Post by: greatorder on October 10, 2014, 07:22:16 pm
Now, general rules:
1) No insults. Well, no SERIOUS ones. friendly niggling is fine so long as it doesn't lead to problems.
2) Keep derails to a minimum. Part of the reason this thread was formed was BECAUSE of a derail. A derail in a derail thread will probably cause a derail singularity made up of crashed trains.
If either of the above are violated, I'll give yer a warning. Continue and the thread's locked for a few days.
What is a post-scarcity society?
A society in which good, services and information are available to everyone. That is to say, completely free. There's a number of reasons we don't have such a society, such as the need for near 100% automation, high (near 100%) recycling of resources to prevent long-term resource shortages and a renewable source of energy for the same reasons.
It has a great deal of advantages and few drawbacks. Since resources are universal, there'd be no starvation or lack of water, people would be free to pursue whatever they wished and you don't HAVE to spend all day working in McDonald's so you don't get turfed out of your apartment. This means that if you so desired, you could just spend your entire day sleeping, or build your own house by hand, or play video games all day.
However, since most of the system would be automated, there'd be risks from numerous things. Computer viruses could potentially be catastrophic, something that interferes with electronics (such as an EMP or solar flare) could easily destroy the society and so on. Then there's people. Being the wide and varied bunch we are, some of us might try (and succeed) in destroying the system in whatever way and for whatever reason.
Hopefully, these kinds of things will be discussed in the thread.
Anyways, yes, post-scarcity societies in general. Discuss. Formation, running of them... whatever you want to discuss about them, do so. I think we were at the point of discussing how to get one to come around in the first place, so if you want to you can start from there.
Post by: Graknorke on October 10, 2014, 07:31:04 pm
Post by: Helgoland on October 10, 2014, 07:33:12 pm
Also, all the things from the precious thread. A society where luxuries still are scarce - and thus are luxuries - is not a post-scarcity society in the true sense of the word.
Post by: Zanzetkuken The Great on October 10, 2014, 07:33:20 pm
People would get squishy and weak. Being forced to deal with adversity is most of why people ever get good at anything. Self-imposed challenge just doesn't give the same kind of drive as being about to die.
What I first though of when I red the end of that: "If you don't work, we'll throw you into the gladiatorial arena."
Post by: Frumple on October 10, 2014, 07:34:12 pm
Somewhat tangential to the migrating conversation, but... I'unno, part of me wonders what we could really do if we broke off from profit motive a bit. Just how long a lifespan can we engineer into a low end computer, ferex, if the idea was to make something for the entire population that lasts a substantial portion of their life and enabled, say, basic access to low-impact (like, 90s era website resource impact) digitalized libraries and maybe very basic (telnet/IRC level) intercommunication as a basic minimum? I mean, hell, I know we've got initiatives trying to get cheap laptops and whatnot to the (comparatively) impoverished, but... how much further could we take that if we actually specifically engineered for it? We had ruddy gameboys that could -- did -- last well over a decade and still functioned. Why don't we have 80s/early 90s era computers doing the same and being handed out like candy?
Just how much of our people's technological and engineering capabilities are being held back by profit motive and the various junk surrounding modern economies?
S'just... other hypotheticals. If we just suspended movie production for a year and redirected the funds toward 100-200 USD computers, how much of the world's population could we give cursory digital capabilities to? Stuff like that.
Post by: Helgoland on October 10, 2014, 07:36:14 pm
Post by: SalmonGod on October 10, 2014, 07:38:14 pm
For used but still functional anything. Or just anything.
Not useful at the scale of donating stuff to poor people in other countries, but still relevant.
Post by: LordBucket on October 10, 2014, 09:26:16 pm
post-scarcity societies in general. Discuss.
Yay, post scarcity!
I'm in favor.
A society where luxuries still are scarce - and thus are luxuries - is not a post-scarcity society in the true sense of the word.
That's fine...but seem pedantic to me. Inability to achieve perfect post scarcity just...doesn't seem very important. Moves in that general direction are good and proper and healthy. Let's not be the people drinking martinis in our pool on the deck of our yacht, arguing about how imperfect it is that that we had to settle for gold plating on yachts hull rather than platinum.
Any of us can hop on google and get map directions. No Thomas Guide required. This is a good thing. the fact that many people in the world don't have web access and therefore can't receive free, ubiquitous map directions and therefore we're not truly "post map directions scarcity" doesn't in any way diminish the value of free, ubiquitous map directions for people who can access them. If next week somebody invents a solar powered Star Trek replicator and everybody can push a button and transform sunlight into food and cars and gold-played yachts and spaceships...but planets are still in short supply, and not everybody can have their own planet...we're not "true" post-scarcity, but...come on.
Let's not require perfect solutions.
Post-scarcity is unlikely to arrive in totality from one moment to the next. It's more likely to be a gradual change.
Post by: Zanzetkuken The Great on October 10, 2014, 09:36:26 pm
Let's not require perfect solutions.
Especially since there is no perfect post-scarcity. Not everyone can have their own omniverse.
Post by: LordBucket on October 10, 2014, 09:56:01 pm
hypotheticals. If we just suspended movie production for a year and redirected the funds toward 100-200
USD computers, how much of the world's population could we give cursory digital capabilities to? Stuff like that.
22% of those not already online, not accounting for distribution or the fact that such massive production would likely reduce costs.
Sub $100 laptop (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4292854.stm) ($91.61)
One laptop per child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child) (1.84 million free laptops distributed so far)
Project Loon (http://www.google.com/loon/) (global free internet access, coming to a planet near you)
Population of planet earth (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=population+of+earth): 7.125 billion
Number of people not yet online (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage): 4.35 billion
4.35 * $91.61 = $398.6 billion to give everyone a laptop who doesn't yet have net access
Film entertainment, worldwide revenue (http://www.statista.com/topics/964/film/): 88.3 billion
88.3 / 398.6 = 22%
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 10, 2014, 10:38:28 pm
4.35 * $91.61 = $398.6 billion to give everyone a laptop who doesn't yet have net accessThe US government could do that if they halved their military budget. For one year.
Post by: Cthulhu on October 10, 2014, 10:49:20 pm
I'm also in favor of aliens that just give us matter replicators and great handjobs. I'm in favor of everyone becoming wizards.
I've brought it up before, I feel like we haven't really gotten past religion, we've just transplanted its eschatology onto science. Instead of saying Jesus is gonna come back and fix the world we say science is eventually going to invent something that'll fix the world.
The alternative is not appealing. If we continue to expand our systems (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=99160.msg5718215#msg5718215) under the assumption that expansion is good and our technology will continue to advance and increase our capacity to expand, either post-scarcity will happen or we'll hit a roadblock and when we try to expand past that point the system is going to collapse and everyone is going to die.
I'm more for curtailing our expansion than banking on magic technology to keep us going.
Post by: alexandertnt on October 10, 2014, 10:56:12 pm
I don't think the concept of post scarcity is as ludicrous as wizards or alien handjobs, but there seems to me to be at least as much faith as there is actual science behind the concept.
Post by: LordBucket on October 11, 2014, 12:32:47 am
I don't think the concept of post scarcity is as ludicrous as wizards or alien handjobs,
but there seems to me to be at least as much faith as there is actual science behind the concept.
Baby steps. We already live in a world that would have been difficult for most people to imagine 100 years ago. Actually, I sometimes have conversations with people in which they claim that such-and-such technology "will never happen." Where such-and-such technology has already been around for years.
As for post-scarcity more specifically, I'll point out that it already exists in some specific cases. Most obvious example: air. We don't buy or sell air. If you want some, it's available. Yes, there is a finite amount. But like above...pointing out there there's not an infinite volume of air, or that there isn't air on the moon...is missing the point. Air is not scarce in any practical sense.
But there are other things that because of human action have become effectively post-scarce.
Encyclopedic information, for example. When I was a kid, some people owned 26-volume encyclopedia sets that weighted more than I did. Now, everyone has billions of 26-volume sets worth of information available online, for free. Even if you don't own a computer, libraries provide free web access. This information is effectively abundant. Lots of things exist in effectively post-scarce abundance. Youtube videos, cat pictures, music, email.
Actually, now that I think about it, one of the more amazing things is video conferencing. That was science fiction when I was kid. It was a thing we saw in movies. That was what Darth Vader did in a fantasy future sci-fi movie to talk to his magical mentor Emperor of the galaxy. Think about that. Now, teenagers use omegle to flash each other. Nobody pays for it. Fantasy futurist sci-fi technology is now freely available to anyone who wants it.
But the webcam isn't. The computer isn't. The web access might be available for free, but the car to drive to the library to use theirs isn't.
That's the big jump we need to see. Physical goods becoming "post-scarce" abundant. Or I suppose we could go the other route, and make people not physical. I'm not entirely sure which is more speculative
Post by: LordSlowpoke on October 11, 2014, 01:37:15 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on October 11, 2014, 02:21:31 am
libraries provide free web accesshahahahahahahaha
Post by: alexandertnt on October 11, 2014, 04:31:12 am
libraries provide free web accesshahahahahahahaha
Yeah, the only real reason why libraries provide free internet access is because governments pay for it. They get this money through taxation, which in turn comes from working and buying stuff. It's not actually free, and also would contribute to a (slight) increase in cost of various things.
You end up in a situation where the only reason why you have free internet is because other people are working to make it happen for you (or you are youself, if your paying tax).
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but as far as I can tell this isn't post-scarcity (it just might look like it depending on your situation), in the sense that if people stop working on it (repairing/upgrading/expanding communications equiptment, fixing security exploits etc), than the internet goes away. It's not just "there", people are working hard to provide it.
