We have seen several reasons why people believe UBI is a good idea, which generally consist of bad ideas. We have also seen several reasons why people believe UBI is a bad idea, which generally consist of worse ideas.

The argument is that due to technological advances, people become obsolete to the machine (now called automation) and therefore a universal basic income is required to maintain the population group whose skills become obsolete due to this evolution.

The arguments for it are not worth your time. The arguments against it range from "there will be an increase in technological jobs" to "universal basic income incentives more people not to work". Well, these are excellent deductions, but do the opposite of justifying an argument against UBI. Why? Because they stem from the same pragmatist base as the arguments for. Would it be acceptable to provide an income to people if there were not an increase in technological jobs, but, rather, sales jobs? Would it be acceptable to provide income to people if the government required them to work on some government projects in order to receive the benefits?

The root of the argument against universal basic income has to come from a moral basis, not a pragmatic one. We know it is wrong for those who work to create, design, build, maintain, and manage automation to support those who contribute nothing. We know it is wrong for those who work to support those who negate the pride of productive work. There is no need to delve into a "climate model" of social behavior when the writing is on the wall; universal basic income is just another altruist gag intended to punish those who choose to innovate and succeed.