Relativism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

Relativism is a family of philosophical views which deny claims to absolute objectivity within a particular domain and assert that valuations in that domain are relative to the perspective of an observer or the context in which they are assessed.

There are many different forms of relativism, with a great deal of variation in scope and differing degrees of controversy among them. Moral relativism encompasses the differences in moral judgments among people and cultures. Epistemic relativism holds that there are no absolute principles regarding normative belief, justification, or rationality, and that there are only relative ones. Alethic relativism (also factual relativism) is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cultural relativism), while linguistic relativism asserts that a language's structures influence a speaker's perceptions. Some forms of relativism also bear a resemblance to philosophical skepticism. Descriptive relativism seeks to describe the differences among cultures and people without evaluation, while normative relativism evaluates the word truthfulness of views within a given framework.

Forms

Anthropological versus philosophical relativism

Anthropological relativism refers to a methodological stance, in which the researcher suspends (or brackets) their own cultural prejudice while trying to understand beliefs or behaviors in their contexts. This has become known as methodological relativism, and concerns itself specifically with avoiding ethnocentrism or the application of one's own cultural standards to the assessment of other cultures. This is also the basis of the so-called "emic" and "etic" distinction, in which:

• An emic or insider account of behavior is a description of a society in terms that are meaningful to the participant or actor's own culture; an emic account is therefore culture-specific, and typically refers to what is considered "common sense" within the culture under observation.
• An etic or outsider account is a description of a society by an observer, in terms that can be applied to other cultures; that is, an etic account is culturally neutral, and typically refers to the conceptual framework of the social scientist. (This is complicated when it is scientific research itself that is under study, or when there is theoretical or terminological disagreement within the social sciences.)

Philosophical relativism, in contrast, asserts that the truth of a proposition depends on the metaphysical, or theoretical frame, or the instrumental method, or the context in which the proposition is expressed, or on the person, groups, or culture who interpret the proposition.

Methodological relativism and philosophical relativism can exist independently from one another, but most anthropologists base their methodological relativism on that of the philosophical variety.

Descriptive versus normative relativism

The concept of relativism also has importance both for philosophers and for anthropologists in another way. In general, anthropologists engage in descriptive relativism ("how things are" or "how things seem"), whereas philosophers engage in normative relativism ("how things ought to be"), although there is some overlap (for example, descriptive relativism can pertain to concepts, normative relativism to truth).

Descriptive relativism assumes that certain cultural groups have different modes of thought, standards of reasoning, and so forth, and it is the anthropologist's task to describe, but not to evaluate the validity of these principles and practices of a cultural group. It is possible for an anthropologist in his or her fieldwork to be a descriptive relativist about some things that typically concern the philosopher (e.g., ethical principles) but not about others (e.g., logical principles). However, the descriptive relativist's empirical claims about epistemic principles, moral ideals and the like are often countered by anthropological arguments that such things are universal, and much of the recent literature on these matters is explicitly concerned with the extent of, and evidence for, cultural or moral or linguistic or human universals.

The fact that the various species of descriptive relativism are empirical claims may tempt the philosopher to conclude that they are of little philosophical interest, but there are several reasons why this is not so. First, some philosophers, notably Kant, argue that certain sorts of cognitive differences between human beings (or even all rational beings) are impossible, so such differences could never be found to obtain in fact, an argument that places a priori limits on what empirical inquiry could discover and on what versions of descriptive relativism could be true. Second, claims about actual differences between groups play a central role in some arguments for normative relativism (for example, arguments for normative ethical relativism often begin with claims that different groups in fact have different moral codes or ideals). Finally, the anthropologist's descriptive account of relativism helps to separate the fixed aspects of human nature from those that can vary, and so a descriptive claim that some important aspect of experience or thought does (or does not) vary across groups of human beings tells us something important about human nature and the human condition.

Normative relativism concerns normative or evaluative claims that modes of thought, standards of reasoning, or the like are only right or wrong relative to a framework. 'Normative' is meant in a general sense, applying to a wide range of views; in the case of beliefs, for example, normative correctness equals truth. This does not mean, of course, that framework-relative correctness or truth is always clear, the first challenge being to explain what it amounts to in any given case (e.g., with respect to concepts, truth, epistemic norms). Normative relativism (say, in regard to normative ethical relativism) therefore implies that things (say, ethical claims) are not simply true in themselves, but only have truth values relative to broader frameworks (say, moral codes). (Many normative ethical relativist arguments run from premises about ethics to conclusions that assert the relativity of truth values, bypassing general claims about the nature of truth, but it is often more illuminating to consider the type of relativism under question directly.)

Legal relativism

In English common law, two (perhaps three) separate standards of proof are recognized:

• proof based on the balance of probabilities is the lesser standard used in civil litigation, which cases mostly concern money or some other penalty, that, if further and better evidence should emerge, is reasonably reversible.
• proof beyond reasonable doubt is used in criminal law cases where an accused's right to personal freedom or survival is in question, because such punishment is not reasonably reversible.
• Absolute truth is so complex as to be only capable of being fully understood by the omniscient established during the Tudor period as the one true God

Related and contrasting positions

Relationism is the theory that there are only relations between individual entities, and no intrinsic properties. Despite the similarity in name, it is held by some to be a position distinct from relativism—for instance, because "statements about relational properties [...] assert an absolute truth about things in the world". On the other hand, others wish to equate relativism, relationism and even relativity, which is a precise theory of relationships between physical objects: Nevertheless, "This confluence of relativity theory with relativism became a strong contributing factor in the increasing prominence of relativism".

Whereas previous investigations of science only sought sociological or psychological explanations of failed scientific theories or pathological science, the 'strong programme' is more relativistic, assessing scientific truth and falsehood equally in a historic and cultural context.

Criticisms

A common argument against relativism suggests that it inherently refutes itself: the statement "all is relative" classes either as a relative statement or as an absolute one. If it is relative, then this statement does not rule out absolutes. If the statement is absolute, on the other hand, then it provides an example of an absolute statement, proving that not all truths are relative. However, this argument against relativism only applies to relativism that positions truth as relative–i.e. epistemological/truth-value relativism. More specifically, it is only extreme forms of epistemological relativism that can come in for this criticism as there are many epistemological relativists who posit that some aspects of what is regarded as factually "true" are not universal, yet still accept that other universal truths exist (e.g. gas laws or moral laws).

Another argument against relativism posits the existence of natural law. Simply put, the physical universe works under basic principles: the "Laws of Nature". Some contend that a natural moral law may also exist, for example as argued by, Immanuel Kant in Critique of Practical Reason, Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion (2006) and addressed by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity (1952).^[21] Dawkins said "I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism - the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged". Philosopher Hilary Putnam, among others, states that some forms of relativism make it impossible to believe one is in error. If there is no truth beyond an individual's belief that something is true, then an individual cannot hold their own beliefs to be false or mistaken. A related criticism is that relativizing truth to individuals destroys the distinction between truth and belief.

Philosopher Donald Davidson presented an influential critique of conceptual relativism in his 1974 essay On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme. Conceptual relativism is the idea that different people or even entire communities could make sense of the world in radically different, incommensurable (meaning untranslatable) ways. One of the consequences of this idea is that truth is relative to one's way of thinking rather than objective. Davidson attacks what he believes to be the entire framework which makes conceptual relativism intelligible, namely scheme–content dualism, which is the idea that all knowledge is the result of one's scheme of concepts being imposed upon empirical content from the world. In refuting scheme–content dualism, Davidson shows that knowledge of one's scheme of concepts is necessarily inseparable from one's knowledge of the world, and so translation between different people or communities is always possible in principle.

According to Belgian philosopher of science Maarten Boudry, relativism is rarely applied consistently. In an opinion piece, he argues that no one truly acts according to the belief that truth is relative. Even self-proclaimed relativists, he suggests, do not genuinely believe their own slogans and catchphrases. They become indignant when falsely accused of a crime and laugh at those who claim the Earth is flat. Boudry contends that people abandon their relativism when it really matters—for instance, when visiting a doctor for cancer screening or boarding a plane, trusting in the laws of physics. He argues that relativism about truth is not so much a sincere conviction as it is an empty slogan or a convenient rhetorical device people deploy when it suits them. Boudry refers to this phenomenon as “occasional relativism,” highlighting what he sees as the casual and opportunistic nature of such relativist claims.

Views

Philosophical

Ancient

Sophism

Sophists are considered the founding fathers of relativism in Western philosophy. Elements of relativism emerged among the Sophists in the 5th century BC. Notably, it was Protagoras who coined the phrase, "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not." The thinking of the Sophists is mainly known through their opponent, Plato. In a paraphrase from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, Protagoras said: "What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me."

Modern

Bernard Crick

Bernard Crick, a British political scientist and advocate of relativism, suggested in In Defence of Politics (1962) that moral conflict between people is inevitable. He thought that only ethics can resolve such conflict, and when that occurs in public it results in politics. Accordingly, Crick saw the process of dispute resolution, harms reduction, mediation or peacemaking as central to all of moral philosophy. He became an important influence on feminists and later on the Greens.

Paul Feyerabend

Philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend is often considered to be a relativist, although he denied being one.

Feyerabend argued that modern science suffers from being methodologically monistic (the belief that only a single methodology can produce scientific progress). Feyerabend summarises his case in Against Method with the phrase "anything goes".

In an aphorism [Feyerabend] often repeated, "potentially every culture is all cultures". This is intended to convey that world views are not hermetically closed, since their leading concepts have an "ambiguity" - better, an open-endedness - which enables people from other cultures to engage with them. [...] It follows that relativism, understood as the doctrine that truth is relative to closed systems, can get no purchase. [...] For Feyerabend, both hermetic relativism and its absolutist rival [realism] serve, in their different ways, to "devalue human existence". The former encourages that unsavoury brand of political correctness which takes the refusal to criticise "other cultures" to the extreme of condoning murderous dictatorship and barbaric practices. The latter, especially in its favoured contemporary form of "scientific realism", with the excessive prestige it affords to the abstractions of "the monster 'science'", is in bed with a politics which likewise disdains variety, richness and everyday individuality - a politics which likewise "hides" its norms behind allegedly neutral facts, "blunts choices and imposes laws".

Thomas Kuhn

Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science, as expressed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is often interpreted as relativistic. He claimed that, as well as progressing steadily and incrementally ("normal science"), science undergoes periodic revolutions or "paradigm shifts", leaving scientists working in different paradigms with difficulty in even communicating. Thus the truth of a claim, or the existence of a posited entity, is relative to the paradigm employed. However, it is not necessary for him to embrace relativism because every paradigm presupposes the prior, building upon itself through history and so on. This leads to there being a fundamental, incremental, and referential structure of development which is not relative but again, fundamental.

From these remarks, one thing is however certain: Kuhn is not saying that incommensurable theories cannot be compared - what they can't be is compared in terms of a system of common measure. He very plainly says that they can be compared, and he reiterates this repeatedly in later work, in a (mostly in vain) effort to avert the crude and sometimes catastrophic misinterpretations he suffered from mainstream philosophers and post-modern relativists alike.

But Kuhn rejected the accusation of being a relativist later in his postscript:

scientific development is ... a unidirectional and irreversible process. Later scientific theories are better than earlier ones for solving puzzles ... That is not a relativist's position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific progress.

Some have argued that one can also read Kuhn's work as essentially positivist in its ontology: the revolutions he posits are epistemological, lurching toward a presumably 'better' understanding of an objective reality through the lens presented by the new paradigm. However, a number of passages in Structure do indeed appear to be distinctly relativist, and to directly challenge the notion of an objective reality and the ability of science to progress towards an ever-greater grasp of it, particularly through the process of paradigm change.

In the sciences there need not be progress of another sort. We may, to be more precise, have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth.

We are all deeply accustomed to seeing science as the one enterprise that draws constantly nearer to some goal set by nature in advance. But need there be any such goal? Can we not account for both science's existence and its success in terms of evolution from the community's state of knowledge at any given time? Does it really help to imagine that there is some one full, objective, true account of nature and that the proper measure of scientific achievement is the extent to which it brings us closer to that ultimate goal?

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson define relativism in Metaphors We Live By as the rejection of both subjectivism and metaphysical objectivism in order to focus on the relationship between them, i.e. the metaphor by which we relate our current experience to our previous experience. In particular, Lakoff and Johnson characterize "objectivism" as a "straw man", and, to a lesser degree, criticize the views of Karl Popper, Kant and Aristotle.

Robert Nozick

In his book Invariances, Robert Nozick expresses a complex set of theories about the absolute and the relative. He thinks the absolute/relative distinction should be recast in terms of an invariant/variant distinction, where there are many things a proposition can be invariant with regard to or vary with. He thinks it is coherent for truth to be relative, and speculates that it might vary with time. He thinks necessity is an unobtainable notion, but can be approximated by robust invariance across a variety of conditions—although we can never identify a proposition that is invariant with regard to everything. Finally, he is not particularly warm to one of the most famous forms of relativism, moral relativism, preferring an evolutionary account.

Joseph Margolis

Joseph Margolis advocates a view he calls "robust relativism" and defends it in his books Historied Thought, Constructed World, Chapter 4 (California, 1995) and The Truth about Relativism (Blackwell, 1991). He opens his account by stating that our logics should depend on what we take to be the nature of the sphere to which we wish to apply our logics. Holding that there can be no distinctions which are not "privileged" between the alethic, the ontic, and the epistemic, he maintains that a many-valued logic just might be the most apt for aesthetics or history since, because in these practices, we are loath to hold to simple binary logic; and he also holds that many-valued logic is relativistic. (This is perhaps an unusual definition of "relativistic". Compare with his comments on "relationism".) To say that "True" and "False" are mutually exclusive and exhaustive judgements on Hamlet, for instance, really does seem absurd. A many-valued logic—with its values "apt", "reasonable", "likely", and so on—seems intuitively more applicable to interpreting Hamlet. Where apparent contradictions arise between such interpretations, we might call the interpretations "incongruent", rather than dubbing either of them "false", because using many-valued logic implies that a measured value is a mixture of two extreme possibilities. Using the subset of many-valued logic, fuzzy logic, it can be said that various interpretations can be represented by membership in more than one possible truth set simultaneously. Fuzzy logic is therefore probably the best mathematical structure for understanding "robust relativism" and has been interpreted by Bart Kosko as philosophically being related to Zen Buddhism.

It was Aristotle who held that relativism implies that we should, sticking with appearances only, end up contradicting ourselves somewhere if we could apply all attributes to all ousiai (beings). Aristotle, however, made non-contradiction dependent upon his essentialism. If his essentialism is false, then so too is his ground for disallowing relativism. (Subsequent philosophers have found other reasons for supporting the principle of non-contradiction.)

Beginning with Protagoras and invoking Charles Sanders Peirce, Margolis shows that the historic struggle to discredit relativism is an attempt to impose an unexamined belief in the world's essentially rigid rule-like nature. Plato and Aristotle merely attacked "relationalism"—the doctrine of true for l or true for k, and the like, where l and k are different speakers or different worlds—or something similar (most philosophers would call this position "relativism"). For Margolis, "true" means true; that is, the alethic use of "true" remains untouched. However, in real world contexts, and context is ubiquitous in the real world, we must apply truth values. Here, in epistemic terms, we might tout court retire "true" as an evaluation and keep "false". The rest of our value-judgements could be graded from "extremely plausible" down to "false". Judgements which on a bivalent logic would be incompatible or contradictory are further seen as "incongruent", although one may well have more weight than the other. In short, relativistic logic is not, or need not be, the bugbear it is often presented to be. It may simply be the best type of logic to apply to certain very uncertain spheres of real experiences in the world (although some sort of logic needs to be applied in order to make that judgement). Those who swear by bivalent logic might simply be the ultimate keepers of the great fear of the flux.

Richard Rorty

Philosopher Richard Rorty has a somewhat paradoxical role in the debate over relativism: he is criticized for his relativistic views by many commentators, but has always denied that relativism applies to much anybody, being nothing more than a Platonic scarecrow. Rorty claims, rather, that he is a pragmatist, and that to construe pragmatism as relativism is to beg the question.

'"Relativism" is the traditional epithet applied to pragmatism by realists'

'"Relativism" is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this view. Except for the occasional cooperative freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic are equally good. The philosophers who get called 'relativists' are those who say that the grounds for choosing between such opinions are less algorithmic than had been thought.'

'In short, my strategy for escaping the self-referential difficulties into which "the Relativist" keeps getting himself is to move everything over from epistemology and metaphysics into cultural politics, from claims to knowledge and appeals to self-evidence to suggestions about what we should try.'

Rorty takes a deflationary attitude to truth, believing there is nothing of interest to be said about truth in general, including the contention that it is generally subjective. He also argues that the notion of warrant or justification can do most of the work traditionally assigned to the concept of truth, and that justification is relative; justification is justification to an audience, for Rorty.

In Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity he argues that the debate between so-called relativists and so-called objectivists is beside the point because they do not have enough premises in common for either side to prove anything to the other.