Post by: LordBucket on October 11, 2014, 05:41:07 am
if everyone on the planet each had a magic box with a button on it that every time anyone pressed it, a paperclip magically materialized inside the box...would you claim that paperclips were scarce because the work of pushing the button was required to generate paperclips?
Let's not require perfect solutions.
Post-scarcity is unlikely to arrive in totality from one moment to the next. It's more likely to be a gradual change.
We already covered this.
Post by: alexandertnt on October 11, 2014, 05:50:55 am
if everyone on the planet each had a magic box with a button on it that every time anyone pressed it, a paperclip magically materialized inside the box...would you claim that paperclips were scarce because the work of pushing the button was required to generate paperclips?
If the magic boxes were scarce themselves, and wore a bit each time you pushed that button, than yes, I would.
Post by: LordBucket on October 11, 2014, 06:00:32 am
If the magic boxes were scarce themselves, and wore a bit each time you pushed that button, than yes, I would.
In that case, sunlight is scarce because eventually the sun will burn out.
Go away and post in another thread. You're having a different conversation than anyone else is.
Post by: Helgoland on October 11, 2014, 06:05:09 am
Post by: alexandertnt on October 11, 2014, 06:30:07 am
Go away and post in another thread. You're having a different conversation than anyone else is.
The only reason I contend that these free services are not post-scarce is because I work on stuff like this as a job. The more people push that button, the harder my job gets. It hardly feels like post-scarcity to me :-\ And I really don't think my job is as easy as sunrays.
I believe that my point is quite relevant, and that your just being rude.
Post by: Jelle on October 11, 2014, 06:50:14 am
if everyone on the planet each had a magic box with a button on it that every time anyone pressed it, a paperclip magically materialized inside the box...would you claim that paperclips were scarce because the work of pushing the button was required to generate paperclips?Since the creation of the paperclip is a production process, and human labor, no matter how trivial, is not infinite, the paperclips are a limited resource and therefore scarce. That's going by the definition of scarcity I can find anyway, I haven't studied economics.
Go away and post in another thread. You're having a different conversation than anyone else is.Well that's a little rude...
Post by: hops on October 11, 2014, 06:52:43 am
If there were rivers of diamonds and everything is made out of diamonds, even though the diamond are still limited, they are not scarce.
Post by: Jelle on October 11, 2014, 07:04:38 am
Here's what I based on.
Quote from: http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/scarcity.html
In economics, scarcity refers to limitations--limited goods or services, limited time, or limited abilities to achieve the desired ends. [...] In fact, economists view everything people want, strive for, or can't achieve effortlessly as scarce.
Post by: alexandertnt on October 11, 2014, 07:15:44 am
I think the meaning of non-scarce resources are that the resources are more numerous than human needs and wants.
If there were rivers of diamonds and everything is made out of diamonds, even though the diamond are still limited, they are not scarce.
Thats what "non-scarce resources" may mean, but not "post-scarcity society"
One important aspect of a post-scarcity society is, and the one I have the biggest issue in the context of internet services:
Quote
people would be free to pursue whatever they wished and you don't HAVE to spend all day working in McDonald's so you don't get turfed out of your apartment
Which is far from reality for many people working to provide various services, including internet services. Like me. If I quit my job, I get turfed out of my apartment, and if people start pushing that button more, my job gets harder (they generally resist hiring more people, probably because free projects generally have a rather limited budget. For some reason).
Post by: Sergarr on October 11, 2014, 08:22:09 am
Then add in effective cheap full-spectrum solar panels, and an electromagnetic water desalination, and we're pretty much set for a post-scarcity relative to the basic necessities.
Post by: Cthulhu on October 11, 2014, 08:28:36 am
I would put that under the second of my three futures.
1. Post-scarcity. I don't believe this one will happen. If it does, nice. If it doesn't, no surprises for me.
2. Non-progressive "low-impact" society. That is, a new paradigm more akin to pre-modern configurations where expansion of our means and way of life is not seen as necessarily a good thing. If high-tech society still exists it has a limited scope and doesn't attempt to colonize the rest of humanity which is why it remains ecologically sustainable. I don't think this one will happen on its own but it might happen after 3.
3. We continue on our present course under the assumption that A. Post-scarcity will occur, B. Jesus will occur, or C. No assumptions or thoughts on the subject at all. Eventually we exceed the physical limits of our planet's capacity to sustain us and in the ensuing ecological disaster, violence over resources, collapse of the resource networks you and I rely on to get our food each day, society as we know it breaks down. Most people die. I see this one as inevitable at this point. It's just a matter of when and how bad and what happens after.
Post by: Sergarr on October 11, 2014, 08:58:41 am
100% recycling and total automation isn't post-scarcity and is also thermodynamically unlikely.The bolded part is incorrect because you forget to account for the sun energy.
I would put that under the second of my three futures.
