All mankind" does not equal "all mankind today."

@0xtkgshn: even if we do UBI or something, the smallest number in the world = world population, which can’t be reduced any further as long as the concept of human rights exists. As one layer, “population” is important. But the existing official ID framework is not enough to grasp the world’s population in the first place.

I thought it would decrease.

Even if we do UBI, there is no way we can go from the current “no UBI” (1) to “all humanity now covered by UBI” (2A) in one step.

• The higher the Human Score, the more coverage is gradually extended, while the lower the score, the more deaths occur due to inadequate coverage (2B).
• Finally, when these two join together, “all humanity is covered by UBI” (3B).
• The “all mankind” at this time is not equal to “all mankind today.”

@0xtkgshn: @nishio Ah, I was more talking about the context of WorldCoin or something like ID2020. So, I guess the opposite of the reply “a larger number than the current statistic will be the population”. https://t.co/YLr9w0JwSN

@nishio: @0xtkgshn I don’t think that’s probably “against”. The “people covered by the current public ID” is this range, so it will increase compared to that.

@0xtkgshn: @nishio Hmmm, I’m not sure what you mean by “people who will die without UBI”, it doesn’t seem to have much to do with the population. I’m not sure what you mean by that. What I wanted to write was, “The existing official ID framework is not enough to grasp the world’s population in the first place, is it?

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/「全人類」と「今の全人類」はイコールではない using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.