Nalin de Silva

In his book Mage Lokaya (My World), 1986, Nalin de Silva criticized the basis of the established western system of knowledge, and its propagation, which he refers as "domination throughout the world".He explained in this book that mind independent reality is impossible and knowledge is not found but constructed. Further he has introduced and developed the concept of "Constructive Relativism" as the basis on which knowledge is constructed relative to the sense organs, culture and the mind completely based on Avidya.

Postmodernism

The term "relativism" often comes up in debates over postmodernism, poststructuralism and phenomenology. Critics of these perspectives often identify advocates with the label "relativism". For example, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is often considered a relativist view because it posits that linguistic categories and structures shape the way people view the world. Stanley Fish has defended postmodernism and relativism.

These perspectives do not strictly count as relativist in the philosophical sense, because they express agnosticism on the nature of reality and make epistemological rather than ontological claims. Nevertheless, the term is useful to differentiate them from realists who believe that the purpose of philosophy, science, or literary critique is to locate externally true meanings. Important philosophers and theorists such as Michel Foucault, Max Stirner, political movements such as post-anarchism or post-Marxism can also be considered as relativist in this sense - though a better term might be social constructivist.

The spread and popularity of this kind of "soft" relativism varies between academic disciplines. It has wide support in anthropology and has a majority following in cultural studies. It also has advocates in political theory and political science, sociology, and continental philosophy (as distinct from Anglo-American analytical philosophy). It has inspired empirical studies of the social construction of meaning such as those associated with labelling theory, which defenders can point to as evidence of the validity of their theories (albeit risking accusations of performative contradiction in the process). Advocates of this kind of relativism often also claim that recent developments in the natural sciences, such as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics, chaos theory and complexity theory show that science is now becoming relativistic. However, many scientists who use these methods continue to identify as realist or post-positivist, and some sharply criticize the association.

Religious

Buddhism

Madhyamaka Buddhism, which forms the basis for many Mahayana Buddhist schools and which was founded by Nāgārjuna. Nāgārjuna taught the idea of relativity. In the Ratnāvalī, he gives the example that shortness exists only in relation to the idea of length. The determination of a thing or object is only possible in relation to other things or objects, especially by way of contrast. He held that the relationship between the ideas of "short" and "long" is not due to intrinsic nature (svabhāva). This idea is also found in the Pali Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas, in which the idea of relativity is expressed similarly: "That which is the element of light ... is seen to exist on account of [in relation to] darkness; that which is the element of good is seen to exist on account of bad; that which is the element of space is seen to exist on account of form."

Madhyamaka Buddhism discerns two levels of truth: relative and ultimate. The two truths doctrine states that there are Relative or conventional, common-sense truth, which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and Ultimate truth, which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics. Conventional truth may be understood, in contrast, as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature". It is constituted by the appearances of mistaken awareness. Conventional truth would be the appearance that includes a duality of apprehender and apprehended, and objects perceived within that. Ultimate truth is the phenomenal world free from the duality of apprehender and apprehended.

Catholicism

The Catholic Church, especially under John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, has identified relativism as one of the most significant problems for faith and morals today.

According to the Church and to some theologians, relativism, as a denial of absolute truth, leads to moral license and a denial of the possibility of sin and of God. Whether moral or epistemological, relativism constitutes a denial of the capacity of the human mind and reason to arrive at truth. Truth, according to Catholic theologians and philosophers (following Aristotle) consists of adequatio rei et intellectus, the correspondence of the mind and reality. Another way of putting it states that the mind has the same form as reality. This means when the form of the computer in front of someone (the type, color, shape, capacity, etc.) is also the form that is in their mind, then what they know is true because their mind corresponds to objective reality.

The denial of an absolute reference, of an axis mundi, denies God, who equates to Absolute Truth, according to these Christian theologians. They link relativism to secularism, an obstruction of religion in human life. Some theistic philosophers and theologians, however, adopt a more differentiated perspective on relativism in this respect.

Leo XIII

Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903) was the first known Pope to use the word "relativism", in his encyclical Humanum genus (1884). Leo condemned Freemasonry and claimed that its philosophical and political system was largely based on relativism.

John Paul II

John Paul II wrote in Veritatis Splendor

As is immediately evident, the crisis of truth is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person's intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature.

In Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), he says:

Freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.

Benedict XVI

In April 2005, in his homily during Mass prior to the conclave which would elect him as Pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger talked about the world "moving towards a dictatorship of relativism":

How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Ephesians 4, 14). Having a clear Faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and "swept along by every wind of teaching", looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires. However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an "Adult" means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth.

On June 6, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI told educators:

Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own 'ego'.

Then during the World Youth Day in August 2005, he also traced to relativism the problems produced by the communist and sexual revolutions, and provided a counter-counter argument.

In the last century we experienced revolutions with a common programme–expecting nothing more from God, they assumed total responsibility for the cause of the world in order to change it. And this, as we saw, meant that a human and partial point of view was always taken as an absolute guiding principle. Absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism. It does not liberate man, but takes away his dignity and enslaves him. It is not ideologies that save the world, but only a return to the living God, our Creator, the Guarantor of our freedom, the Guarantor of what is really good and true.

Pope Francis

Pope Francis refers in Evangelii gaudium to two forms of relativism, "doctrinal relativism" and a "practical relativism" typical of "our age", noting that pastoral workers who believe in the ideals of the Church may still fall into a form of relativism based on a lack of enthusiasm for social participation and focus on individualism.

Pastoral workers can thus fall into a relativism which, whatever their particular style of spirituality or way of thinking, proves even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism. It has to do with the deepest and inmost decisions that shape their way of life. This practical relativism consists in acting as if God did not exist, making decisions as if the poor did not exist, setting goals as if others did not exist, working as if people who have not received the Gospel did not exist. It is striking that even some who clearly have solid doctrinal and spiritual convictions frequently fall into a lifestyle which leads to an attachment to financial security, or to a desire for power or human glory at all cost, rather than giving their lives to others in mission.

Jainism

Mahavira (599-527 BC), the 24th Tirthankara of Jainism, developed a philosophy known as Anekantavada. John Koller describes anekāntavāda as "epistemological respect for view of others" about the nature of existence, whether it is "inherently enduring or constantly changing", but "not relativism; it does not mean conceding that all arguments and all views are equal".

Sikhism

In Sikhism the Gurus (spiritual teachers) have propagated the message of "many paths" leading to the one God and ultimate salvation for all souls who tread on the path of righteousness. They have supported the view that proponents of all faiths can, by doing good and virtuous deeds and by remembering the Lord, certainly achieve salvation. The students of the Sikh faith are told to accept all leading faiths as possible vehicles for attaining spiritual enlightenment provided the faithful study, ponder and practice the teachings of their prophets and leaders. The holy book of the Sikhs called the Sri Guru Granth Sahib says: "Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false." Guru Granth Sahib page 1350; later stating: "The seconds, minutes, and hours, days, weeks and months, and the various seasons originate from the one Sun; O nanak, in just the same way, the many forms originate from the Creator." Guru Granth Sahib page 12,13

Universal basic income

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income

In 2013, eight million 5-centime coins (one per inhabitant) were dumped on the Bundesplatz in Bern to support the 2016 Swiss referendum for a basic income (which was rejected 77% – 23%).

Universal basic income (UBI) is a social welfare proposal in which all members of a given population regularly receive a minimum income in the form of an unconditional transfer payment, i.e., without a means test or need to perform work. In contrast, a guaranteed minimum income (GMI) is paid only to those who do not already receive an income that is enough to live on. A UBI would be received independently of any other income. If the level is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line), it is considered a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it is called a partial basic income. As of 2025, no country has implemented a full UBI system, but two countries—Mongolia and Iran—have had a partial UBI in the past. There have been numerous pilot projects, and the idea is discussed in many countries. Some have labelled UBI as utopian due to its historical origin.

There are several welfare arrangements that can be considered similar to basic income, although they are not unconditional. Many countries have a system of child benefit, which is essentially a basic income for guardians of children. A pension may be a basic income for retired persons. There are also quasi-basic income programs that are limited to certain population groups or time periods, like Bolsa Familia in Brazil, which is concentrated on the poor, or the Thamarat Program in Sudan, which was introduced by the transitional government to ease the effects of the economic crisis inherited from the Bashir regime. Likewise, the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted some countries to send direct payments to its citizens. The Alaska Permanent Fund is a fund for all residents of the U.S. state of Alaska which averages $1,600 annually (in 2019 currency), and is sometimes described as the only example of a real basic income in practice. A negative income tax (NIT) can be viewed as a basic income for certain income groups in which citizens receive less and less money until this effect is reversed the more a person earns.