1. Post-scarcity. I don't believe this one will happen. If it does, nice. If it doesn't, no surprises for me.
2. Non-progressive "low-impact" society. That is, a new paradigm more akin to pre-modern configurations where expansion of our means and way of life is not seen as necessarily a good thing. If high-tech society still exists it has a limited scope and doesn't attempt to colonize the rest of humanity which is why it remains ecologically sustainable. I don't think this one will happen on its own but it might happen after 3.
3. We continue on our present course under the assumption that A. Post-scarcity will occur, B. Jesus will occur, or C. No assumptions or thoughts on the subject at all. Eventually we exceed the physical limits of our planet's capacity to sustain us and in the ensuing ecological disaster, violence over resources, collapse of the resource networks you and I rely on to get our food each day, society as we know it breaks down. Most people die. I see this one as inevitable at this point. It's just a matter of when and how bad and what happens after.
And the post-capitalism society as I envision it would be the most resistant to the society collapses because everybody can create most of the things needed for survival.
Post by: jefam99 on October 11, 2014, 11:17:38 am
Post by: Sergarr on October 11, 2014, 11:55:02 am
Post by: Phmcw on October 11, 2014, 12:00:27 pm
Post by: MorleyDev on October 11, 2014, 12:04:20 pm
The "technology is making people lazy" idea comes from how some people are of the opinion that people need to be forced to do something of value, otherwise people'll do nothing at all.
But many of the people who work on that 'technology' are the kind of people who would then use the time that technology saves them to go and make even better technology. So they view the goal of this as freeing peoples time so they can exercise, write the next great book or poem, learn a new skill, work on doing more with less time wasted on the boring, repetitive actions in life.
It's an interesting culture-clash.
Post by: Frumple on October 11, 2014, 12:09:42 pm
If you can make ten times the progress in a tenth the time, you can afford to be lazy, imo.
Post by: Cthulhu on October 11, 2014, 12:13:50 pm
If we go by what we've seen in our actual real life society a post-scarcity society would have maybe 15% of the population building and operating matter replicators, 5% distributing matter replicators, 20% overseeing the building, operation, distribution, and oversight of the matter replicators, 50% performing various auxiliary roles to the building, operation, distribution, and oversight of the matter replicators such as consultation and training (http://francetucky.com/5.php) and overseeing the other auxiliary roles, and 10% disposing or recycling defunct matter replicators, which is necessary by design.
Edit: When you can do a five day job in five minutes the left-over man hours are transferred to functionaries who know deep down that what they do is useless busywork.
Post by: SalmonGod on October 11, 2014, 12:15:53 pm
The focus on automation as a requirement for post-scarcity is ridiculous. We don't need to automate everything. It isn't a requirement that nobody has to work. This is because a majority of people actually like working, and there are even enough people who enjoy doing jobs normally seen as undesirable to get those done if infrastructure is focused on simply getting the job done without loads of extraneous bullshit.
But our perspective is all fucked up. Our infrastructure is designed to create unnecessary work. While it is an elite class capitalist imperative to eliminate work and reduce costs, it's also a political imperative to create work. There is severe and deliberate obstruction by workers to prevent progress that eliminates work, because they need it. And the nature of capitalist relationships creates shitloads of extraneous bureaucracy. So most people don't see just how much better we're currently capable of. All the business world and customer service bullshit associated with operating for profit easily makes up 3/4 of the workload associated with what I do for a living. And the demands on workers are so high because of extraneous bullshit that most cannot conceive of having the will to do anything productive with their free time, leading to the misconception that human beings are naturally lazy.
So automation isn't prerequisite, because there are more than enough people who will still want to work to produce the essential needs of society, whether in pursuit of extra luxuries or because they just want to.
My concept of post-scarcity is where no one is forced to work to meet their basic needs. Any work beyond that, I honestly see as recreational. I know that when I have the time and energy to do so, I enjoy doing things that I know will benefit me in the end, and that I do completely optionally, under no duress. And it wouldn't have to directly benefit me, like a building project on my own house or something. I honestly enjoyed working as a package handler at Fedex, throwing boxes around. If I had the time, the energy, and the option, I would absolutely go back and do that voluntarily once in a while. Especially if it meant earning some extra luxury for myself.
So if we drop the discussion of strict post-scarcity or loosen the definition, how do everyone's thoughts change?
Disclaimer: I expect to be heavily ninja'd, since I typed up half this post, got called away by family for a couple hours, and then came back and quickly finished it. :/
Post by: Frumple on October 11, 2014, 12:29:45 pm
Edit: When you can do a five day job in five minutes the left-over man hours are transferred to functionaries who know deep down that what they do is useless busywork.The magical word is "don't'. Just... don't do that.
Post by: Cthulhu on October 11, 2014, 12:36:35 pm
I brought it up way back in the origins of money thread. I once saw about ten suits outside a local dollar store performing administrative and oversight roles. They were there all day. Ten people. Ten 40-hour-a-week jobs.
