Do you agree with the right of a human to work and have a ability to survive happily and have the resources to sustain?

Total number of votes: 17

94.1% Yes

5.9% No

Mar 7, 17 / Ari 10, 01 05:34 UTC

E-Credits as a Currency  


The technology we have created will replace us soon. Also the economy which is based on trade now will have to be repurposed into a rationing system that gives a citizen a right to spend a certain amount of money due to the reason that a nation or government is formed to take care of a people that constitute it. A government is in existence to protect and give it's people a income as a right to survival.

THE UNIVERSAL PROVISION LAW of Asgardian Finance Dept. (Proposed by Ajay Gumma(Asgardian) on 11:00 am(IST), 07/03/2017 to the Finance Minister, Ministry of Finance Asgardia)


Do realise that there is a good chance we are not alone in space other alien races will contact us in the future, as we all know AI, Manufacturing and Travel & Logistical Automation and Sales via E-Commerce and Video/Audio Streaming online have to a large extent automated most tasks or are about to and Unsupervised Machine learning is about to take work out of people's hands.

We need People to do simple task of monitoring the robots and create a job where none exists to make life purposeful.

Humans are very good at thinking out of the box and researching and engaging with people. But I predict a time in the future where we will have researched most of the technologies we need and met a lot of races in the space domain.

Humans will have 5 jobs in the future :


Planetary/Asteroid Extraction and Terraformers,

Caretakers & Teachers,

Explorers and Documenters,

Soldiers/Admins & Interspecies Diplomats

And all humans must be given a job among these 5 fields mandatorily by the government.

The LAW of Mandatory Work for Humans. (Proposed to the Law ministry, Asgardia by Ajay Gumma(Asgardian) )

Any comments to improve or support the above mentioned points may he presented and will be taken to consideration and debate.

Constructive criticism and support is welcomed.

Mar 7, 17 / Ari 10, 01 12:28 UTC

Uhm. Ok.

Seriously, though, I am not voting for that poll. It is 100% biased.

Mar 7, 17 / Ari 10, 01 13:12 UTC

Not soon. The technology is replacing you now. And it's accelerating. This is a very good thing.

In a decades time the entire premise of "employment" is likey to be vastly different. Already there is more requirement for jobs than there are available job slots. Increasing population through breeding, raised retirement ages etc combined with increases in automation and AI will only decrease the available job slots over time with increasing competition for these slots.

The system in place currently is a rationing system that only grants right to spend a limited amount of money. The entire economy is based around scarcity - and money being a fictional construct is able to be made scarce quite easily.

UBI and UBI-like constructs that have been proposed will be put in place mostly to assure people's survival - failing in this regard is likely to wreck everything in the mass food riots etc that follow - and specifically so they can keep regularly buying and keep the companies alive, as if they don't sell then they die. These companies fold up and stop producing shiny things then the 1% suffer. And it saves all the redundancy and wasted resources of employing people for the sake of employment.

There is a good chance we are not alone in the universe. Given a long enough time line it's reasonable to suggest we are assured to meet. I wouldn't personally be formulating any plans that rely on this happening within your lifetime. Certainly not to fix the "economy" - To look at this realistically, we're unlikely to meet ½ way, or even on their doorstep. Currently we have largest chance of them comming to us. If they are of a technological level to cross the vast distances of space in a reasonable timeframe then it's unlikely we'll have any form of technological advancements for use as trade. "Resources" are far more abundant in space, over a wide enough area, and logical space mining techniques - which if they can traverse solar systems is trivial - will of afforded them more matter than they could hope for from off one little backwards planet. DNA sequences may be unique, but you can only trade them once. We certainly shall have little to offer them, not even "interesting conversation". The best we have to offer is significant effort in adjusting psychological and socialogical deficits in order to elevate us to a state where it would be possible to trust co-existence.

Mandatory work isn't something that's a particuarly clever concept for either the employer or the employee. For the employer this represents additional cost for no clear gain. To the employee this is unlikley to result in any measure of choice of the matter, and doing something you don't want to be doing could be labelled slavery. Regardless of compensation, there's no real choice in the matter.

Creating jobs just to be able to employ people is one of the largest problems introduced into the economy in the last few decades, and introduced ignoring it's overall effect to the economy to alleviate a lower level problem on a temporary basis(and this is now becomming insufficient, meaning it needs to be dropped entirely to save the economy at the expense of those in the useless positions or accelerated to maintain - in economies requiring constant gain this shall accellerate break point). People don't need to monitor the robots - "AI" can do that, it can watch more entities with greater attention to details and much faster reaction times and more trustable responses. This then leaves more human time for lesser monotonous tasks. Like whatever they personally would rather be doing.

Working does not make life purposeful, unless you'd define your purpose as to generally make someone else richer. Living to work is basically slavery. Slaving to do something that really doesn't need doing and was just fabricated to give you something to do could be argued as to actually be less than living without purpose.

