Bitcoin Forum

https://news.bitcoin.com/immortality-cryogenics-and-ubi-how-the-crypto-rich-influence-science/

---

About the Universal basic income.

I don't know enough, but it's the thing where everyone would make the same amount of money, no matter what's your job?

Young people are not going to go to school for 10 years to become doctors if it is to earn the same salary as the one working at Mac Donald's.
The redistribution of wealth, yes, but the one who doesn't do anything with his life and watches Youtube all day long, he lives as well as the one who works hard? What the hell is this? They have a free house, free food, free pocket money, free everything, I call this already the redistribution of wealth


The Cryogenics connection:
Let's say, you're immortal, bro how do you want an economic system to survive if we all become immortal. You're going to cost a lot to your retirement pension lol. Anyway, I don't believe in and don't want to even if it becomes real. But still, explain to me how the redistribution of wealth is possible through this. You will have maybe 80 children, in the long run, how do you want to do?

And the last point (but it's not about economy): why is there significant interest in this subject from some crypto millionaires advocates. I knew about H. Finney but that's not the reason.

Not quite.

It proposes that every citizen would receive a non-means-tested income from the government, regardless of their employment status. The proposals usually suggest that this would replace social security or other benefits, and be of a sufficient level to cover all basic requirements, such as housing, food and water, clothing, sanitation, etc. The absolute amount is usually around the poverty line for that particular region or country - in the US, this is generally around $12,000 per year. People who are also employed will earn their wage as usual (and be subjected to taxes as usual) on top of their universal basic income.

It won't. Our current economic system is already unsustainable. In most developed countries, there are more people retiring and claiming pensions than there are new people entering the workforce. This is going to get worse over the next 10 years as we reach peak retirement age for the Baby Boomers. If suddenly people stopped dying, the economy would crash and we would run out of physical resources very quickly.

More government interventions = more problems introduced.

Some crypto millionaires only get rich because of the luck of buying early. They have too much money to spend.

I think there are a lot of people who want to learn and make money at the crypto market right now, but they are afraid of being scammed because our market is a high-risk market.
That is why there are so many people interested in this topic, after researching, many people will decide whether to participate in this market or not.

If we become immortal then the retirement age would be at around (∞-10) so none of us we'll ever go there and it will make the pension system not unsustainable but obsolete.  ;D

Back to the universal income, it's a slightly less bad solution than printing money and communism.
In communism we all had a job, we all got paid for it but, because the purpose was that everyone should do something and get something back a lot of useless jobs that were design for activities that were eating money away were created. So, in the end, the guys "working" like that we're bringing down even the profitable activities like a parasite, ironically, since those that did not contribute to the glory of the party were called parasites.

A basic income would be the same, you're either have to print money for it or tax the ones that have in order for some lazy ass to go on and live sometimes an even better life than the one working 8h/day like a ...parasite

Anyhow, there is still hope that reason would triumph over populism:
Switzerland's voters reject basic income plan
 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060)

Depends.

Immortal doesn't necessarily mean "eternal youth". People die from either a pathological process, such as a disease or trauma, or from simply "old age", which is an accumulation over time of cell death, telomere depletion, DNA mutations, mitochondrial mutations, failure of cell mechanisms, accumulation of toxins, and so forth. Although we already have immortal human cells in labs all around the world (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa if you are interested), in terms of a person it is going to be far easier to cure "disease" than it will be to cure "old age". Long before we see immortality we will see average life spans increasing well above 100, and even if we ever do reach immortality, it is likely going to be far, far longer before we can maintain young, youthful bodies for a significant period of time. There will be far, far more elderly and retired people in the future.

Couple this with the fact that the number of available jobs is going to decrease. As technology, machinery, automation, artificial intelligence, etc., all develop, then more and more jobs or parts of jobs will be performed by computer or machines. The number of jobs available for humans is going to decrease. We are looking at a future with more non-working elderly, fewer jobs, and more working-age unemployment.