Post by: Jelle on October 11, 2014, 12:52:17 pm
If it were that simple. Pointless labor is not the problem but a symptomn.Edit: When you can do a five day job in five minutes the left-over man hours are transferred to functionaries who know deep down that what they do is useless busywork.The magical word is "don't'. Just... don't do that.
In essense technological advancement allowing greater efficiency directly works against the way we think about labor. It's kind of sad when you think about it.
Post by: smjjames on October 11, 2014, 12:55:58 pm
If it were that simple. Pointless labor is not the problem but a symptomn.Edit: When you can do a five day job in five minutes the left-over man hours are transferred to functionaries who know deep down that what they do is useless busywork.The magical word is "don't'. Just... don't do that.
In essense technological advancement allowing greater efficiency directly works against the way we think about labor. It's kind of sad when you think about it.
Symptom of what though?
Post by: Sergarr on October 11, 2014, 01:41:31 pm
Of classical capitalism stopping to work for benefit of the society and instead starting to harm it.If it were that simple. Pointless labor is not the problem but a symptomn.Edit: When you can do a five day job in five minutes the left-over man hours are transferred to functionaries who know deep down that what they do is useless busywork.The magical word is "don't'. Just... don't do that.
In essense technological advancement allowing greater efficiency directly works against the way we think about labor. It's kind of sad when you think about it.
Symptom of what though?
Post by: Cthulhu on October 11, 2014, 02:21:44 pm
The problem is that since that expansion and creation accelerates exponentially we've passed the point where the production of goods and services is sufficient. Most thinkers I've read on the subject put that point around the invention and commercialization of the automobile and the contemporary development of things like assembly line labor. Marketing started to become a major industry around the same time to assist in the production and consumption of increasingly useless commodities and now it's one of the biggest in the world and you're subjected to it pretty much 24/7.
When the expansion of the market and the increased efficiency of labor lowered the number of people working in industrial labor the supplementary industries (service, administration, clerical, managerial, etc.) exploded to ensure that everyone remains firmly leashed to the cycle of production and consumption even if they're no longer necessarily working in factories.
Post by: Sergarr on October 11, 2014, 03:00:16 pm
However, there's a limit where you reach the maximum amount of products the society really needs. The good choice here would be to start reversing the capitalization process - investing into making cheap, compact and (very important) user-friendly machinery. This will lead to a slight decrease in efficiency, however, because the economy is already over-producing, it doesn't really hurt.
Because the factories would still require some resources, and because the people will be more self-sufficient, this will lead naturally into dissolution of the large cities, as the people scatter among the landscape, settling near resource-sites.
Post by: Cthulhu on October 11, 2014, 03:17:09 pm
Post by: Sergarr on October 11, 2014, 04:03:15 pm
Good is not what capitalism aims for. Whatever the good choice is, the path taken is what I described and I don't see it as a conscious decisionYeah, and this is why capitalism needs to be overthrown. Because if it doesn't, then the Leviathan of capitalism will spend all the resources on Earth, producing increasingly short-lived things. Ever noticed how everything produced nowadays tend to break much, much faster?
Post by: Morrigi on October 11, 2014, 06:04:07 pm
Post by: LordBucket on October 11, 2014, 06:19:42 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Helgoland on October 11, 2014, 06:55:29 pm
Finally, I refer back to go's post.
@Everyone: Could someone else who's critical of the idea of post-scarcity lay out some of his thoughts? This thread appears to be in danger of becoming yet another circlejerk.
Post by: LordBucket on October 11, 2014, 06:57:53 pm
in this post-scarcity society, are girlfriends regularly available
They're working on it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlPqcbb_fnU). Imagine whatever replaces the thing that replaces Siri, in that body plus ten years of advancement.
If we go by what we've seen in our actual real life society a post-scarcity society would have maybe 15% of the population building and operating matter replicators, 5% distributing matter replicators, 20% overseeing the building, operation, distribution, and oversight of the matter replicators, 50% performing various auxiliary roles to the building, operation, distribution, and oversight of the matter replicators such as consultation and training and overseeing the other auxiliary roles, and 10% disposing or recycling defunct matter replicators, which is necessary by design.
I tend to think that the matter replicators would be designed such that they can produce more matter replicators with only minimal assembly. Maybe not everyone knows how to do this, but imagine a number of matter replicator hobbyists with a similar sort of enthusiasm as seen in online software communities. I think that would be enough. As is, if you want linux, or want some random windows program, maybe a sound or graphics editor or whatever, there are people making those things for fun, and they're available. I think we only don't see that same phenomenon for physical goods because of the materials costs. Plenty enough people enjoy spending time building things that if materials costs were eliminated, we could probably expect to be able to "know a guy" who'll help us build a matter replicator using his own replicator to replicate parts.
