rhetoric: counter-argument from the political left, that highlights the flaws and potential inequities for distributing via blanket model like UBI

inference: This is a great steelman addition to my argument against UBI -- this actually shows that both conservatives (fearing inflation) and progressives (fearing inequity) recognize the flaws of UBI. I can use this in my essay to help dismiss it as a viable solution for the displaced generalists.

rhetoric: this is an appeal to macro econ theory (logos), citing 'expert analysts' that warn of the mathematical consequences of extra 'unearned' capital (without being tied to production) in the market.

inference: this is how I feel about the concept -- receiving money without earning it could lead to major issues down the road, especially if a large majority of the people decide to stop working in jobs that help to add value to society. Printing $$$ w/o corresponding human production (because the machine is doing the work) is a trap that dangerously increases the risk if price inflation (hyperinflation) and income stagnation, because it removes the motivation to continue adding value, and increases the incentive to essentially do nothing ('eat, drink, be merry'). This is one of the core arguments for my thesis, that humans are abdicating their agency, or at least at a very real danger of it, which leads to an infinite loop of "Workslop" ("Work slop" Medici)

rhetoric: summary of the counter-argument from the conservative side, using cause and effect reasoning/logic (that UBI causes loss of incentive)

inference: this is a major risk, and since these payments would be delivered to entire large economy, this could potentially cause the entire structure to collapse, because the productive class can very easily and quickly shrink, with a massive bill that the taxpayers (productive class) would need to cover.

McArthur understands that there are a lot of concerns people should be aware of when forming relationships with an AI chatbot, such as the privacy risk that comes with sharing details with an AI company.

He acknowledges that Spielberg used one scene, but then goes on to explain how the scene was not recreated very well.

Where he said WE MUST LEARN AGAIN TO ASK HOW WE CAN MAKE THE MOST OF WHAT WE ARE, WHAT WE HAVE, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN. I disagree because we all this technology its more complicated to talk person to person and discuss more about our issues and problems with this planet why it matter anyways ? everyone is more selfish this days

Why is our economy have a supposed possibility of limitless growth? Who puts that limit?

Isn't that kind of what we have been doing for some years? Trying to be eco friendly, recycling and such to make the world a better place. Yet people keep on cutting down trees. How is that going to change when people can do what they want to do. Yes, we can make the best of what we have but what if what we have isn't enough or all gone. What then? People will use something else and that will be gone soon as well.

I believe this is incorrect. Arts are nothing but limitless sequences of work with nothing but things to be looked for

Yes we are limited, but being limited has never stopped mankind from progressing.

Why choose that mentality when we have found ways to innovatively come up with solutions to prior problems in the past?

Would an economy without limits actually be limitless.

There is no point and no risk in bringing religion into this argument because ones religion is a set of morals for them. Humans are minimizing their morals and beliefs to pursue this limitless life.

It is true that greed drives the economy, especially when it comes the the vast supply and immense demand for oil. However, as time goes on greed will push people to innovate new fuels that can replace oil. Isn't it contradictory for the author to make the claim that greed leads to no limits? For if that were the case, alternative solutions are inevitable.

There are plenty of resources being scientifically developed for less of a negative effect on our planet. However, big businesses are blindsided and only use what is easy to get rather than what we can already use that earth gives us (wind, water, etc.)

If their live isn't worth it, then do you prefer to go back to the law of the jungle where there's only one chance?

My contention with the contents of this paragraph lies in the fact that science is but an extension of art, sharing similar characteristics with it. I would argue anyway that Newton's work is just as nuanced, integral, and unique as Monet's or Dante's. Science began as metaphysics--"the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space"--(Google). I believe scientists and artists to be explorers. The ways in which they explore are similar; however, their headings are different.

Having studied the issue of Global Warming in detail under the direction of two other professors here, I find this claim Berry makes to be utterly flattering. It suggests that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (less than 5% of total CO2 surface emissions) rival those that can be attributed to natural processes. Do you believe Berry to be employing a "truthful hyperbole"--as Trump would say--here to illustrate the danger of our "limitless" view of the Earth; or do you believe Berry himself to be caught up in a view of human limitlessness (in other words, do you believe he thinks the impact humans have on this planet to be limitless)?

so throughout this article it talks about how we are going to run out of oil. and then what are we going to do after that? But if you notice this has happened before. (whale oil) and even different sources of water, we just move to the next source until that source replenishes. whats to say that when oil runs out we have another resource that we use for everything. (hydrogen/ uranium)

If we are knowledgeable of what we need to do to sustain our resources, then why are we living as if we have an infinite amount?

Why is now the time to stop consuming? Who makes that decision, what line was crossed?

I think we don't have to remove any emphasis on the science and technology because those are still very important aspects to know about, but maybe just adding more emphasis to the arts while intertwining the three of them together.

I think an Ice Age is coming. I believe an Ice Age is overdue. In my personal opinion, it has been getting colder each year for the last ten years, not warmer. Is global warming really happening?

"All are entitled to pursue without limit whatever they conceive as desirable.." I agree with this statement but in my opinion I would add that all are entitled to pursue without limit whatever they conceive as desirable as long as that desire would not harm others.

It might be hard but is it impossible?