It will be untenable to continue to tax the ever decreasing number of workers more and more to pay for the ever increasing number of unemployed and retired. Given all this, the current economic model will be obsolete as you say. I won't profess to know what the answer is, but unless you don't care about widespread poverty, there will need to be a significant change.

Cryonics is not the same as immortality, and it's not a building block for immortality, it's just some rich people hoping that they can be frozen and awaken in the future, when their life can be prolonged (up to eternity in best case). The connection with crypto and UBI here lies in simple observation that all those things are novel/futuristic, so some wealthy people like to donate to those causes. I really doubt there's some secret plan going on that involves all three technologies.

Didn't expect you to make this blunder.

As others have pointed out. It is not what you say.

Universal Basic Income is something that everyone will receive no matter what. You can of course be a doctor and make more money or a teacher or anything that your heart pleases. But that's your job. What happens if you are unable to work or are penniless? You become a drag on your relatives or the government.

At such instances, the basic income is something that you would receive in your bank account would be like free money that the government would provide you so that you can afford to live.

On paper this can be a game changer, although there are many pros and cons to this system.

This is correct. Romania is one of the few countries in the world that I think has a guaranteed income scheme. Our's is called Venit de Baza Neconditionat and according to some reports, this is helping poverty go down in our country.
Take a look at this article : http://business-review.eu/news/is-poverty-declining-in-romania-the-number-of-basic-income-receivers-dropped-12-pct-last-year-but-experts-dont-see-less-poverty-162277

Well, you can't achieve that without having a way of replacing or teaching the body how to generate new cells, at the same time teaching him it's not good to keep regenerating some others like the bone growth centers and if you manage that, yeah you're on the path to immortality.
But in my short to medium experience, seeing hundred of crushed, stabbed, burned and so on bodies in the emergency unit I'm willing to bet that immortality would come when we ditch this body and go to the full "ghost in the shell" scenario. Not that when eventually this might happen will be of any interest to us.



The current model is obsolete because were reaching the limits of substantial growth.
Well, robots would help us make cheaper booze, but even if you manage to sell it at 1c/l you won't be able to sell more than 70 billions beers a day, right? Nor you will manage to sell more than 10 billion condoms. Of course, the numbers I put are overly exaggerated but you get my point, there is simply no more room for huge growth.
We've found out all the continents, we've managed to reduce the working hours from the full day to 8 hours, we almost nullified the time for chores with all the automatic cleaners/washing machines so on and on, at this point in order for us to do more stuff and use more services and generate growth we eithe have to ditch sleep or we must increase the population.
But, till when?
Even 3rd world countries are saying a reduction in births in areas with a better economy and with a better education.
It's not only Europeans that stopped having the 2.5 children, I had a co-worker from Morroco, he was 42 and had only a daughter, yet he told me he was from a family of six, the whole non-sense of giving birth to tens of children will soon stop even in Africa and India, people are starting to have fewer children in order to take better care of each of them, it's natural.

Sooner or later we will have to deal with zero economic growth or even worse, there is no way to avoid it.


There are plenty more, some even mentioned int he article, almost every EU country has one disguised under some other name, even us has the EITC.
But reading the article...
I know that except the capital the prices are dirt cheap compared to Prague or Munchen but 60 euros? It's not covering even a monthly bus and bahn subscription.
How the hell are you supposed to feed yourself, forget clothing and washing with 2 euros a day? 

The universal basic income is enough money to be able to pay for goods that is basically your typical survivor needs, so its not like communism. This is more about being able to pay for your food, water, electricity and so forth type of needs, if you want a lambo this is not the way to go, hence this is universal BASIC income. You don't even have to have a job, you can be unemployed or a CEO, in the end everyone should have enough money to pay for the simple stuff that makes you stay alive.

Some people mistake it with communism where everyone earns the same sort of salary and lives the same life but this is not like that, this doesn't cap your high side, you can be bill gates and earn billions every year, however in this nobody becomes too poor to become homeless.

There are actually lots of cell lines within the body which generate new cells every day - epidermal stem cells make new skin, hematopoietic stem cells make blood components, intestinal stem cells create new gut lining, and so forth. The real challenge is creating new cells for structure which generally do not create new cells, such as neural or cardiac tissue, endlessly creating new cells without any significant random mutations, and implanting the new cells in to the target organ. There's a lot of interesting research going on right now using stem cells to repair tissue damage following heart attacks and strokes, for example.

As more and more diseases are cured, trauma will become an ever larger proportion of worldwide cause of death, although developments like self driving cars will prevent some of these deaths.

It's a side effect of better healthcare, sanitation, vaccinations, and so forth. When >50% of children died before adulthood, it was natural to have much larger families to increase the odds of having some surviving children. As childhood mortality rates fall, so do birth rates. However, birth rates in developed countries generally sit around about replacement rates, but birth rates in developing countries still remain high. World population continues to increase too quickly. We are already looking at hitting 8 billion people within the next 5 years, and probably 10 billion by the middle of the century.

Too many people, not enough jobs, not enough physical resources (food, water, energy, etc.)

Basically the UBI is designed to take of a lot of stress for the lower class on attaining their basic needs. Even though all of their citizens will receive an equal amount of money from the UBI the only ones who will get to feel the benefit are in lower classes the ones who have a higher standard of living won't even feel a change I even doubt that they will use the money they receive from the UBI will be spent on their basic needs or healthcare and education. The concept of UBI looks good and a lot of case studies proves the benefits of it but for me  I really don't like the idea that all of their citizens will be more dependent on what the government is giving and it actually promotes an unproductive way of living. I would rather see the fund be spent on projects, housing, and education all of which will have a long term positive effect in the economy.


Immortality is a bad idea especially if you consider the fact that we have a growing population with limited resources and jobs. If every person are immortal then you can just see that the rich will be rich forever and the ones who have a higher position with their jobs will stay there forever the late ones who have entered into the game will always be in the bottom. This kind of situation would just do nothing positive in the economy.

a blunder? Excuse me to not be an economics dictionary lol

But I think I got it and I think the same. Lazy people will stay on a sofa all days. In my country, they have it already (not exactly called the same).
They get a free house, free health insurance, etc... And they earn near the same as someone working (perhaps 3% less) :o Every month the money hits their bank account. Doing nothing mate. Why would they want to work for i.e. $1000 while they already get $950

if you are unable to work or are penniless then it's simple, go to find a job. It seems normal.

If people already working with a salary will get a 'second salary' I won't refuse free money  :D

LeGaulois you are still quite wrong and you are failing to understand why you are wrong either. UBI is not money you get freely that makes you live without working while people who work make 3% more than you. No, it is an income that is given to you so you can pay for regular stuff that keeps you alive, like a shelter or food or stuff like that, it is not a lot of money and you can't survive on that, it is like welfare in USA which already exists.

People who work are making 1000%+ more than UBI, assume it like this, in a third world country where someone gets 50 dollars in UBI to be able to live, there will be people making 300 dollars for MINIMUM wage, so people would be making 6 times more by just working in McDonalds, anyone who makes a decent wage would be around 700-1200 dollars range and the rich is still rich like doctors would make 5000+ dollars.

So, in the end UBI would be BARE MINIMUM and not something you can live with, it is just prevention for homelessness and not a way to just not work and live. So it is not like 950 versus 1000, it is more like 100 versus 1000, it doesn't get anything remotely similar to minimum wage, nobody wants to live 10% of McDonalds' wage.

I'm not sure how I feel about UBI. A nationwide welfare state isn't something I particularly agree with, but with the number of people increasing and the number of jobs going to decrease due to automation, computing, machines, AI, etc., there needs to be another option for people to obtain money. There are, however, two arguments I've heard made for it which I did like.

Firstly, it stops people "gaming" the system. Everybody gets the same income, regardless of age, disabilities, number of children, and so forth. There are people who know how to squeeze every last drop out of the welfare system, even for things they aren't entitled to. They know the right things to say to get a disability check for a disability that can't be medically disproven. UBI essentially stops this - there is nothing to game. Everyone gets the same.

Secondly, it is cheaper to administer than the current welfare system. The welfare system costs billions just to administer, with huge amounts of bureaucracy and all the means testing, verifications, calculations, investigations, paperwork, refunds, claims, and so forth. UBI eliminates all this as well.

So it's not money you get freely, it's money you get to pay for stuff....for free.
I love how you twist the words so that it can fit your purpose.

Even if it's rent money, food money, water money, heating money, condom money, beer money that is given to somebody for free it still must be taken from somebody else. Even if we all get this minimum income, not all of us pay for it. And this is called wealth redistribution.
The bigger problem is where will this stop, you will be granted food, then a house, then a car, then a vacation a year, then what?


Again, loving how you toss around numbers but seriously I'm wondering how are poor countries going to afford even those small sums.
Every socialist state that has tried to pay the poor class a living wage, give them free housing and healthcare has failed and gone bankrupt. (DON'T!!!!! even try to bring in the myth of Scandinavian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden#Crisis_of_the_1990s) countries here) I really wonder WHO is going to pay for all this. But probably a mirror is going to answer my question in a blink of an eye.


Maybe, but not happening this decade, at least in the EU.
We've just beat the record for the percentage of employed people/population.

I agree with you, but this already happens in all Western nations to some degree or another: https://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm
The OECD average is 20% of a country's GDP is spent on social welfare. USA is slightly below this at 18.7%, but there are some European countries which spend much higher amounts on welfare spending. If UBI is going to reduce the amount spent on welfare because of the reason I mentioned above (I'm not saying it will, but if it does) then surely it's worth looking in to?

That's not accurate. Some of the top 10 economies in the world such as Germany and France are also in the top 10 for welfare spending, and also include social housing and socialized medicine.* They are not bankrupt, and in fact both have lower amounts of debt in terms of GDP than countries with much lower welfare spending such as the US and Japan.

*Socialized medicine is cheaper than the US medical system anyway, but don't get me started on that. US tax payers actually pay more in tax towards healthcare than citizens in most European nations, and they also have to spend thousands on health insurance and bills as well.

This is because of the stupid damn definition of social spending.
You don't have the same pensions in the US as you have in France or Germany.
And it gets even worse for a lot of other countries.

For example, I've been employed for 4 years by the military, but since I was no active soldier, I was paying my usual social security tax as every citizen, BUT when I will (if) retire I'm going to enjoy the pension not from the state fund but from the Defence Ministry under what is called again, completely idiotic "social benefits for people served in the army", so it's going to be labeled an f welfare program although in reality, I did pay all my taxes for it just like a normal doctor!

Second, and that is the problem.
Those policies work in economically developed countries.... till they go down!
They worked flawlessly in Venezuela when they were rich, they failed when there were no money left.
Worked perfectly in Sweden till the '80 when social welfare spending nearly send the country bankrupt.

This is the problem with the system, it works while you have money to throw away when you don't...

Exactly, that's the discussion we need to be having. UBI is intended to replace other welfare programs that are riddled with bureaucracy and are highly inefficient. Social Security spends an incredible amount of money on lengthy application/interview processes, regular case reviews, and fraud investigations, most of which would be eliminated if replaced with UBI.

We also need to consider that minimal income will deter crime and reduce healthcare costs as it will keep people from being completely destitute and homeless. I don't know where other posters live, but the homeless problem is accelerating badly in the US. People can turn a blind eye to it and say they don't want to give these people handouts, but they will end up paying for it one way or another through the healthcare and prison systems funded by their tax dollars.