As for distribution, I suspect that current distribution channels are likely to become largely irrelevant in a matter replicator situation. Why transport anything when you can replicate it locally? And even assuming you need those distribution channels for materials rather than manufacturing the materials out of light (http://phys.org/news/2014-05-scientists-year-quest.html), drone delivery (http://www.amazon.com/b?node=8037720011) and robot transport trucks (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130409-robot-truck-platoons-roll-forward) are likely to greatly diminish the need for human involvement in distribution.
My concept of post-scarcity is where no one is forced to work to meet their basic needs.
Any work beyond that, I honestly see as recreational.
Exactly. "Work" in the physics sense is still being done, but that's irrelevant. The things you want are available, you can do the things you want to do, and there happen to be enough people who want to do the remaining few things that "need doing" that nobody is compelled via circumstance to do things they don't want to get the things they want.
Though, as was mentioned (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=144648.msg5724921#msg5724921) a couple thread pages ago, scarcity is likely to be eliminated one or a few things at a time. Eliminating food scarcity doesn't need to happen at the same time as eliminating gold-plated yacht scarcity. Email isn't really a "need" but even so I think it's fairly safe to say that we're effectively post-email-scarcity in the developed world. And maybe food scarcity will be eliminated before or after housing scarcity. I think there's unlikely to be a clear, definite line we cross after which we say "ok, now we're post-scarcity."
Post by: Antsan on October 11, 2014, 06:59:19 pm
@Morrigi:
Modern neurology and pedagogy tend to disagree with that notion.
I know whole schools based on the notion that the best way to teach children is to provide them with abundant resources for learning and not put them under pressure. My experience with the people there tells me that they are far more independent, can keep themselves busy and generally do stuff they want instead of looking for reasons why they cannot do it. I predict the opposite of what you are saying.
Post by: LordBucket on October 11, 2014, 07:39:23 pm
Quote
if you could produce an iron chair automatically and in infinite numbers provided there was infinite iron, but the iron production isn't automated and isn't infinite, then the iron chairs are scarce because the building blocks are. They might be scarce to the degree that they'd run out in fifty thousand years, but they're still scarce.
Yes, but if you apply a standard for "not scarce" such that conditions 50,000 years from now determine whether you're willing to say whether something is scarce right now...I think you're applying a not useful standard for us to have a conversation about.
Post by: alexandertnt on October 11, 2014, 09:47:43 pm
My point, is not only that the magic box can wear out, but it does wear out. It wears out all the time. And it requires a significant ammount of resources (in the form of labour) to keep it running.
If I don't fix that annoying bug limiting the throughput of cat images, I get fired and go to bed without dinner. You also may not get your cat pics tonight.
That box is not magic to me, I understand its insides and what makes it tick. It's not pretty, and it's something of a miracle it even works to some degree (http://stilldrinking.org/programming-sucks).
Quote
Your response to all this, basically, was that web access is still scarce because somebody still has to work at that library to provide services
You are continuously trying to portray my comments as absurd by injecting things that are not implied from my arguments like "faroff future", "eventually", "somebody (implying very little work)". It is to the point where your interpretation of my argument is no longer my argument.
EDIT: Let my try to clarify a bit more. My biggest point of interest in a post-scarce society is the idea that I wouldn't have to work and could pursue my own goals. This sounds great, but isn't at all the case for me, when people start pushing that magic button more, its even less so the case.
From an individual point of view, I might agree that these services are post-scarce. But I do not agree that they should be considered post-scarce. Since they specifically go against one of the main points (the more people push that button, the less "free to pursue whatever they wished " can hold true) of a post-scarce society, I can't consider it post-scarce.
-------
Now, more directly related to the thread (to avoid being insultingly described as a troll)
I think that for a post-scarce society to exist, all you need to accomplish is to provide more-or-less freely available necessaries, like food, water and shelter. Anything beyond that is a bonus, and even if people have to work for these (in such a way that would not be considered post-scarce), then I would still consider it a post-scarce society.
I am going to operate under the assumption that post-scarcity is achieved when supply outstrips demand, (not necessary an unlimited supply) AND either the entire production chain is automated and/or people entirely voluntarily work on the production chain.
An interesting observation from this is that this doesn't even require automation, or even electricity (although these things would certainly help). If people's own desire to do jobs was enough, then post-scarcity could be accomplished just by that. It would seem to me that there could be significant similarities between post-scarcity and communism in the sense that peoples volunterely produced produce would be available to all within the community.
So I do actually believe that it may be possible to more-or-less achieve post-scarcity now, but it would require significant change from people. In particlar, the demand for some things would have to go down (which also loweres the ammount of automation (and as such the ammount of R/D, production, maitenance etc of these automated systems) necessary).
So yeah, I support SalmonGod's view of a post-scarce society, as it seems practical and achievable now.
EDIT: It would also seem to me that if we start to achieve post-scarcity in non-necessary areas first, then we end up with a situation where people start to lose their jobs, but still need those jobs in order to get by. So, at least as far as I can tell, post-scarcity of the basics should be achieved first.
