Without considering the scale and context of UBS/UBI they will fail or go colonial. It’s possible to avoid this.

If you spend your time exploring the possible implications of ideas if they were played out in a potential non-alienable but anticipatable future one of many observations that emerges is as follows, or as Gramsci’s put it you assess ‘the whole field of action’:

UBS or Universal Basic Services (and UBI’s to a lesser degree) are inaccurately termed. They are structurally conceptualised within a National context, at the very very least in terms of a stepping stone in their development.

This is a problem (not insurmountable but requiring address) if we consider what Illich, Tsing and Kruger all draw attention to through the observation that non-scalability is a thing. Only the most cybernetic command and control perspectives believe that all is scalable within reference to context.

So currently UBS should be called NBS: National Basic Services, and arguably but to a lesser degree UBI. Otherwise they will fall foul of not considering how an NBS/NBI work in relation to a world where the rest is without respective NBS/NBI.

And that mistake is not just a question of name but has massive implications that can only lead to a fatal or a colonial future if unaddressed. The effects of not doing so are massive.

If you can’t understand practically why and you work with these concepts I am happy to discuss. If someone has already properly addressed this but I have missed it please do bring them to my attention.

%d bloggers like this: