字幕列表 影片播放 列印英文字幕 Translator: Michele Gianella Reviewer: Rhonda Jacobs I am on a mission. And my guess is, so are some of you. Because in 2015, we, as United Nations, 193 countries, we defined 17 Sustainable Development Goals. And these goals are so diverse, that there must be one goal for each and every one of you that resonates with your heart. Back in 2015, we also agreed that we would make these goals happen before 2030. That means we have a little more than 10 years to go. So let's get on with it, let's not waste any more time, and accelerate! Goal number one: end poverty. Not reduce it, end it. But what would be the most efficient way to eliminate poverty? (Audience response) Exactly. The most efficient way to eliminate poverty for once and for all is a universal, unconditional basic income. In fact, if you look at the definition of a basic income, it not only ends poverty, it also puts an end to hunger, reduces gender inequalities and inequality in general. Because a basic income is a periodic cash payment, paid to every individual, high enough to meet your basic needs - food, water, clothes, shelter. No means testing: it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor. No work requirement. The only condition you have to meet is being human and alive. It's as simple as that. The money goes directly into your hands, and you can decide freely what to spend it on. A basic income is a guarantee that whatever happens, you will never fall through the bottom of the poverty line. And then, the poverty line becomes a stable floor. A stage from where you can flourish, from where you can decide what you will do with your time and energy. So yes, by definition alone, a basic income already contributes to four of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. But guess what? There is so much more. We know, from basic income pilots and cash transfer programs around the world, that a basic income has impressive positive effects on a variety of domains. Take crime, for instance: in all countries, many crimes are poverty-related, right? Well, in Namibia, for example, we saw a decrease of total crime rates by 30 percent, within one year when people received a basic income. Thirty percent! With an impressive decline in illegal hunting. You can look at health: what are the effects on people's health? Well, people change their eating patterns, they eat healthier food because they can afford it. Sanitation improves in countries where these facilities are not sufficiently available. Are you stressed? You'll be delighted to hear that a basic income reduces stress and stress-related health issues. Confirmed, again, by the recent experiments in Canada, where almost 90 percent reported less stress; and in Finland, where we also see that people become healthier and happier when they receive a basic income. A basic income contributes to decent work. Decent work? What is decent work? We're obedient workers, aren't we? Isn't that decent enough? No, decent work means no more child labor. Decent work means no more exploitation. People get the freedom to say, "No," or, "No, thank you very much," if you want to be polite. But you can have the freedom to say "No" to employers who don't treat you well. People start their own businesses. They choose work and activities that are meaningful to them. You can choose activities. You can call it work, but you can choose activities that are meaningful to you when you have a basic income. It even contributes to community participation. People become more caring for others, compassionate. Education. Children stay in school longer. We saw that in India and many other countries. In countries like the Netherlands, students will not graduate with a debt. And if you're in your 40s and you want to change career, with a basic income it is much easier to work less hours or quit your job, so you have time to learn new skills and really change direction. So yes, if you look at the definition of a basic income and the evidence gathered in basic income experiments and cash transfer programs around the world, you will see that a basic income alone contributes to 11 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. Eleven, with one simple intervention. Eleven, with one simple intervention! OK, great - let's do that, fantastic. But who is going to pay for this? Or, should I ask, what is going to pay for this? Let's have a look at innovation and see if we can find some answers there. Innovation is a tricky one. Production and logistics became so efficient that fewer and fewer people earn more and more, while more and more people are struggling to survive because they lost their paid job because of automation. The gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is growing faster than we've ever seen before. Ninety percent of the wealth generated in 2018 went to one percent of the people. And the ultra-rich protect their position through things like intellectual property. That raises the question: can you really own knowledge? In my opinion, there is no such thing as intellectual property. We have a collective consciousness, and the Internet. Intellectual property is nothing more than a business model based on exclusion of others. It's based on competition, an I-win-you-lose mentality. Well, I prefer collaboration. And times are changing. The technologies of today enable us to think and act very differently. We can redesign the future ourselves. If we build the machines and we program the algorithms for the world of tomorrow, then we can decide what our world of tomorrow will look like. Machines have no intrinsic motivation to earn money or accumulate wealth, have they? Unlike most humans, machines have no intrinsic motivation to earn money or accumulate wealth. So let's free the machines from their human owners. Let's liberate them and make them part of the commons. Let's create infrastructures of machines that are not owned by anyone - or owned by all of us, if you like. Let them generate value and distribute it to the people as a basic income. Would that be possible with the technologies of today? Or is it just my crazy dream? May I tell you a little story? Once upon a time, not so far from here, Paul, an artist, and his friend Max, a computer programmer, they bought a piece of forest, and they called it terra0. And they wanted to investigate if this forest could own and utilize itself. And they started coding on the blockchain. They programmed a smart contract, a set of rules programmed into code. And this contract stated that the forest, the non-human actor, or the computer program could buy terra0 shares from Paul and Max, so-called "tokens" registered on the blockchain. Another smart contract orders a satellite image from terra0 every six months. A computer program analyzes the image and defines the trees that can be harvested without damaging the forest too much. Then the forest starts trading. Licenses to cut the trees are sold. With the money that comes in, the non-human actor, the computer program, the forest, buys terra0 shares from Paul and Max, all fully automated. Once payment is complete, Paul and Max hold no more tokens. So the forest is the sole shareholder of its own economic unit. The forest, in economic terms, controls itself and can start trading on its own. Paul and Max really exist. Paul is actually two persons, Paul Seidler and Paul Kolling. Max is Max Hampshire.