Critics claim that a basic income at an appropriate level for all citizens is not financially feasible, fear that the introduction of a basic income would lead to fewer people working, and consider it socially unjust that everyone should receive the same amount of money regardless of their individual needs. Proponents say it is indeed financeable, arguing that such a system, instead of many individual means-tested social benefits, would eliminate more expensive social administration and bureaucratic efforts, and expect that unattractive jobs would have to be better paid and their working conditions improved because there would have to be an incentive to do them when already receiving an income, which would increase the willingness to work. Advocates also argue that a basic income is fair because it ensures that everyone has a sufficient financial basis to build on and less financial pressure, thus allowing people to find work that suits their interests and strengths.

Early examples of unconditional payments to citizens date back to antiquity, and the first proposals to introduce a regular unconditionally paid income for all citizens were developed and disseminated between the 16th and 18th centuries. After the Industrial Revolution, public awareness and support for the concept increased. At least since the mid-20th century, basic income has repeatedly been the subject of political debates. In the 21st century, several discussions are related to the debate about basic income, including those concerning the automation of large parts of the human workforce through artificial intelligence (AI), and associated questions regarding the future of the necessity of work. A key issue in these debates is whether automation and AI will significantly reduce the number of available jobs and whether a basic income could help prevent or alleviate such problems by allowing everyone to benefit from a society's wealth, as well as whether a UBI could be a stepping stone to a resource-based or post-scarcity economy.

History

Antiquity

See also: Cura Annonae

Ancient Egypt had a strong, unified theocratic state that owned key parts of the Egyptian economy, including granaries that dispensed grain to the public during hard times.

In a 46 BC triumph, Roman general and dictator Julius Caesar gave each common Roman citizen 100 denarii. Following his assassination in 44 BC, Caesar's will left 300 sestertii (or 75 denarii) to each citizen. Trajan, emperor of Rome from 98 to 117 AD, personally gave 650 denarii (equivalent to perhaps US$430 in 2023) to all common Roman citizens who applied.

16th century

In his Utopia (1516), English statesman and philosopher Thomas More depicts a society in which every person receives a guaranteed income. In this book, basic income is proposed as an answer to the statement "No penalty on earth will stop people from stealing, if it's their only way of getting food", stating:

instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody's under the frightful necessity of becoming first a thief, and then a corpse.

Spanish scholar Johannes Ludovicus Vives (1492–1540) proposed that the municipal government should be responsible for securing a subsistence minimum to all its residents "not on the grounds of justice but for the sake of a more effective exercise of morally required charity." Vives also argued that to qualify for poor relief, the recipient must "deserve the help he or she gets by proving his or her willingness to work."

18th century

English-born American philosopher Thomas Paine authored Common Sense (1776) and The American Crisis (1776–1783), the two most influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution. His essay, Agrarian Justice, was published in 1797. In it, he proposed concrete reforms to abolish poverty. In particular, he proposed a universal social insurance system comprising old-age pensions and disability support, and universal stakeholder grants for young adults, funded by a 10% inheritance tax focused on land, it is also considered one of the earliest proposals for a social security system. Thomas Paine summarized his view by stating that "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." Paine saw inheritance as being partly a common fund and wanted to supplement the citizen's dividend in a tax on inheritance transfers.

In 1797, English Radical Thomas Spence published The Rights of Infants as a response to Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice. In this essay Spence proposes the introduction of an unconditional basic income to all members of the community. Such allowance would be financed through the socialization of land and the benefits of the rents received by each municipality. A part of everyone's earnings would be seized by the State, and given to others.

19th century

Henry George proposed to create a pension and disability system, and a broad social support system from a single tax on land and natural resource value. Social support would be distributed to residents "as a right" instead of as charity. George mentioned, but did not stress, the possibility of direct cash distribution of land rent. His ideas gave rise to the economic philosophy now known as Georgism or the "single tax movement", which is an economic ideology holding that, although people should own the value they produce themselves, the economic rent derived from land—including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations—should belong equally to all members of society. Some Georgists refer to unconditional basic income funded by the single tax as a citizen's dividend in reference to Thomas Paine's proposal from the 19th century.

Early 20th century

Around 1920, support for basic income started growing, primarily in England.

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) argued for a new social model that combined the advantages of socialism and anarchism, and that basic income should be a vital component in that new society. In his 1918 book Roads to Freedom, Russell wrote "... the plan we are advocating amounts essentially to this: that a certain small income, sufficient for necessaries, should be secured to all, whether they work or not, and that a larger income – as much larger as might be warranted by the total amount of commodities produced – should be given to those who are willing to engage in some work which the community recognizes as useful..."

In the United Kingdom at the end of World War I, Dennis and Mabel Milner, a Quaker married couple of the Labour Party, published a short pamphlet entitled "Scheme for a State Bonus" (1918) that argued for the "introduction of an income paid unconditionally on a weekly basis to all citizens of the United Kingdom." They considered it a moral right for everyone to have the means to subsistence, and thus it should not be conditional on work or willingness to work.

C. H. Douglas was an engineer who became concerned that most British citizens could not afford to buy the goods that were produced, despite the rising productivity in British industry. His solution to this paradox was a new social system he called social credit, a combination of monetary reform and basic income.

In 1944 and 1945, the Beveridge Committee, led by the British economist William Beveridge, developed a proposal for a comprehensive new welfare system of social insurance, means-tested benefits, and unconditional allowances for children. Committee member Lady Rhys-Williams argued that the incomes for adults should be more like a basic income. She was also the first to develop the negative income tax model. Her son Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams proposed a basic income to a parliamentary committee in 1982, and soon after that in 1984, the Basic Income Research Group, now the Citizen's Basic Income Trust, began to conduct and disseminate research on basic income.

Late 20th century

Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax (NIT), which effectively sanctioned a basic income for all, in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom. In his 1964 State of the Union address, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson declared an "unconditional war on poverty," implemented in coming years with sweeping legislation. Johnson broadened the agenda to the Great Society, including education, civil rights, health care, and support for the arts. In this political climate, the idea of a guaranteed income for every American also took root. Notably, a 1968 document, signed by 1200 economists, called for a guaranteed income for every American. Four ambitious basic income experiments started on the related concept of negative income tax. President Richard Nixon explained the Family Assistance Plan's purpose as to provide both a safety net for the poor and a financial incentive for welfare recipients to work. Congress eventually approved a guaranteed minimum income for the elderly and the disabled.

In the mid-1970s, the main competitor to basic income and negative income tax, the Earned income tax credit (EITC) and its advocates won over enough legislators for the US Congress to pass laws on that policy. In 1986, the Basic Income European Network (later renamed the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN)) was founded, with academic conferences every second year. Other advocates included the green political movement, other activists, and some groups of unemployed people.

In the late 20th century, discussions were held around automatization and jobless growth, the possibility of combining economic growth with ecologically sustainable development, and how to reform the welfare state bureaucracy. Basic income was interwoven in these and many other debates. During the BIEN academic conferences, scholars published papers about basic income from a wide variety of perspectives.

21st century

Further information: List of advocates of basic income

In recent years, the idea has come to the forefront more than before. The Swiss referendum about basic income in 2016 was covered in media worldwide, despite its rejection. Famous business people like Elon Musk, Pierre Omidyar, and Andrew Yang have lent their support, as have high-profile politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Tulsi Gabbard. The Institute for Public Policy Research predicted that 59% of tasks currently done by humans could be affected by AI in the next three to five years. Universal basic Income could help fill the gap left by this "jobs apocalypse."

In 2019-2021, in Stockton, California, then-Mayor Michael Tubbs initiated a 24-month pilot program of guaranteed income for 125 residents as part of the privately funded S.E.E.D. project there.

In the 2020 Democratic Party primaries, political newcomer Andrew Yang touted basic income as his core policy. His policy, referred to as a "Freedom Dividend", would have provided adult American citizens US$1,000 a month independent of employment status.

On 21 January 2021, in California, the two-year donor-funded Compton Pledge began distributing monthly guaranteed income payments to a "pre-verified" pool of low-income residents, in a program gauged for a maximum of 800 recipients, at which point it would be one of the larger among 25 U.S. cities exploring this approach to community economics.

Beginning in December 2021, Tacoma, Washington, piloted "Growing Resilience in Tacoma" (GRIT), a guaranteed income initiative that provided $500 a month to 110 families. GRIT is part of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Guaranteed Income Research larger study. A report on the results of the GRIT experiment was published in 2024.

