Ludditism has been proven wrong multiple times. New industries replace the old - more jobs are created. There can be short term pains when people are laid off due to automation, but social security programs can alleviate some of this. The kind that already exist. UBI does not seem like it will provide the incentives for people to learn new skills and get new jobs if they're guaranteed a living wage anyway.

> There is little risk to giving free money to 20% of the poorest people.

There's no "free money." There is taking money, often from productive people who make use of that money to generate wealth, and allocating it it, often to unproductive people who merely consume. Obviously not true in every case, but you get the idea. If we want to increase the wealth of a nation, the money is more effectively utilized by those who are effective at turning it around to generate more wealth.

> Define "make stuff".

I'd call it, adding to the national gain. If you're not performing productive work which leads to export of goods, but are continuing to import goods, then you'll build up a deficit, which at some point needs paying off, or those luxuries you've been importing aren't going to be available anymore.

We are absolutely nowhere near running out of resources on earth, and every time we dig deeper we find more. By the time resources begin to run out, we'll be mining asteroids. This is so far into the future that worrying about it now is just completely stupid. Like cavemen worrying that if they light too many campfires they might eventually run out of trees.

> Also, the notion that work is a necessary evil, in the modern world, is a flawed notion. Work should not be mandatory.

The purpose of trade is to improve ones (or one's nation's) standard of living. The standard of living can only improve if people are producing goods and services which go to that end. Nobody can produce everything they need, so at some point they must purchase some of it - and in order to make those purchases they need to offer something in exchange - else the other party who has laboured to produce the good being sold will have done so for nothing in return.

The default state of humanity is the same as any other primate - poverty, survival from the land. It is only through labour that we are able to improve our standard of living so that we are not spending most of our time on basic survival.

At some point, somebody must produce goods, farm land, build robots, program the robots and maintain them. They aren't going to do it for nothing - certainly not if their neighbours are receiving the same compensation for idling and watching Netflix all day.

If you aren't working, you're scrounging from the work of others. We give allowances for people who are unfit to work or are temporarily cast out of work beyond their control, and probably only because we'd appreciate the same privilege if we were on the receiving end. The main motivation people have to work is to better the lives of themselves and their families. The lives of others who they don't know are lower priority - bottom of the list.

This is really the flaw of UBI, or Statism in general. It assumes that we want everybody to benefit uniformly, but this is just not the case. We're hard-wired for survival of the fittest - to ensure our genetic lineage is preserved - meaning people closer to us are higher priority. If we can help others along the way, we do, as a social species - but we rarely do so at the cost of the well-being of ourselves and families. Self-interest is not going away.