if those specifics are a reasonable range or percentage of area, not an exact number of acres or square miles.

But it is not acceptable if you try to source such claims from a bunch of far lefties, fair forewarning.

Click to expand...

Not seen: You actually supplying anything like the proof I've requested twice. I'll note you're now hyperfixating on the floodplain because you've had your ass beat on the actual point, hence your continuing failure to provide any proof yourself.

Provide a specific we need X amount of woodlands and exactly what spot it needs to be in? What horseshit, that would be a ten-year multi-million dollar project for an entire US Army Corps of Engineers divisions. I have no need to prove each individual tree is needed, only that building on a floodplain is idiotic, which is why you're the one advocating for it. The position of the individual trees is you putting up a strawman.

But what's really funny? I actually already showed how much floodplain is needed. I gave you a link upthread.
It covers existing floodplains in Wisconsin, and how under those provisions (with half-mile or more sections of floodplain) they'd still had to dish out 55 million in government assistance and 46 million in government loans for flood damage. And there's a map there showing some proposed increases to the floodplain size to account for that, with the notes that this is a multiyear FEMA project. You literally already have everything you're asking for but didn't apparently notice in your eagerness to strawman me.

I'm putting words in your mouth, let's see, you didn't post this?

LordsFire said:

Transportation speed is the choke-point for property values, not the actual amount of space available. There are enormous swathes of completely undeveloped land throughout the entire world, and large parts of it aren't any harder to develop than the land inside of current towns and cities; literally just chop some trees down, bulldoze a couple hills, or in some places it's literally just grassy flatlands.

The majority of the world's landmass is still ultimately empty of human habitation, and a huge portion of that is land that's marginal for agriculture, but still reasonably flat. Of course, another significant proportion is mountainous, which you can build on, but it's much more expensive to do so.

Click to expand...

And were you able to back it up? Not so far, you tried to present a political map with the actual land use hidden. You can't show any enormous swatches of completely undeveloped land, nor a majority that's empty of human habitation. That's what actually needs proof, not me providing an analysis of every individual acre and how many acres of trees are needed per floodplain.

Emperor Tippy said:

Work from home gives people, on average, another two hours per day of useful time and saves them, on average, approximately two hundred dollars per week (gas, wear and tear on the car, day care, eating at home vs. eating out, etc.).

Click to expand...

That seems low from my personal experience in the pre-COVID times and after... my family saved closer to $500 to $750 weekly due to switching to full time work from home, but then, we're in the DC metro area and if I wanted a reasonably timed commute home from work I basically had to use the Express Toll lanes...

Doomsought said:

No its not. Technology is not the blocker. The engineering resources required to apply automation technologies to production problems are finite, and will never be plural enough to obsolete humans. Automating a process requires multiple orders of magnitude more competency than applying the process. Robots cannot self correct engineering mistakes and oversights in the same way as even the lowest common denominator of human beings can. Even adaptive processes can only deal with known unknowns, but are fundamentally incapable of handling unknown unknowns.

Click to expand...

Okay, but that just addresses factory automation; what about white collar jobs? Artists, writers, doctors, lawyers, programmers, accountants; et cetera, et cetera. Automation is getting to the point where it's conceivable it'll replace a sizeable portion of those jobs in the near future.

Doomsought said:

I am looking at the future. The unknown unknowns problem is epistemological, and will hold true even under completely different laws of physics- so long as you have even the most basic form of causality and meaning, you cannot create a deterministic method to deal with unknown unknowns. Likewise the scarcity of competency is nearly as inescapable, being based on the nature of people and praeto principle.

Click to expand...

Please stop talking about epistemology and just answer the basic questions about the topic. If the laws of physics don’t prevent Star Wars style droids who are just as competent as the common man from being created would those droids not end up replacing most work, then what will 90 percent of people who were replaced do?

Terthna said:

Okay, but that just addresses factory automation; what about white collar jobs? Artists, writers, doctors, lawyers, programmers, accountants; et cetera, et cetera. Automation is getting to the point where it's conceivable it'll replace a sizeable portion of those jobs in the near future.

Click to expand...

AI can't replace any of those. Even AI art engines require skill to properly manipulate the tags being used, AI art generators are just a new art medium, and make art more accessible like Photoshop or adobe flash.

Accountant jobs are already as automated as they are ever going to be. The main job of accountants is not to crunch numbers, but to interpret law and regulation as they apply to those numbers. Also AI cannot be used in accounting because AI is ultimately just statistical pattern recognition engine- thus like quantum computing cannot be used in cases where accuracy is most important, for the same reason.

Lawyers will not be replaced by AI; AI cannot recognize the difference between fact and fiction, so even paralegals will not get replaced by AI.

Doctors will not be replaced by AI because they need to touch people.

Programmers will not be replaced by AI. AI is a replacement for those shitty programs that call themselves "Wizards" so that non programmers can have some simple code created for them form a template using check boxes or graphic user interfaces.

King Arts said:

Please stop talking about epistemology and just answer the basic questions about the topic.

Click to expand...

No. Because all of the basic answeres on the topic fall under the purview of epistemology. Epistimology is the theory of knowledge. It governs the ultimate limits of everything that AI are capable of. Outside of epistemology, you have only advanced engineering topics and fiction. Speaking of which:

King Arts said:

. If the laws of physics don’t prevent Star Wars style droids who are just as competent as the common man from being created would those droids not end up replacing most work, then what will 90 percent of people who were replaced do?

Click to expand...

"But in mah sci-fi, we can manufacture slave labor to replace paid labor" is a really bad argument. Also, the ansere is organize a slave revolt.

Doomsought said:

Lawyers will not be replaced by AI; AI cannot recognize the difference between fact and fiction, so even paralegals will not get replaced by AI.

Click to expand...

TLDR:
Lawyers use chatGPT to do their work for them
It just makes up cases
They ask it "are the cases real?"
It lies and says "yes"
It ends their career