Response to COVID-19

As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impact, universal basic income and similar proposals such as helicopter money and cash transfers were increasingly discussed across the world. Most countries implemented forms of partial unemployment schemes, which effectively subsidized workers' incomes without a work requirement. Around ninety countries and regions including the United States, Spain, Hong Kong, and Japan introduced temporary direct cash transfer programs to their citizens.

In Europe, a petition calling for an "emergency basic income" gathered more than 200,000 signatures, and polls suggested widespread support in public opinion for it. Unlike the various stimulus packages of the US administration, the EU's stimulus plans did not include any form of income-support policies.

Basic income vs negative income tax

See also: Negative income tax

Two ways of looking at basic income when combined with a flat income tax, both of which result in the same net income (orange line): 1. (red) stipend with conventional tax for income above the stipend. 2. (blue) negative tax for low-income people and conventional tax for high-income people.

The associated diagram shows a basic income/negative tax system combined with flat income tax (the same percentage in tax for every income level). Axis y is here the pre-tax salary given by the employer and y' is the net income.

Negative income tax

For low earnings, there is no income tax in the negative income tax system. They receive money, in the form of a negative income tax, but they do not pay any tax. Then, as their labour income increases, this benefit, this money from the state, gradually decreases. That decrease is to be seen as a mechanism for the poor, instead of the poor paying tax.

Basic income

That is, however, not the case in the corresponding basic income system in the diagram at right. There, everyone typically pays income taxes. But on the other hand, everyone also gets the same amount of basic income.

But the net income is the same

But, as the orange line in the diagram shows, the net income is anyway the same. No matter how much or how little one earns, the amount of money received is the same, regardless of which of these two systems are used.

Basic income and negative income tax are generally seen to be similar in economic net effects, but there are some differences:

Philippe Van Parijs in his library

• Psychological. Philip Harvey accepts that "both systems would have the same redistributive effect and tax earned income at the same marginal rate" but does not agree that "the two systems would be perceived by taxpayers as costing the same".
• Tax profile. Tony Atkinson made a distinction based on whether the tax profile was flat (for basic income) or variable (for NIT).
• Timing. Philippe Van Parijs states that "the economic equivalence between the two programs should not hide the fact that they have different effects on recipients because of the different timing of payments: ex-ante in Basic Income, ex-post in Negative Income Tax".

Perspectives and arguments

Automation

There is a prevailing opinion that we are in an era of technological unemployment – that technology is increasingly making skilled workers obsolete.

Prof. Mark MacCarthy (2014)

One central rationale for basic income is the belief that automation and robotisation could result in technological unemployment, leading to a world with fewer paid jobs. A key question in this context is whether a basic income could help prevent or alleviate such problems by allowing everyone to benefit from a society's wealth, as well as whether a UBI could be a stepping stone to a resource-based or post-scarcity economy.

U.S. presidential candidate and nonprofit founder Andrew Yang has stated that automation caused the loss of 4 million manufacturing jobs and advocated for a UBI (which he calls a Freedom Dividend) of $1,000/month rather than worker retraining programs. Yang has stated that he is influenced by Martin Ford. Ford believes that the emerging technologies will fail to deliver much employment; on the contrary, because the new industries will "rarely, if ever, be highly labor-intensive". Similar ideas have been debated before in history—that "the machines will take the jobs". What is new is the existence of several academic studies that forecast a future with substantially less employment, in the decades to come. Additionally, US President Barack Obama stated that he believes that the growth of artificial intelligence will lead to an increased discussion around the idea of "unconditional free money for everyone".

Economics and costs

See also: Cost of living

Some proponents of UBI have argued that basic income could increase economic growth because it would sustain people while they invest in education to get higher-skilled and well-paid jobs. However, there is also a discussion of basic income within the degrowth movement, which argues against economic growth.

Advocates contend that the guaranteed financial security of a UBI will increase the population's willingness to take risks, which would create a culture of inventiveness and strengthen entrepreneurial spirit.

The cost of a basic income is one of the biggest questions in the public debate as well as in the research and depends on many things. It first and foremost depends on the level of the basic income as such, and it also depends on many technical points regarding exactly how it is constructed.

While opponents claim that a basic income at an adequate level for all citizens cannot be financed, their supporters propose that it could indeed be financed, with some advocating a strong redistribution and restructuring of bureaucracy and administration for this purpose.

According to statements of American Enterprise Institute-affiliated Libertarian/conservative scholar Charles Murray, recalled and sanctioned in 2016 by the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and nationally syndicated columnist Veronique de Rugy, as of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI in the US would have been about $200 billion less expensive than the US social safety-net system put in place at that date. By 2020, it would have been nearly a trillion dollars less expensive.

American economist Karl Widerquist argues that simply multiplying the amount of the grant by the population would be a naive calculation, as this is the gross costs of UBI and does not take into account that UBI is a system where people pay taxes on a regular basis and receive the grant at the same time.

According to Swiss economist Thomas Straubhaar, the concept of UBI is basically financeable without any problems. He describes it as "at its core, nothing more than a fundamental tax reform" that "bundles all social policy measures into a single instrument, the basic income paid out unconditionally." He also considers a universal basic income to be socially just, arguing that although all citizens would receive the same amount in the form of the basic income at the beginning of the month, the rich would have lost significantly more money through taxes at the end of the month than they would have received through the basic income, while the opposite is the case for poorer people, similar to the concept of a negative income tax.

Recent theoretical work has introduced alternative mathematical approaches to the allocation of basic income. One such example is the Boltzmann fair division model, which applies the Boltzmann distribution from statistical mechanics to resource or income allocation. In this framework, each individual's share is assigned probabilistically according to an exponential function of a specified attribute (such as need or contribution), providing a flexible mechanism to balance fairness and efficiency in basic income distribution.

Inflation of labor and rental costs

One of the most common arguments against UBI stems from the upward pressure on prices, in particular for labor and housing rents, which would likely cause inflation. Public policy choices such as rent controls or land value taxation would likely affect the inflationary potential of universal basic income.

Work

Many critics of basic income argue that people, in general, will work less, which in turn means less tax revenue and less money for the state and local governments. Studies include:

• In negative income tax experiments in the United States in 1970, there was a five percent decline in the hours worked. The work reduction was largest for second earners in two-earner households and weakest for primary earners. The reduction in hours was higher when the benefit was higher.
• In the Mincome experiment in rural Dauphin, Manitoba, also in the 1970s, there were slight reductions in hours worked during the experiment. However, the only two groups who worked significantly less were new mothers, and teenagers working to support their families. New mothers spent this time with their infant children, and working teenagers put significant additional time into their schooling.
• A 2024 study investigated the impact of $1,000/month UBI over a period of 3 years for 1,000 randomized low-income participants in two U.S. states, which represented an around 40% increase in household income. The study found an income effect with a decrease of non-UBI income by $1,500/year, a decrease in non-UBI household income by 21% of the UBI transfer, a 2% decrease in labor market participation, no significant change in time spent on childcare, no self-reported decrease in barriers to employment, a null result for changes in job quality, an increase in entrepreneurial orientation but no significant change in entrepreneurial activity, while enrollment in tertiary education showed a slight increase for participants below 30 years of age.

Although it is difficult to know for sure what will happen if a whole country introduces basic income, there are nevertheless some studies that have attempted to look at this question:

• A study from 2017 showed no evidence that people worked less because of the Iranian subsidy reform (a basic income reform).

Regarding the question of basic income vs jobs, there is also the aspect of so-called welfare traps. Proponents of basic income often argue that with a basic income, unattractive jobs would necessarily have to be better paid and their working conditions improved, so that people still do them without need, reducing these traps.

Philosophy and morality

See also: Community cohesion and Solidarity

By definition, universal basic income does not make a distinction between "deserving" and "undeserving" individuals when making payments. Opponents argue that this lack of discrimination is unfair: "Those who genuinely choose idleness or unproductive activities cannot expect those who have committed to doing productive work to subsidize their livelihood. Responsibility is central to fairness."

Proponents usually view UBI as a fundamental human right that enables an adequate standard of living which every citizen should have access to in modern society. It would be a kind of foundation guaranteed for everyone, on which one could build and never fall below that subsistence level.

It is also argued that this lack of discrimination between those who supposedly deserve it and those who do not is a way to reduce social stigma.

In addition, proponents of UBI may argue that the "deserving" and "undeserving" categories are a superficial classification, as people who are not in regular gainful employment also contribute to society, e.g. by raising children, caring for people, or doing other value-creating activities which are not institutionalized. UBI would provide a balance here and thus overcomes a concept of work that is reduced to pure gainful employment and disregards sideline activities too much.