Maybe we could decrease the bureaucracy without giving away money to everyone rich and poor. UBI is a strange concept that doesn't function in nature. Why would any society feed parasites who spend nights drinking or taking drugs and days begging and buying supply of alcohol and drugs for the night?


Do you really believe that a mugger who spends his days stealing phones and wallets will stop doing it because he's now getting 200€ from the state? How is it going to decrease crime? Poor people don't steal to live. They usually beg or starve. Criminals usually have more than they need to survive.

is that really your impression of anyone who would receive public benefits? UBI recipients would reflect the actual demographics, meaning the vast majority would be the working poor and middle classes.

are there some bums out there? sure, i'm not sure how to avoid that in society. they existed before welfare systems ever did and they aren't going anywhere.

extremely unequal societies are not happy societies. they eventually reach a tipping point that brings violent upheaval. i have mixed feelings about UBI but unless people are looking forward to living through a violent revolution, something ought to be done to hedge against drastically increasing inequality. in the USA, housing prices and virtually all costs of living are skyrocketing, wages are relatively stagnant---and this is with nearly full employment. meanwhile, the replacement of human labor with automation is moving full steam ahead. does this not scare the shit out of anyone?

Almost every country in the world in some way guarantees that no one starves, and I wouldn't want to live in one that doesn't - not because I'm afraid it would happen to me, but because such society is likely to be deeply flawed and not a pleasant place to live. UBI is probably not suitable for every country, but I won't be surprised if some of the countries will successfully implement it in the future and even see positive results from it. It's an interesting idea that deserves to be tested, especially as automation replaces more and more human jobs.

I think the environmental issue is now of interest to many millionaires and billionaires around the world.
You also know that in the past few days there has been an Amazon forest fire and the statistics are very surprising, that is the forest fire is increasing every year and the number of trees damaged up to 83% over the previous year. At compound interest, our earth will have no oxygen in 17 years.
That's why billionaires pour money into helping biologists more.

There is also little evidence to suggest that direct cash transfers (such as what UBI would be) cause increases in spending on tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. Most studies have found either no change, or even a decrease in spending on these products following a cash transfer program: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/617631468001808739/Cash-transfers-and-temptation-goods-a-review-of-global-evidence

These are my feelings too. As much as I dislike my tax money being given freely as cash to people not working for it, the alternative looks even worse. Inequality is worsening and poverty is rising. We are looking at hitting 10 billion people within the next 30 years. There already aren't enough jobs to go around, and automation will make things worse. What do we do when half the US is living in poverty without enough food to eat? They aren't just going to suffer silently in the shadows.

And I would prefer to live in a country that doesn't give and doesn't take. What they're doing is taking money that wasn't earned by them and giving it away to those they find suitable. Then the majority, who happens to benefit from basic income, praises them for it. I'd like to live in a country where nobody has to starve because every little thing you do is free of tax and gives you enough profit to live on.
You shouldn't look at automation like it's a fast process. By the time it replaces people's jobs there will no longer be anyone qualified to do them. To give you an example, do you miss blacksmiths? They were mostly replaced and it did not hurt them. You couldn't see thousands of blacksmiths protesting because people are not using work horses anymore. This was such a slow process that young people stopped choosing it as their future profession, knowing the amount of work is declining.
If we didn't need permits from the government for everything it would be much easier for people to sustain themselves.

I don't know about redistribution of wealth but we should understand that .. more or less it's sometimes a thing of luck .. people who invested when it was sold for a dollar are the ones having huge sum of cash and the ones who invested after the big boom are the ones loosing a huge amount of of money ..
It is more or so playing like a gambling he therefore I don't think I would call this redistribution of wealth rather than that we should understand that people who are successful are just few but the ones loosing money are a lot ..it doesn't account periodically for more and more people getting successful...I think that positive time is over ...
We have to wait years ..for an opportunity like that .

