In 1972 the MIT flagged up a problem with economic growth. I invented the unconditional basic income (UBI) as a way of limiting economic activity to sustainable levels, unaware that it already existed, including for the diametrically opposite reason of encouraging growth.
I shall come back to that extremely worrying fact, but I have still not heard of any other proposals to guarantee that nobody need worry whenever economic activity does have to be reduced. What should have started in 1973 is now urgent.
I have questioned my sanity. There are many as terrified as I am of the coming ecological catastrophe, but who cannot see why the UBI is crucial. I ask them:
“Do you not see a need to guarantee security if we are to limit economic activity?” Their answers do not make sense to me, or to put it another way, my answers to their answers don’t make sense to them.
But is not this exactly what would be expected if I were psychotically deluded? Can everybody be wrong, and only I be right? I have known since I was good at Latin, and the rest of the class struggled that my mind worked differently from most others. It is practicalities which have always baffled me.
I have recently been reassured by a number of XR contacts saying they see the connection just as I do. One possible explanation is that there will be a higher proportion of abnormal minds who join XR. Another is that they have not yet noticed the apparently formidable difficulties confronting the UBI. Many UBI sceptics (hardly anyone is actually against it) dislike the notion of giving everyone something for nothing.
All these points are answered, at least to my satisfaction, somewhere in my weblog. But the emergence of XR opens up a new phase. Either we are faced with a dire threat or we are not. If that threat is serious enough to justify drones at Heathrow, then surely a harmless idea should be brought to the notice of the public first? XR believes that if 3.5% of the public actively support an idea, it will win. I think the UBI will have no difficulty in passing that threshold.
For now, I shall direct my non-violent fire at Caroline Lucas, who has a normal mind. Caroline has always been shy of mentioning the UBI, not only as a means towards sustainable global economics, but even as a devastating answer to the Universal Credit. I am no longer prepared to accept Caroline’s silence on the importance of the UBI. Either she helps me, or explicitly states her opposition, even if it is only tactical.
I propose to escalate through a series of actions, but – with Caroline’s help – most of them should not be necessary. I only want to get the UBI principle into the mainstream media. My speciic request is simply to get the backing of any one of a list of prominent individuals to convert this weblog into a book. The outline is already available in the weblog ‘Pages’.
It would help if Caroline could express some support, but merely for her to personally ask these individuals to contact me would be more effective than my efforts to contact them have been. If XR channels could also do the same, that would also help.
Greta Thunberg will not be on my list. A close associate of hers has emailed once, but my request for dialogue has not been answered, and I have had no reply to any further correspondence. I ask Caroline, alone, to inform Greta’s associate of my plans.
To stand outside Westminster for say 5 days with my placard “The End of the World is need not be at Hand”
If I have received no interest from the media or any prominent individuals (not necessarily on my list)
I shall repeat the exercise outside the Swedish Parliament.
If still no response, I shall liaise with XR as to action which will result in my imprisonment.
If I go to prison, I shall go on hunger strike.
My initial target list is David Attenborough, Kate Raworth, Alice Roberts, Emma Thompson, Martin Wolf (FT), George Monbiot, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, Naomi Klein and Chris Packham
As I say, most of this should not be necessary, but I must close with a reminder that although no alternative to a UBI has been suggested to enable practical solutions to ecocide, it is actually very dangerous. Silicon Valley thinks, correctly, that it could foster economic growth!