[githulhu]

Yeah, but then you're creating a whole class of people who basically don't have anything anything to do. They will inevitably find things to fill that vacuum, such as having lots of babies. What happens when population growth outstrips the ability of production to provide for the needs of non-production? Unless you assume that productivity can scale up indefinitely, those people will just get poorer and poorer as wealth needs to be shared between more and more non-productive people.

[draugadrotten]

Productivity doesn't need to scale up indefinitely - it just needs to be able to scale up until it's enough.

Silly but simple thought experiment: - 10 people on an island - 2 people can pick enough coconuts for all 10 to eat well - Using a ladder, productivity picks up enough so 1 person can pick enough coconuts for all 10 - A coconut picking robot is developed, picking enough coconuts for all 10 The coconut picking robot's productivity can't scale indefinitely but it doesn't have to.

I am sure you can see the implications of using robots in the real world.

Edit: Speaking of babies, prof. Hans Rosling's TED talks are mandatory. http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies

[kilbasa]

I think if you measure productivity in terms of coconuts over man hours, productivity could rise indefinitely if it's at all possible to make robots that repair themselves and don't require any non-renewable resources.

Anyway, I think the first people to lose their jobs would be the ladder makers.

[tomp]

First of all, the consequence of free time isn't necessarily more children. In fact, as people move up from poverty to "middle-class" lifestyle (with more free time as well), they have less children.

Second, China solved the overpopulation problem quite well with the one-child policy (maybe too well, even).

[tomjen3]

About your China point - I would not consider anything that involved forced abortions to be a solution.

[istjohn]

The assumption that people will have more children if they do not have to work is highly dubious at best. Some people would find new ways to contribute to society, some people would be a drag on society, and some people would live a quiet life. Any prediction of the net influence of a new leisure class on society at large is wild speculation.

[cousin_it]

I agree that basic income isn't a permanent solution. We don't need it to be permanent, though. We just need to survive the period of increasing automation leading up to self-improving AI, and ensure that the AI is Friendly. At that point, either overpopulation and all other problems get solved automatically, or we all die.