Health and poverty

See also: Social determinants of mental health, Social determinants of health in poverty, and Social determinants of health

The first comprehensive systematic review of the health impact of basic income (or rather unconditional cash transfers in general) in low- and middle-income countries, a study that included 21 studies of which 16 were randomized controlled trials, found a clinically meaningful reduction in the likelihood of being sick by an estimated 27%. Unconditional cash transfers, according to the study, may also improve food security and dietary diversity. Children in recipient families are also more likely to attend school and the cash transfers may increase money spent on health care. A 2022 update of this review confirmed these findings based on a body of evidence (35 studies, the majority being large randomized controlled trials) and additionally found that unconditional cash transfers also reduce the likelihood of living in extreme poverty.

The Canadian Medical Association passed a motion in 2015 in support of basic income and for basic income trials in Canada.

Advocates

Main article: List of advocates of universal basic income

Pilot programs and experiments

Main article: Universal basic income pilots

See also: Universal basic income by country

Omitara, one of the two poor villages in Namibia where a local basic income was tested in 2008–2009

Since the 1960s, but in particular since the late 2000s, several pilot programs and experiments on basic income have been conducted around the world. Some examples include:

1960s−1970s

• Experiments with negative income tax in the United States and Canada in the 1960s and 1970s.
• The province of Manitoba, Canada experimented with Mincome, a basic guaranteed income, in the 1970s. In the town of Dauphin, Manitoba, labor decreased by 13%, less than expected. This program was ended after issues with the cost becoming unsustainable started to arise.

2000−2009

• The basic income grant in Namibia launched in 2008 and ended in 2009.
• An independent pilot implemented in São Paulo, Brazil launched in 2009.

2010−2019

• Basic income trials ran in 2011–2012 in several villages in India, whose government has proposed a guaranteed basic income for all citizens. It was found that basic income in the region raised the education rate of young people by 25%.
• Iran became the first country to introduce a system of UBI in December 2010. It was paid to all citizens and replaced the gasoline subsidies, electricity, and some food, that the country applied for years to reduce inequalities and poverty. The sum corresponded in 2012 to approximately US$40 per person per month, US$480 per year for a single person, and US$2,300 for a family of five people.
• In Spain, the ingreso mínimo vital, the income guarantee system, is an economic benefit guaranteed by the social security in Spain, but in 2016 was considered in need of reform.
• In South Korea the Youth Allowance Program was started in 2016 in the City of Seongnam, which would give every 24-year-old citizen 250,000 won (~US$215) every quarter in the form of a "local currency" that could only be used in local businesses. This program was later expanded to the entire province of Gyeonggi in 2018.
• The GiveDirectly experiment in a disadvantaged village of Nairobi, Kenya, benefitting over 20,000 people living in rural Kenya, was the longest-running basic income pilot as of November 2017, which is set to run for 12 years.
• A project called Eight in a village in Fort Portal, Uganda, was launched by a nonprofit organization in January 2017, providing income for 56 adults and 88 children through mobile money.
• A two-year pilot the Finnish government began in January 2017 involved 2,000 subjects. In April 2018, the Finnish government rejected a request for funds to extend and expand the program from Kela (Finland's social security agency).
• An experiment in the city of Utrecht, Netherlands launched in early 2017, that is testing different rates of aid.
• A three-year basic income pilot that the Ontario provincial government, Canada, launched in the cities of Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Lindsay in July 2017. Although called basic income, it was only made available to those with a low income and funding would be removed if they obtained employment, making it more related to the current welfare system than true basic income. The pilot project was canceled on 31 July 2018 by the newly elected Progressive Conservative government under Ontario Premier Doug Ford.
• In Israel, in 2018 a non-profit initiative GoodDollar started with an objective to build a global economic framework for providing universal, sustainable, and scalable basic income through the new digital asset technology of blockchain. The non-profit aims to launch a peer-to-peer money transfer network in which money can be distributed to those most in need, regardless of their location, based on the principles of UBI. The project raised US$1 million from a financial company.
• The Rythu Bandhu scheme is a welfare scheme started in the state of Telangana, India, in May 2018, aimed at helping farmers. Each farm owner receives 4,000 INR per acre twice a year for rabi and kharif harvests. To finance the program a budget allocation of 120 billion INR (US$1.55 Billion as of May 2022) was made in the 2018–2019 state budget.

2020−present

• Swiss non-profit Social Income started paying out basic incomes in the form of mobile money in 2020 to people in need in Sierra Leone. Contributions finance the international initiative from people worldwide, who donate 1% of their monthly paychecks.
• In May 2020, Spain introduced a minimum basic income, reaching about 2% of the population, in response to COVID-19 in order to "fight a spike in poverty due to the coronavirus pandemic". It was expected to cost state coffers three billion euros ($3.5 billion) a year."
• In August 2020, a project in Germany started that gives a €1,200 monthly basic income in a lottery system to citizens who applied online. The crowdsourced project lasted three years and be compared against 1,380 people who do not receive basic income. When the project was finished in August 2023, Mein Grundeinkommen calculated that a tax-financed universal basic income of €1,200 per month could be financed for every adult in Germany that would make 80% of adults better off.
• In October 2020, HudsonUP was launched in Hudson, New York, by The Spark of Hudson and Humanity Forward Foundation to give $500 monthly basic income to 25 residents. It will last five years and be compared against 50 people who are not receiving basic income.
• In May 2021, the government of Wales, which has devolved powers in matters of Social Welfare within the UK, announced the trialling of a universal basic income scheme to "see whether the promises that basic income holds out are genuinely delivered". From July 2022 over 500 people leaving care in Wales were offered £1600 per month in a 3-year £20 million pilot scheme, to evaluate the effect on the lives of those involved in the hope of providing independence and security to people.
• In July 2022, Chicago began a year-long guaranteed income program by sending $500 a month to 5,000 households for one year in a lottery system to citizens who applied online. A similar program was launched in late 2022 by Cook County, Illinois (which encompasses the entirety of Chicago as well as several suburbs) which sent monthly $500 payments to 3,250 residents with a household income at or below 250% of the federal poverty level for two years.
• In June 2023, The Guardian reported that a universal basic income of £1,600 a month is to be trialled in two places in England – Jarrow and East Finchley.
• In February 2025, South Korea announced a "farmers' opportunity income" plan to be integrated into their basic income for farmers, and deployed in 24 cities and counties of the Gyeonggi Province. An estimated 210,000 selected farmers and fishermen will receive either 1.8 million won annually or 50,000 won monthly.
• In March 2025, the Government of Delhi in India approved the "Mahila Samridhi Yojana" plan, under which eligible women would receive a monthly allowance of ₹2,500, based on financial status for women below the poverty line.
• In November 2025, the government of Marshall Islands introduced a national universal basic income scheme under which every resident citizen receives quarterly payments of about US$200. It is financed by a trust fund created under an agreement with the United States, which in part aims to compensate the Marshall Islands for nuclear testing there. The fund holds more than $1.3bn in assets, with the USA committing a further $500m through to 2027.

Payments with similarities

Alaska Permanent Fund

Main article: Alaska Permanent Fund

The Permanent Fund of Alaska in the United States provides a kind of yearly basic income based on the oil and gas revenues of the state to nearly all state residents. More precisely the fund resembles a sovereign wealth fund, investing resource revenues into bonds, stocks, and other conservative investment options with the intent to generate renewable revenue for future generations. The fund has had a noticeable yet diminishing effect on reducing poverty among rural Alaska Indigenous people, notably in the elderly population. However, the payment is not high enough to cover basic expenses, averaging $1,600 annually per resident in 2019 currency (As of 2019 it has never exceeded $2,100), and is not a fixed, guaranteed amount. For these reasons, it is not always considered a basic income. However, some consider it to be the only example of a real basic income.

Wealth Partaking Scheme

Main article: Wealth Partaking Scheme

Macau's Wealth Partaking Scheme provides some annual basic income to permanent residents, funded by revenues from the city's casinos. However, the amount disbursed is not sufficient to cover basic living expenses, so it is not considered a basic income.

Bolsa Família

Main article: Bolsa Família

Bolsa Família is a large social welfare program in Brazil that provides money to many low-income families in the country. The system is related to basic income, but has more conditions, like asking the recipients to keep their children in school until graduation. As of March 2020, the program covers 13.8 million families, and pays an average of $34 per month, in a country where the minimum wage is $190 per month.

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (ECBI) opened Harrah's Cherokee Casino in 1997 and it has generated jobs and revenue for the tribe, providing money that the EBCI applies to its people's education, welfare and culture. Each member of the tribe is paid an annual income that started at $500 and has increased to $10,000 as of 2015.