That would be great, but it isn't the case at the moment. In many places, a full time job at minimum wage still puts you below the poverty line, with not enough money to live adequately. Several states in the US and some countries around the world have introduced the concept of a "living wage", which is higher than the minimum wage and generally set at or just above the poverty line.

It doesn't need to be a fast process. We have an estimated population growth of 3 billion in the next 30 years, and an estimated 30% of jobs at risk of automation within the same time frame. Widespread unemployment and therefore poverty is inevitable unless something is done.

That's all well and good, but there were jobs in other sectors available for these young people to aim for instead. When the shrinking job market is over-saturated by the growing population, what then?

Guys, we need to look at the world so that we can see the real things happening today.  The fact is that a lot of people study and get education in such fields, there are a lot of specialists from them and it is very difficult to find a job for each person with such a profession.  First of all, we can give an example of the humanitarian profession, such as lawyers, psychologists, managers and the like.  I recently looked at statistics, when in different countries, both highly developed and not too developed, there is a great need for working hands, namely, Builders, welders, turners and specialists of other professions.  It is such professions that are very much in demand in society today and there are not enough people.  The fact is that everyone is trying to earn a lot of money while not doing any work, or working without making any work.  You need to think about this too.

LOL why dont you google the term?  Universal basic income is that money that gets collected thru taxes gets evenly distributed to all citizens. Right now those that apply and show they need more help gets more and those that dont apply or have a lot dont get anything.  Like someone that cant walk get a lot of money. Someone that can walk get nothing. Universal basic income would give the same to both.  

What some countries will start with is universal basic income fro kids. So far only kids from poor parents got help. From now on all kids will get help. No matter how rich their parents are. Or how skilled are to apply for help or bend the law in their advantage.

Although there are credible benefits to an UBI program as a full-scale system intended to replace all other wellfare programs, I do see some major issues at the implementation level. Assuming a private sector still exists and no full automation (not feasible in many centuries unless we get AGI):

1) If everyone earns the same minimum base, why wouldn't individual purchasing power decrease as prices increase for goods, services and rent?
Over time this would reduce the purchasing power of the UBI, unless the amount is increased (extra burden on the state) or other price control measures are implemented (creating distortions and a parallel economy).

2) How exactly does one set the fair handout value of the UBI? Lowest common denominator for sustenance, highest wellfare provided?
Does it vary by region/state? (eg: 1000 USD in NY will not get you a lot, but can be enough for a remote place in the countryside).

3) How 'universal" is it? Would it be distributed to "all" people? Whats the criteria exactly?
All citizens? All legal residents? Can one travel? Is one entitled if living abroad? What about dual citizens? (can one claim multiple UBIs?) Is there a minimum age? (eg: if one has 5 teenage kids, can they collect 5 UBIs on their behalf?). Does it stop at a certain age? (eg: how does it work with seniors receiving pensions)?

Just some food for thought  ???

You mean as a matter of regular inflation? Presumably the base should periodically increase to account for that. I think that's how most welfare programs work.


There's a wide variety of proposals out there based on different goals and principles. I think a reasonable policy would vary by region based on actual living costs. $1,000/month is enough to live well in Alabama. In California, there are homeless people living on the same amount.

Andrew Yang's proposal (https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/) is just for a flat $1,000/month payment for all US citizens.


It varies by proposal. This is the conventional definition as I understand it:

Yes, in terms of both inflation and Purchasing power of goods.
If everyone is assumed to earn 1000 USD a month onwards, the purchasing power of 1000 USD would drop (even excluding base inflation).
Let's say I'm a business selling groceries, I may be tempted to raise prices of goods as I can assume people have a higher level of disposable income to buy. This is specially true for low-value commodity goods. Nowadays the lowest expected baseline is zero and the average is the medium salary.
Inflation-wise, this decrease in PPI has been happening already for decades (just compare the purchasing power of 1000USD in 1960 vs now).
I just think it would compound to the issue at a faster rate. I also agree there are mitigation measures that could be enacted to control rapid inflation, price & rent controls, and more. But those measures might not be universally well received by people and business alike (generating other unintended effects).

