Universal Basic Income, good or bad? v.07

If you've seen Sir Tim Berners-Lee's presentation about his recent venture solid.inrupt.com

You might feel that the value of one's participation is pretty high. Also, the participation value has been underestimated in the popular business activities. 

To be clearer on that, I invite you to think about how Google and other major social sites are collecting aggregate data on participants, let's say one of them is you, without paying extra money for them. 

I know that the services made available to you by this platform are cheap if not free, but it doesn't mean that the value of your data is always that cheap. And I feel that the idea is a little bit assured by this presentation. 

Furthermore, these data fed into some A.I could produce a huge benefit to anyone who controls the A.I. I'm not saying that they who controls the A.I don't deserve those benefits but maybe It's not inappropriate if the participants could have some share of the benefits as well.

You would hedge the danger of the use of your browsing data by sharing it to the competitors of the service provider, but If you could go further than that and made money out of it, that would not only be good for you but also good for the society. 

The value of one's participation in the system that supports us is great. Just by being alive, just by (relatively) not causing problems, a person's existence is good to be rewarded. And that's my argument for Universal Basic Income (UBI).

Some like Dr. Jordan B. Peterson are skeptical on that idea, the presence of UBI might cost more than it benefits all of us. Because not everybody would use the power provided by UBI to increase the level of availability of mutual solutions in reality. They might use it to destroy themselves, they might use it to destroy others, they might act recklessly and the power of the recklessness would be high because of it. 

It's my conclusion that the people who have helped us need to be rewarded, and people's mere existence is helpful in many ways. UBI is not a bad idea if there's a clear articulation on the relative line between positive and negative participation. If we regulate that the access to UBI should be blocked for a period of time for those who have crossed the line, then I believe that UBI would mostly be positive for the society. 

Edit: A person should reach 18 years old in order to qualify for UBI. This in order to prevent people recklessly brought life into the world. Life is a divine thing, a child deserves to like to keep on living for the rest of his/her life. Without knowing this truthfully is going to be the case, please don't bring a life into this world.