If it were possible to provide every human being with all the basic necessities to life should we?

3d printing will eventually make food and clothing cheaper. Also a basic wage for everyone is being tried out in different countries. Waiting for the Star Trek replicators to improve everyone’s life.

If it could, it should.

especially if I believe all the things various religions teach

Yes, I beleive we all should be true to ourselves and pursuing what makes us tick on a deep inner level. Sadly this is a rare thing and short of mental illness if everyone was assured the basics of survival there would be a whole lot of happy and satisfied humans which would equal less crime, violence and misery.

No, it would be wasted on the Belgians

^^ True. They would waffle about what to do with their time.

Yes.

Yes, we should.

Countries don’t really get together and praise other countries in meaningful ways.

The modern Western nations already have abundant food, shelter, and basic medicine, and yet, particularly in the USA, many are stuck in mindsets about scarcity, competition, punishment, selfishness, “tough love”, welfare resentment, etc., such that often people are deprived food, shelter, and/or health care or other needs, while good food is thrown out, buildings are unused, and healthcare is overpriced etc.

It’s cruel and backwards and will only get worse the more we perpetuate those mindsets as unchecked corporate exploitation of economies of scale, automation, trade imbalances and desperate people sucks the viability out of our traditional economy. When most jobs can be done by computers and robots, there will be more an more people who are not wanted as employees, particularly not at wage rates that would allow them to support themselves in the “First World”, particularly as the costs of everything are raised.

I think that the problem will be defining “basic necessities of life”.

Ask 100 people from 100 countries, and you will have 10,000 answers.

That would mean we would have to rearrange distribution of resources, so that everyone would have everything provided in equal amounts. This means taking significant amount of wealth from the rich north to provide it to the poor south. You’d also have to move people from their places so that the whole planet’s surface would be inhabited in equal density and thus solve the overpopulation problem (if not, it would mean you’d send more help to certain areas than in some other places that have less inhabitants) It would also have to include dealing with crime and corruption. which is complicated in only one country, much less in all of them together. So, how to make this possible?

You’d have to set up one world government, or make all governments in the world identical. In that case,all people would be forced by law to participate in this. That is impossible not only politically, but also because well, humans simply don’t want to live under the same roof and behave the same way. I won’t even start on why would everyone oppose this concept without second thought. So, how to make people accept this?

You’d have to change their ideologies and mindset. You’d have to set up an ideology which would be some mix of communism and minimalism. Communism because everyone would have to have it equal (no caste, no class, no societal differences that would make two people live under different conditions because then, the whole concept of providing necessities to everyone would fall flat) and minimalism (because the number of people is growing, and the amount of resources is lessening, so people would have to ditch consumerism and adhere to live with only what they need). Speaking of that, the whole idea would sooner or later need some sort of population control that would make people have less children and thus less people to take care of (think of X number of children policy). It would be easier to provide everyone with everything if there are less people to manage.

Now my brainstorm is closing to an end, so I’m running out of ideas, but if we want to create a utopia, we’d need to drastically change humanity. It would probably affect the very concept of culture, politics, national/ethnical identity, economics, warfare (as you know, wars are happening all the time, which greatly affects the possibility of providing everyone with what they need), morality itself, and probably many other things.

You’d have to create Utopia, and that is so difficult it may as well be called impossible.

Not to mention how to manage this system and keep it afloat if it ever gets established.

@Sneki95 ,providing basics doesn’t necessarily mean equality.

There are some basic income programs being tested in a number of countries right now. I’m curious to see how they work out. They claim signs of success but it is early days.

@BellaB If providing basics doesn’t mean equality, how do you define basics? If Bob and Alice are treated differently, their basics are different in nature too. Bob would need more than Alice to be provided his basics. Soon enough, Alice would see she is getting less, and would redefine her basics as Bob’s basics, and thus she will want Bob’s basics because his basics are obviously better than hers. Back to the start line. For the one providing the basics, it would be much simpler of Bob and Alice are put in the same basket and they simply have to provide them with the same type of basics.

Maslow’s pyramid how I define need. Get as much as the basics as possible. Food , clothing and shelter. Then security , social , esteem and transcendence .

Only if it meant that the overall human population of the planet could be kept below 500 million.

Well it would be better than allowing people to starve and freeze and die. What kind of a country would that be?

Of course we should do it, and most of us know it. This is why vigorous countermeasures are employed to drive us toward more selfish considerations. Endless effort is devoted to reminding us that we don’t have enough regardless of actual need or circumstance, and it’s every man for himself.

“Continue to require people to provide for themselves”.

No one provides for himself; we use builders to build our homes, farmers to grow our food, doctors to look after our health and government to build and maintain infrastructure. Not one of us exists on his or her own, we are all part of society.

If only. I can’t think what harm could ensue from ensuring all people had their essential needs met, food, shelter etc. It would also be nice if we could extend it to include the other species inhabiting our planet. Enough habitat for Orangutans, space for the Rhino to roam without fear of hunting. Clean water for fish. And so on.

Hugh Segal’s proposal to the government of Ontario on a pilot to test a basic income program.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/finding-better-way-basic-income-pilot-project-ontario

Finland and the Netherlands will be running similar but different pilots at the same time.

