Re: fast forward.
Sorry Bob - your first line is unsupported assertion, so none of the rest of it follows.
You are making the assumption that nobody would work hard unless faced with starvation. What is this based on? Your own attitude? Based on your thinking, everybody should stop growing businesses, working their way into better-paid positions in organisations, etc etc as soon as they have enough income to keep them from starvation.
But that doesn't happen, does it?
So, why would you make the assumption for a UBI?
Would you work less hard to get ahead if you had a UBI?
In practice, none of the small-scale trials have shown your theory to be correct. In general, they seem to have had net benefits in terms of economic activity and reduced government healthcare costs. In none of these was any increase in idleness noted.
In summary: you are opposed to it because of your incorrect (and unsupported) assumptions about "feckless others".