However high the automation levels, I do not think the requirement for human labour to be eliminated entirely. The five "jobs" listed are(acutally more than five jobs, nine) are likely to still exist in a few decades time - but in a vastly different form. Almost all of it heavily augmented by technology, if not entirely provided by technology.

Rather than "employ" people, IMHO a "better" strategy is to give people everything they want. This is at least partially possible via concepts such as UBI - but space mining can potentially provide for the physical resources to do this properly within a few decades.

Everyone likes something - interests are diverse. With a wide enough pool to the population then the collective interest should extend in every direction and cover all possible fields. You don't need to pay somone to research the effects of specific magnetic pulses in spin–orbit-coupled Bose–Einstein condensates - All you need to do to get that done is find the right person and give them everything they need - You'll have to pry them out of the lab with a crowbar, not pay them because they want to find the answer more than you do, not having to worry about tomorrows food, rent etc they are free to persue. Job satisfaction is priceless, and the only reason people choose to do things they wouldn't like to do is they are actually chasing money - because they need food tomorrow, or to pay the rent etc. Eliminate that and you can have a workforce that actually wants to be there, actually doing that task - which will result in much more care, effort and attention as people strive to be the best, not the cheapest.

Anything AI or automation would struggle with is possible to solve via such a strategy.

  Updated  on Mar 7, 17 / Ari 10, 01 13:16 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Typo

Mar 16, 17 / Ari 19, 01 05:38 UTC

I think EyeR put it quite well.

There is a spectrum of futurologists that goes from "Robots will throw obsolete humans in the trash" to "Everyone will live in a VR holodeck 24/7". The truth is no doubt somewhere in the middle. Automation lowers costs and when we finally have sentient robots, there will be massive deflation from cheaper commodities.

No matter how relatively useless a person might be next to a machine, you can always employ yourself. The robot revolution will most likely cause an enormous economic boom in the form of cottage industries.

Mar 25, 17 / Tau 00, 01 10:43 UTC

BTC or ETH - the best currency for Asgardia now

  Last edited by:  Petro Kiselov (Asgardian)  on Mar 25, 17 / Tau 00, 01 10:44 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 25, 17 / Tau 00, 01 12:20 UTC

I vote for rare pepe trading cards.

Mar 26, 17 / Tau 01, 01 00:18 UTC

Why not have the ministry of education conduct classes in these feilds and let it be optional that way your not having tyranny if people lose their job to automation they could take one of these classes or make their own business or both

Mar 26, 17 / Tau 01, 01 10:52 UTC

thought ppl r not 'lose job to automation', actually r freed by automation: we don't need to waste time repeating boring dull job day by day, or risking life to do dangerous tasks. we r transformed from tool to designer, design new modules or try new combinations of different modules, better solutions for more effecient and failsafe automations.
as to unemployment and training school, many training schools have bad fames in my area, as their trainees don't get jobs and qualified training as promised, tuition fee too high compared to local income. and some training agency and loan agency have trainees apply loans at the beginning of training and ask them pay back immediately after 3-6 months training no matter they nail a new job or not. it seemed the training center and loan agency coop to rob the jobless. thought it better to draw a portion of training graduates' salaries as tuition fee every month till paid off. if trainees don't get new employment better switch to a new training lesson

Mar 26, 17 / Tau 01, 01 11:04 UTC

Actually, the automation will take care of the design aspect, too. It can test more iterations, faster, making superior improvements.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 23:25 UTC

E-credits is not a bad idea, but currency is also based on what it's made of and origin, so what would the solid object be? Euros have gold in their center, the outer layer is silver which is what makes them worth ally and that's the coin, the actual paper dollar I'm not sure.

  Last edited by:  Boone Johnson (Asgardian)  on Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 01:21 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 05:08 UTC

Where did you learn the euro contains gold and silver?

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 12:27 UTC

I believe he means the color, not the precious minerals.

If it is the latter, I fear he may not be salvageable.

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 15:00 UTC

Sadly i work at a fast food and every once in awhile European tourist come in and have American change but have European coins I asked what these odd coins where and told it was Euro coin meaning a dollar coin. It had the same value of 5 euros or 1 I can't remember it was a year ago I asked. But that's what I was told, this guy was from France, a small town near paris.

  Last edited by:  Boone Johnson (Asgardian)  on Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 15:02 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 19:45 UTC

Italian money is closely the same with theirs

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 20:55 UTC

Oddly enough, most of europe uses the €.

This is the first I've heard that they actually contain gold or silver, however. I was under the impression that the value of the base metal used in coin manufacture was commonly less value than the printed denominator. And that's before the multiple decades most currencies have had with tweaking the alloys involved to use lesser expensive, or otherwise usefull materials.