__

One of the things I find interesting about what’s happening in Ontario is that the leader was a traditional Progressive Conservative politician (when the PC’s still existed federally).

__

A nearby city is considering being one of the pilot communities.

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/a-guaranteed-basic-income-could-be-coming-to-ontario-residents-1.3241135

—Kitchener-Centre MPP Daiene Vernile says the countries and communities that have tried the idea of basic guaranteed income saw the cost to the taxpayers come down.
“Because when you have money to put healthy food on the table or a roof over your head, now you don’t have people who are going to the emergency room as often. You see crime rates go down, you see mental health rates go down as well. So in the end, when you measure it, it actually ends up saving taxpayers money,” Vernile said.—

Right now a single parent with two children receives a little over $12,228 withOntario Works benefits. Under the new basic guaranteed income, that amount could climb to $29,427. The money is nontaxable and that same parent could keep income earned from working a job.

The basic income would be different than social assistance in that anyone who meets the criteria would be eligible.

The unconditional payment doesn’t require anyone getting it to find work or prove they’re looking for it.

The basic guaranteed income would also apply to people receiving money from the Ontario Disability Support Program.

@Zaku I guess what I am getting at is would the leaders of other countries openly accept the knowledge/technology necessary to provide a basic subsistence to all of their people or would they be more likely to either keep it for themselves and apportion it out as they saw fit, and thereby profiting from it or would they freely provide for all. Would they perhaps be openly hostile to it because it would free the population up from the necessity to depend upon the government and that would mean a loss of prestige and power for those in charge.

@Sneki95 I think you have gone down a different path from the one I envisioned. I did not imagine that everyone would be equal, only that everyone would have their basic needs met. If you wanted more you would be welcome to acquire more. If you were happy with the basics you would be welcome to stay at that level and perhaps pursue a different path, perhaps of a more esoteric, philosophical or artistic bent since your survival was not dependent upon your worth or output within society. In your example to @BellaB if Alice wanted to have what Bob had she would be free to work toward it. But the basics are the basics, you have a roof over your head, clothes for your back, food on your table and health care as you needed it.

Thank you @RedDeerGuy1 for introducing Maslow’s Hierarchy‘s_hierarchy_of_needs. What I envisioned was the bottom of the pyramid (Physiological and Safety) being met as the basics and the rest being, at least in the beginning, provided by the actions of the individual.

@flutherother We are required to provide for ourselves by working in a profession in society that provides us with the capital to allow us to pay other members of society to do the things we cannot or will not do. Nobody gives you or does for you for nothing in return so you provide for yourself by participating in society.

@Earthbound_Misfit I agree. It would probably require that we conform to a limit similar to what @kritiper envisions.

@BellaB thanks for the links to programs similar to what I was wondering about. Interesting reads.

I wonder if there would be those out there who would object to such a scenario, I am looking at you America, because it does not conform to the Protestant Work Ethic that we seem to hold in such high esteem and that drives our social programs. The question is does giving individuals the freedom to pursue a life that is not driven by the need to survive make for a better or worse society than one which everyone has to contribute to the economy in some “productive” manner?
.

@rojo That depends on specifics. Certainly there are cases of humanitarian aid to foreign countries being seized by local leaders/warlords/governments to one degree or another. Those tend to be some of the most messed-up places, although there are greedy elements all over which can take some advantage, that concern can and does sidetrack/derail some interest in helping people who really need help, and can be over-used as arguments in political conversations. If/when that’s an issue, it seems like a side-issue and separate problem, rather than really going to the fundamental question of whether people’s needs should be met. I’d say people should try to meet the needs of everyone (definitely including the survival needs of wild animals – thanks @Earthbound_Misfit !!) and (secondarily but) yes, practical issues and corruption/abuse should also be addressed.

We have the ability to provide every living person on earth with clean water, an adequate diet, shelter and clothing. Do we? Fuck no. It’s always been the other guy’s problem.

@Espiritus_Corvus I think it has something to do too with how benevolent compassionate well-meaning people tend not to have a lot of drive to get into political and corporate leadership positions, while the nasty people do tend to. I think a lot of that has to do with our cultural issues and the resulting nasty industry&money-minded leadership in our corporations and governments – the men (and some women) running governments and corporations are some pretty poor specimens these days, and we don’t have enough outspoken healthy wise adults challenging them, but that’s improving. But also, and perhaps even moreso, I think it’s just the thought patterns – the ideas and conversations that get repeated.

^^I think you are right, Zaku.

I have been reading and also assisting in the writing of a book about ‘Hygge’ which is a Danish concept about life and happiness. I became quite fascinated with this concept since it is said, that the Danish are one of the most happiest people in the world. According to surveys.

Hygge is a concept consisting mainly of warmth, simplicity and mindfulness. A lot of critics say that the Danish are not happy because of hygge, but rather they are happy because they have a very good welfare system that really cares for people and that hygge is really just a product of that happiness. So, yes, I reckon we’d be happier. Supplying us with what we need within logical reason of course.

Yes.