Indeed, we could set a reasonable amount. If we consider 1000 USD / month in all states, then one of the incentives is for people that don't want to work to move to places where they can maximize their purchasing power (eg: countryside, away from metropolitan centres). This could actually decreased homelessness in big metropolis and decrease pressure on services & infrastructure. All states would need to agree, and some would be subsidized by the Federal Government if needed (UBI would be handed at a federal level I assume). If so, one of the unintended consequences could be an increased asymmetry between states over time (due to the change of demography and internal economic migration incentives).

Ok, this one can be tricky and I think implementation details would be critical for UBI to work.
For example, if truly unconditional per person and in absence of other welfare programs, then we create a strong incentive to have kids and maximize income per household (not necessarily provide and educate them in the best way). Assuming the best higher education remains private an unaffordable for many, a new generation could grow up with lower skills for the job market, increasing the chances they would rely on UBI and keep unemployed (another compound effect that could strain the system, as more people would draw funds). This would be great for the birth rate though and to be fair aligns quite well with the polarizing future of the job market with increased automation (very high number of non-repetitive low skills & low number of creative specialized ones).
Another issue would be foreign market distortions (assuming a single country implements it)
One could just receive their UBI, fly to Vietnam or a low-cost country and live quite well. If a sufficient number of people opt to do so, this amount to a lot of capital leaving the U.S. economy to foreign countries with no UBI policy (or one with lower thresholds). Again, I concede that this could be mitigated by travel restrictions for UBIs. Possibly withholding the freedom to travel abroad if unemployed or requiring a certain amount of funds.

Any UBI policy would need to be very comprehensively detailed, in order to be resilient, and would need to consider macro-effects on economics, internal & external emigration & immigration policy, population growth & job market prospects, services planning, business incentives and more.
Trust that the UBI policy would not fail would be the last and critical element of the whole endeavour.
If we get a politician who manages to a least try it in my lifetime, I'll eat my hat and give him a satoshi for good measure  :)

Society does not work like that, if everyone get equal income irrespective of their hard work then you will find many people who will go after causes like we see today. The advocates of universal basic income are people who go to universities who think that they will earn six figure jobs after completing some random subjects which does not have any value in the job market and they set out to fight the world :D.
No one is equal and competition drives the world.

I first heard about research about immortality from a documentary about the Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov who is conduction his own research and have spent billions for his mission and many are doing that kind of research.

Guys you are forgetting one real important thing here, UBI is not suppose to be a wage or a salary, it can't be that high and it can't provide you with enough money to live without working, it has to be low enough that you do not starve to death, we are talking about maybe 200 bucks a month, do you really think a person in USA can live on 2400 a year? Of course not, you won't be able to live in a house with that kind of money and find rent let alone have enough for anything else.

Reality is if you do not help people then they will find a way for themselves, they may start drug dealing, they may become homeless drunks, they may steal, but in the end no human would just let themselves starve to death, certainly not their family if there is one. So with this you are telling them "look we want to help you out a bit but you gotta help yourself out as well" and bring that "almost on the verge of criminal life" people to "finds a McDonalds' job" levels.

That's exactly what UBI proposals say. It is supposed to be the minimum required for someone to meet all their basic needs, which includes food, water, shelter, and basic necessities and essentials for living. This level of income is known as the "poverty line". In the US, this currently stands at $12,000 per year on average, but will obviously vary widely from state to state and city to city.

What you are suggesting isn't the same as what UBI proposals say. The whole point of UBI (not that I'm saying I necessarily agree with it) is to replace any and all other social welfare systems and provide enough for people to live on, albeit eagerly.

Because I'm tired to read about stuff to help the poors to get free money but nothing for those working.
Nah, seriously, it's because in my country we have something similar already taking place, the 'Universal Income' and I supposed the UBI is the same thing more or less.