Post by: freeformschooler on October 11, 2014, 10:47:18 pm
EDIT: It would also seem to me that if we start to achieve post-scarcity in non-necessary areas first, then we end up with a situation where people start to lose their jobs, but still need those jobs in order to get by. So, at least as far as I can tell, post-scarcity of the basics should be achieved first.
Isn't this what's going on right now? It is literally cheaper to get a smartphone (http://www.walmart.com/ip/TracFone-ZTE-Valet-Android-Cell-Phone-with-Triple-Minutes-for-Life/31033423) with months of prepaid data (http://www.amazon.com/Tracfone-200-Minutes-Days-Service/dp/B007YLO68U) than it is to buy a single family food for a week. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/01/grocery-costs-for-family/2104165/) Argue the necessity of smartphones if you wish: you won't die without one, but you will die if you don't eat.
Post by: jefam99 on October 13, 2014, 05:10:19 pm
I'd hope that people would, in such a society, be enlightened enough to view both man and woman as actual human beings on equal footing. But ignoring this 'trips my inner feminist' path of discussion... I think whether or not this is a good concept does somewhat depend on the kinds of people. Say you have 2 more hours a day available to you, what would you honestly do with them?
The "technology is making people lazy" idea comes from how some people are of the opinion that people need to be forced to do something of value, otherwise people'll do nothing at all.
But many of the people who work on that 'technology' are the kind of people who would then use the time that technology saves them to go and make even better technology. So they view the goal of this as freeing peoples time so they can exercise, write the next great book or poem, learn a new skill, work on doing more with less time wasted on the boring, repetitive actions in life.
It's an interesting culture-clash.
fine, to appease the more delicate readers of the forums i have revised my comment:
in this post-scarcity society, are (women/men) regularly available (for continuing our genetic line and furthering diversity), because if not, then we are back to wars over resources (just another resource people seem to leave out when thinking of free everything)
*sigh, feminism*
Post by: Frumple on October 13, 2014, 05:17:02 pm
Beyond that, it's not like we're terribly far from cracking decent cloning and iron womb style tech as is. If our species wanted it, I rather imagine we could have an artificial solution to genetic diversity (non)problems pretty quickly. LB mentioned most of the solution to the non-genetic issues involved. Advancing psychology methodology deals with the rest.
Post by: SalmonGod on October 13, 2014, 05:24:50 pm
EDIT: It would also seem to me that if we start to achieve post-scarcity in non-necessary areas first, then we end up with a situation where people start to lose their jobs, but still need those jobs in order to get by. So, at least as far as I can tell, post-scarcity of the basics should be achieved first.
Isn't this what's going on right now? It is literally cheaper to get a smartphone (http://www.walmart.com/ip/TracFone-ZTE-Valet-Android-Cell-Phone-with-Triple-Minutes-for-Life/31033423) with months of prepaid data (http://www.amazon.com/Tracfone-200-Minutes-Days-Service/dp/B007YLO68U) than it is to buy a single family food for a week. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/01/grocery-costs-for-family/2104165/) Argue the necessity of smartphones if you wish: you won't die without one, but you will die if you don't eat.
This is one thing that too many people are not adequately cognizant of. So many people love to talk about how spoiled my generation is or try to invalid the issue of inequality by pointing out how protestors have iPhones. My response is that cheap luxuries and expensive necessities are the hallmark of my generation. A decent computer and smart phone together will offer years of amazing utility for likely half the cost of a months' rent, but you're still expected not to own those things if you're poor.
Post by: Graknorke on October 13, 2014, 05:49:19 pm
... still in pretty bad taste, considering that hasn't been a substantial issue for our species in centuries (millennium? Bloody long while, in any case.). Treating humans as resources is pretty scummy in general, really. Especially when if there's anything we have a surplus of, it's humans.And technically a lower population would mitigate problems from scarcity. So...
Beyond that, it's not like we're terribly far from cracking decent cloning and iron womb style tech as is. If our species wanted it, I rather imagine we could have an artificial solution to genetic diversity (non)problems pretty quickly. LB mentioned most of the solution to the non-genetic issues involved. Advancing psychology methodology deals with the rest.
Yeah.
Post by: jefam99 on October 13, 2014, 07:16:27 pm
Post by: alexandertnt on October 13, 2014, 09:23:08 pm
It also seems that the concept of a lifetime marrage is starting to break down, and more people seem to want something closer to a friendship - something that doesn't tie the people together for life. So not quite having a 1-1 ratio of men/women probably isn't the end of the world.
One of the reasons China has a disproportionate nubmer of men over women is that men are viewed as the income-earners, and thus are viewed as more important to a family (expecially in rural china, where income can be very tight). That, coupled with the one-child policy has lead to things like gender-selective abortions etc. This is a problem that can be solved, for example by removing that policy and cultural changes (moving away from the idea that men must be the workers and women should stay home etc).
And, IMO, a post-scarce society doesn't require everything imaginable to be post-scarce. Actually, I only think necessities need to be post-scarce in order for such a society to be achievable (since any extra work will be entirely volutarily, and not coerced by threats of starvation)...