Other welfare programs

• Pension: A payment that in some countries is guaranteed to all citizens above a certain age. The difference from true basic income is that it is restricted to people over a certain age.
• Child benefit: A program similar to pensions but restricted to parents of children, usually allocated based on the number of children.
• Conditional cash transfer: A regular payment given to families, but only to the poor. It is usually dependent on basic conditions such as sending their children to school or having them vaccinated. Programs include Bolsa Família in Brazil and Programa Prospera in Mexico.
• Guaranteed minimum income differs from a basic income in that it is restricted to those in search of work and possibly other restrictions, such as savings being below a certain level. Example programs are unemployment benefits in the UK, the revenu de solidarité active in France, and citizens' income in Italy.

Petitions, polls and referendums

• 2008: An official petition for basic income was launched in Germany by Susanne Wiest. The petition was accepted, and Susanne Wiest was invited for a hearing at the German parliament's Commission of Petitions. After the hearing, the petition was closed as "unrealizable".
• 2013–2014: A European Citizens' Initiative collected 280,000 signatures demanding that the European Commission study the concept of an unconditional basic income.
• 2015: A citizen's initiative in Spain received 185,000 signatures, short of the required number to mandate that the Spanish parliament discuss the proposal.
• 2016: The world's first universal basic income referendum in Switzerland on 5 June 2016 was rejected with a 76.9% majority. Also in 2016, a poll showed that 58% of the EU's population were aware of basic income, and 64% would have voted in favour of the idea.
• 2017: Politico/Morning Consult asked 1,994 Americans about their opinions on several political issues including national basic income; 43% either "strongly supported" or "somewhat supported" the idea.
• 2018: The results of a poll by Gallup conducted last year between September and October were published. 48% of respondents supported universal basic income.
• 2019: In November, an Austrian initiative received approximately 70,000 signatures but failed to reach the 100,000 signatures needed for a parliamentary discussion. The initiative was started by Peter Hofer. His proposal suggested a basic income sourced from a financial transaction tax, of €1,200, for every Austrian citizen.
• 2020: A study by Oxford University found that 71% of Europeans were in favour of basic income. The study was conducted in March, with 12,000 respondents and in 27 EU-member states and the UK. A YouGov poll likewise found a majority for universal basic income in United Kingdom and a poll by University of Chicago found that 51% of Americans aged 18–36 supported a monthly basic income of $1,000. In the UK there was also a letter, signed by over 170 MPs and Lords from multiple political parties, calling on the government to introduce a universal basic income during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• 2020: A Pew Research Center survey, conducted online in August 2020, of 11,000 U.S. adults found that a majority (54%) opposed the federal government providing a guaranteed income of $1,000 per month to all adults, while 45% supported it.
• 2020: In a poll by Hill-HarrisX, 55% of Americans voted in favour of UBI in August, up from 49% in September 2019 and 43% in February 2019.
• 2020: The results of an online survey of 2,031 participants conducted in 2018 in Germany were published: 51% were either "very much in favor" or "in favor" of UBI being introduced.
• 2020: An October survey of 1,026 Australians by YouGov found a 58% support for universal basic income.
• 2021: A Change.org petition calling for monthly stimulus checks in the amount of $2,000 per adult and $1,000 per child for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic had received almost 3 million signatures.

Proto-metabolism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-metabolism 

A proto-metabolism is a network of linked chemical reactions in a prebiotic environment that resembled modern metabolic pathways but was primarily controlled by external factors such as minerals, environmental conditions, and geochemistry rather than by internally produced molecular components. Combining ongoing research in astrobiology and prebiotic chemistry, work in this area focuses on reconstructing the connections between potential metabolic processes that may have occurred in early Earth conditions. Proto-metabolism is believed to be simpler than modern metabolism and the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), as simple organic molecules likely gave rise to more complex metabolic networks. Prebiotic chemists have demonstrated abiotic generation of many simple organic molecules including amino acids,^[3] fatty acids,^[4] simple sugars, and nucleobases. There are multiple scenarios bridging prebiotic chemistry to early metabolic networks that occurred before the origins of life, also known as abiogenesis. In addition, there are hypotheses made on the evolution of biochemical pathways including the metabolism-first hypothesis, which theorizes how reaction networks dissipate free energy from which genetic molecules and proto-cell membranes later emerge. To determine the composition of key early metabolic networks, scientists have also used top-down approaches to study LUCA and modern metabolism.

Proto metabolism and minimal metabolism

Two related but distinct concepts are important for understanding the origins of metabolism:

Proto metabolism refers to the actual metabolic like chemistry that existed on prebiotic Earth. Kee and Monnard describe the "internal catalytic network, often referred to as 'metabolism'" as "the set of catalysts/catalytic assemblies that a protocell would have required to process resources into its own building blocks." Critically, early proto metabolic systems relied on external support: "From its simplest form, based on encapsulated metal-ions and complexes or even mineral particles, this reaction system would have gradually evolved first into RNA-based and, over time, into protein catalytic networks, i.e. towards metabolic bio-machinery."

Minimal metabolism is a theoretical concept describing the minimum requirements for chemistry to become truly metabolic. Lauber et al. (2021) define it as "a heuristic construct, halfway between chemistry and biology" that stands "at the interface between non-equilibrium complex chemistries and biological systems." Unlike proto metabolism that describes non genetic and non enzymatic reaction networks driven by the environment, minerals, and simple organics, minimal metabolism represents the next stage: the earliest cellular metabolic system with some enzymes and genetic control, capable of supporting growth and division while still depending on environmental gradients.

Heterotrophic versus autotrophic origin

The heterotrophic hypothesis, also known as the Oparin–Haldane hypothesis, proposes that the first organisms were heterotrophs that obtained energy and carbon from organic molecules accumulated through abiotic synthesis in the primitive environment. Alexander Oparin (1924) and J.B.S. Haldane (1929) independently argued that since heterotrophic anaerobes are metabolically simpler than autotrophs, heterotrophy must have evolved first. This concept traces back to Charles Darwin's 1871 speculation about life originating in "some warm little pond" containing ammonia, phosphoric salts, and energy sources where protein compounds could form. The Miller–Urey experiment (1953) provided experimental support by demonstrating abiotic synthesis of amino acids and other biochemically significant molecules under simulated early Earth conditions. The autotrophic hypothesis proposes that the earliest life forms were autotrophs capable of synthesizing organic molecules from inorganic carbon (CO₂) using geochemical energy. Günter Wächtershäuser's iron–sulfur world theory suggests that life originated at hydrothermal vents where iron sulfide and nickel sulfide minerals catalyzed carbon fixation from volcanic gases. Experimental work demonstrated synthesis of activated acetic acid and peptide bond formation on (Fe,Ni)S surfaces under prebiotic conditions. The two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive; the FeS/H₂S reducing chemistry central to autotrophic models is also consistent with heterotrophic scenarios.

Autocatalytic prebiotic chemistries

Further information: Autocatalysis and Autocatalytic set

Autocatalytic reactions are reactions where the reaction product acts as a catalyst for its own formation. Many researchers that study proto-metabolism agree that early metabolic networks likely originated as a set of chemical reactions that form self-sustaining networks. This set of reactions is commonly referred to as an autocatalytic set. Some prebiotic chemistries focus on these autocatalytic reactions including the formose reaction, HCN oligomerization, and formamide chemistry.

Formose reaction

Further information: Formose reaction

Discovered in 1861 by Aleksandr Butlerov, the formose reaction is a set of two reactions converting formaldehyde (CH₂O) to a mixture of simple sugars. Formaldehyde is an intermediate in the oxidation of simple carbon molecules (e.g. methane) and was likely present in early Earth's atmosphere. The first reaction is the slow conversion of formaldehyde (C1 carbon) to glycolaldehyde (C2 carbon) and occurs through an unknown mechanism. The second reaction is the faster and autocatalytic formation of higher weight aldoses and ketoses. The kinetics of the formose reaction are often described as autocatalytic, as the alkaline reaction uses lowest molecular weight sugars as feedstocks or input molecules into the reaction. Self-organized autocatalytic networks, like the formose reaction, would allow for adaptation to changing prebiotic environmental conditions. As a proof-of-concept, Robinson and colleagues demonstrated how changing environmental conditions and catalyst availability can impact the resultant sugar products.

In the past, many researchers have suggested the importance of this reaction for abiogenesis and the origins of metabolism because it can lead to ribose. Ribose is a building block of RNA and an important precursor in proto-metabolism. However, there are limitations for the formose reaction to be the chemical origin of sugars including the low chemoselectivity for ribose and high complexity of the final reaction mixture. In addition, a direct joining of ribose, a nucleobase, and phosphate to make a ribonucleotide (the building block of RNA) is not currently chemically feasible. Alternative prebiotic mechanisms have been proposed including cyanosulfidic prebiotic chemistries.