And we have also another program similar to the universal income. In which people get free money to stay on the sofa all days long. Wake up at 11.00 am from Monday to Sunday in an almost free house. I call them 'Full-time tourists'. Get them a job they will refuse anything. Sure, since they earn near the same as someone working full time. Without to bother to work. When they will be retired, they will again receive a pension from govt. Those who work will get almost nothing. Great life.

Whatever, about UBI. If a day it's really implemented, it sounds fair to ask something in return. Not sure what and how, maybe working 1 hour per day, cleaning dog's shits in the streets, to help in the retirement residences, etc. So many things to do, and in return the government could reduce some costs doing this

It seems to me that those that are proposing UBI do not understand supply and demand, if you give 12k to poor people then they will be able to afford things they could not before, on the surface this seems good, but this raises the demand not the supply, and we all know what happens next right? The price of everything begins to go up and soon those 12k are not enough to meet your basic needs and more money will be needed to be given to them the next time creating a vicious circle, the truth is there is not an easy solution to the poverty issue and people do not want accept this sad fact.

Universal income will fix that. Also those that are working will get it. For everyone the same. For Trump the same as for the beggar. Both get exactly $xxx and not a cent more. That is the point. Right now some get a lot and most get nothing. In my country people dont marry just so they are single parent to get money from country. Now that will stop since all kids will get the same.

You would not say there no solution to poverty eradication, there is , we can only not attain it 100 percent and eradicating poverty is not all about those distribution of money, first for poverty to be eradicated, inflation must be curtailed because this is one of the thing that makes people's earning not to be enough, this poverty we are talking about is not only tied to amount of income that comes to a person, but what the amount can buy and what makes it not enough is just inflation.

Government also needs to create some industries where people can work and then earn money, there are so many graduates that has left school and do not have job to do, if there is something to do, at least the wealth will get to them from there and they don’t have to use force to gather it.

Never going to happen, unfortunately. As long as banks and the government can create money out of thin air to suit their own needs whenever they like, fiat currency will constantly devalue. Perhaps some wide reaching banking reforms and laws could reduce the rate of inflation, but over a long enough time frame, all fiat trends towards zero. I saw a great quote somewhere on twitter earlier this week but I can't find it now, which was along the lines of "Even it bitcoin doesn't make you rich quick, it stops you getting poor slowly".

This is only going to get worse over the next few decades as population increases and automation reduces the number of jobs. Relying on the government to spend tax money to create new jobs for which there is no real need isn't really that different to the government just handing out money in the form of UBI.

The solutions that you are trying to suggest are not really solutions at all, governments are already hiring people for bureaucratic positions that are not really needed and that could be easily replaced by computer software, as such the size of the government is growing and the only way they have to pay for this is to keep printing money, the solutions that you are giving will only work if we had an infinite amount of wealth but we don't and this is not going to change anytime soon.

Cryptocurrency in the future will change the trend of the economy around the world, but it will not redistribute wealth. Because the rich will soon convert FIAT into Cryptocurrency before that happens. The rich will not foolishly accept their wealth as a pile of worthless antiques.

This is basically just a topic about how humanity could live longer, how having more people on earth (if you live longer on average the population will automatically go out) would hurt the economy because there are not enough money to go around, and how we can solve that issue with UBI and how crypto works towards that solution and how we can make sure people who are at their elder years could not work and still live.

Remember, right now on average people retire at age around 60-70 at most, there are very few people who retire after 70, on really elite countries there are people working at those ages but usually in other nations people do retire earlier even as early as 50 in some nations. It means if the life goes to 100+ that means people will not work but still have to live for another 30+ years and we need to find a way for that.

If they convert, it will still not be as cryptocurrency in quantity because coin is more expensive than fiat. For instance, just a bitcoin is worth $10,000. That means $10,000 will be converted into just a bitcoin  ;D But meanwhile, poor will keep buying, hodling and getting into the level of being rich.