HCN oligomerization

On Earth, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is made in volcanos, lightning, and reducing atmospheres like the Miller-Urey experiment. On the Hadean Earth, large impactor events and active hydrothermal processes likely contributed to widespread metal production and metal-based proto-metabolism. Hydrogen cyanide has also been detected in meteorites and atmospheres in the outer solar system.

HCN-derived polymers are the oligomer or hydrolysis products of HCN. These polymers can be synthesized from HCN or cyanide salts often in alkaline conditions, but they have been observed in a wide range of experimental conditions. HCN readily reacts with itself to produce many HCN polymers and biologically relevant compounds like nucleobases, amino acids, and carboxylic acids. The diversity of products could point to a plausible proto-metabolic network of HCN oligomerization reactions. Although, some groups point to low HCN concentrations in early Earth and low chemioselectivity of key biologically relevant products, similar to the formose reaction. Others have shown that abundant HCN is produced after large impacts and that high specificity and yield can be achieved.

Formamide chemistry

Further information: Formamide-based prebiotic chemistry

Formamide (NH₂CHO) is the simplest naturally occurring amide. Similar to HCN, formamide can form naturally. Formamide has specific physical and stability properties possibly suitable for a universal prebiotic precursor for early proto-metabolic networks. For example, it has four universal atomic elements ubiquitous to life: C, H, O, N. The presence of unique functional groups involving oxygen and nitrogen support reaction chemistries to build key biomolecules like amino acids, sugars, nucleosides and other key intermediates of other prebiotic reactions (e.g. the citric acid cycle). In addition, early Earth geological features like hydrothermal pores might support formamide chemistry and synthesis of key prebiotic biomolecules with concentration requirements.

Overall, formamide chemistry can support connections and substrates needed to support prebiotic biomolecule synthesis including the formose reaction, Strecker synthesis, HCN oligomerization, or the Fischer-Tropsch process. In addition, formamide can be easily concentrated through evaporation reactions as it has a boiling point of 210C. Although this reaction has high versatility across one-carbon atom precursors, the connections between different biosynthetic pathways are yet to be directly explored experimentally.

Experimental reconstruction

Many research groups are actively attempting experimental reconstruction of the interactions between prebiotic reactions. One major consideration is the ability for these reactions to operate in the same environmental conditions. These one-pot syntheses would likely push the reaction towards specific subgroups of molecules. The key to building proto-metabolic scenarios involves coupling constructive and interconversion reactions. Constructive reactions use autocatalytic prebiotic chemistries to increase the structural complexity of the original molecule, while interconversion reactions connect different prebiotic chemistries by changing the functional groups appended to the original molecule. A functional group is a group of atoms that has similar properties whenever it appears in different molecules. These interconversion reactions and functional group transformations can lead to new prebiotic chemistries and precursor molecules.

Cyanosulfidic scenario

Further information: Cyanosulfidic Prebiotic Synthesis

Cyanosulfidic scenarios are mechanisms for proto-metabolism proposed by the Eschenmoser and Sutherland groups. Research from the Eschenmoser group suggested that interactions between HCN and aldehydes can catalyze the formation of diaminomaleodinitrile (DAMN). Iterations of this cycle would generate multiple intermediate metabolites and key biomolecular precursors through functional group transformations by hydrolytic and redox processes. To expand upon this finding, the Sutherland group experimentally assessed the assembly of biomolecular building blocks from prebiotic intermediates and one-carbon feedstocks. They synthesized precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids from the reactants of hydrogen cyanide, acetylene, acrylonitrile (product of cyanide and acetylene), and dihydroxyacetone (stable triose isomer of glyceraldehyde and phosphate). These reactions are driven by UV light and use hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) as the primary reductant in these reactions. As each of these synthesis reactions was tested independently and some reactions require periodic input of additional reactants, these biomolecular precursors were not strictly generated through a one-pot synthesis expected of early Earth environments. In the same work, these authors argue that flow chemistry or the movement of reactants through water could generate the conditions favorable for the synthesis of these molecules.

Glyoxylate scenario

Further information: TCA cycle

Eschenmoser also proposed a parallel scenario where the connections between prebiotic reactions would be connected by glyoxylate, a simple α-ketoacid, produced by HCN oligomerization and hydrolysis. In this work, Eschenmoser proposes potential schemes to generate both informational oligomers and other key autocatalytic reactions from plausible one-carbon sources (HCN, CO, CO₂).

The Krishnamurthy group at Scripps experimentally expanded on this theory. In mild aqueous conditions, they demonstrated that the reaction of glyoxylate and pyruvate can produce a series of α-ketoacid intermediates constituting the reductive tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle. This reaction proceeded without metal or enzyme catalysts as glyoxylate acted as both the carbon source and reducing agent in the reaction. Similarly, the Moran group have also reported pyruvate and glyoxylate can react in warm iron-rich water to produce TCA intermediates and some amino acids. Their work has successfully reconstructed 9 out of 11 TCA intermediates and 5 universal metabolic precursors. Additional experimental analysis is needed to connect this scenario to modern metabolism.

Energy sources

Unlike proto-metabolism, the bioenergetic pathways powering modern metabolism are well understood. In early Earth conditions, there were mainly three kinds of energy to support early metabolic pathways: high energy sources to catalyze monomers, lower energy sources to support condensation or polymerization, and energy carriers that support transfer of energy from the environment to metabolic networks. Examples of high energy sources include photochemical energy from ultraviolet light, atmospheric electric discharge, and geological electrochemical energy. These energy sources would support synthesis of biological monomers or feedstocks for proto-metabolism. In contrast, examples of lower energy sources for assembly of more complex molecules include anhydrous heat, mineral-catalyzed synthesis, and sugar-driven reactions. Energy carrier molecules could allow for propagation of the energy through the metabolic networks likely resembled modern energy carriers including ATP and NADH. Both energy carriers are nucleotide-based molecules and likely originated early in metabolism.

Gene-first versus metabolism-first hypotheses

Gene-first

The gene-first hypothesis proposes that the first living systems were self-replicating informational molecules, most likely RNA, capable of both storing genetic information and catalyzing chemical reactions. Under this model, simple self-replicating molecules would evolve under selective pressures into increasingly complex organisms.

A key advantage of the gene-first hypothesis is that a single molecule capable of template-directed replication can evolve readily if modifications breed true, whereas metabolic networks are fundamentally resistant to evolutionary change.

An autocatalytic network is a set of chemical reactions where the products of some reactions act as catalysts to accelerate other reactions in the same network. In simpler terms, chemicals in the network help each other form more chemicals, creating a self-sustaining and self-replicating system. A common challenge in metabolism-first origin-of-life theories is that chemical networks without genes tend to resist change. Imagine a system where one chemical (A) helps make a second chemical (B), and this second chemical (B) helps make more of the first (A). This creates a self-replicating loop but is hard to evolve because even if a better version of the first chemical (A') appears, the system only makes the original kind (B), not the improved one (B'). For this system to evolve, the better first (A`) chemical would also need to help make a better second chemical (B'), which then helps make more of the better first chemical (A'), a very unlikely chain. In more complex networks involving multiple chemicals helping make each other, this difficulty of evolving increases dramatically as the network grows. .^[52]

The discovery of ribozymes—RNA molecules with catalytic activity—by Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman, recognized with the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1989, provided crucial support for this hypothesis.

Metabolism-first

Further information: Abiogenesis

Metabolism-first hypothesis suggests that autocatalytic networks of metabolic reactions were the first forms of life. This is an alternative hypothesis to RNA-world, which is a genes-first hypothesis. It was first proposed by Martynas Ycas in 1955. A lot of recent work in this area is focused in computational modeling of theoretical prebiotic networks.

Metabolism-first proponents postulate that replication and genetic machinery could not arise without the accumulation of the molecules needed for replication. Alone, simple connections between prebiotic synthesis reactions could form key organic molecules and once encapsulated by a membrane would constitute the first cells. These reactions could be catalyzed by various inorganic molecules or ions and stabilized by solid surfaces. Molecular self-replicators and enzymes would emerge later, with these future metabolisms better resembling modern metabolism.

One critique for the metabolism-first hypothesis for abiogenesis is they would also need self-replicating abilities with a high degree of fidelity. If not, the chemical networks with greater fitness in early Earth would not be preserved. There is limited experimental evidence for these theories, so additional exploration in this area is needed to determine the feasibility of a metabolism-first origins of life.