Post by: Tomcost on October 13, 2014, 09:35:45 pm
Independently of the goods produced, a post-scarcity society would need the sustainability of the production system as far as the factors that are able to be controlled by the man allow it.
Do note that this definition covers the "The Sun will eventualy run out of energy" issue.
Now, with that definition given, the problem with the analogy of the magic boxes would be how to replenish the boxes. Paperclips would not be scarce for mch time, because, in the economic sense of the word "scarce", you wouldn't be able to put a price for it, thus becoming something like air itself. The problem could come if there is a bad use of the boxes, or if the products and productive factors are employed in a different activity, thus limiting the sustainability of paperclip production in the long term (as always, really long term). Could the boxes last to the end of time? Taking care of them, and not over-using them, yes.
The problem with post-scarcity is not reaching it, but sustaining it, and being able to replace the machinery supporting it.
Now, I want to talk about work:
The current problem with work is a distribution problem, more than a cultural problem. The problem is deciding who has to work/study, and who doesn't. Or better, why should someone have the right to not work, when there is still work to do. This is the problem that technology is creating.
Post by: Frumple on October 13, 2014, 09:59:22 pm
It also seems that the concept of a lifetime marrage is starting to break down, and more people seem to want something closer to a friendship - something that doesn't tie the people together for life.I'm not even sure there's ever truthfully been a concept of lifetime marriage, honestly, at least in regards to emotional relationship fidelity (fiscal relationship fidelity is an entirely different discussion). It's certainly been a cultural norm given lip service over the centuries, but extramarital affairs have been incredibly common for at least as long and often either tacitly or explicitly accepted. Concept of a lifetime marriage has a lot of self-deception and a lot of economics involved with it, but... relatively little reality, imo.
I could definitely see how more idle time (read: potential for self-reflection and study) would lead to an upswing in honesty regarding the subject, though.
The current problem with work is a distribution problem, more than a cultural problem. The problem is deciding who has to work/study, and who doesn't.That... is definitely a cultural problem. The distribution problem is trivial -- we've got more individuals than we actually need to get pretty much everything done. Almost every roadblock and inefficiency in doing so is explicitly due to cultural norms. The logistics aspect of it is frankly a non-issue, imo. If our collective societies actually wanted, in their entireties, our various problems solved, they would be. We could do things by ruddy random lots and get pretty much everything done, if it came to it (assuming a means of enforcement or a willingness to comply, anyway), nevermind all the massively more efficient means of going about things we have in our collective methodologies.
Quote
Or better, why should someone have the right to not work, when there is still work to do. This is the problem that technology is creating.That's... backwards? The problem is that we're creating work out of aether because there isn't work to be done for a lot of people, but we still demand that people work before they eat. Also that instead of maintaining production and reducing hours, we're either increasing production and maintaining hours, or increasing production and reducing hours. It's really one of the biggest problems the modernized world has -- figuring out what the hell to do with all the people for whom there is no meaningful work to do.
Technology definitely hasn't been creating more work for us. The productivity gains we've been seeing in pretty much every single field has drastically reduced the amount of effort we need to maintain parity in... pretty much any industry you want to look at.
Post by: Bohandas on October 13, 2014, 11:39:50 pm
there are countries with a scarcity of people, china comes to mind with their surplus of men, and a shortage of women. if you value interaction with the opposite sex, this is an important resource to keep track of. too many men or women means that someone is going to die alone.
This can also be solved by modernization. In the form of porn and homosexuality (and homosexual porn).
Post by: LordBucket on October 13, 2014, 11:40:17 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/MwSz6ST.jpg)
That's a robot. And we're already seeing virtual companions with Siri, Cortana, Amelia, etc. They're not "there yet." But, I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing people form emotional bonds with their cellphones within the next 5-10 years.
Now, I want to talk about work:
The current problem with work is a distribution problem, more than a cultural problem. The problem is deciding who has to work/study, and who doesn't. Or better, why should someone have the right to not work, when there is still work to do. This is the problem that technology is creating.
This is potentially a messy issue. There are way it could be painlessly resolved, but it remains to be seen whether humans will choose more painful or less painful means. But like Frumple says, I don't think that thinking of it as work "distribution" is a productive way of looking at it.
Reducing the work week and spreading out employment is one possibility.
UBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income) is another. If the Swiss do decide to make it happen (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-swiss-pay-idUSBRE9930O620131004) and if it works, I can imagine the EU following within a couple years. and if that works out...I can imagine others following also.
Somebody inventing a Star Trek replicator capable of replicating itself would solve the problem almost immediately. It might lead to a couple chaotic weeks, but after those weeks, I think we'd be in the clear.
Failing all of the above, I can conceive of services simply becoming so cheap that people are able to scrape by, until eventually it simply becomes obvious that very few people need to work and then a cascade where the remaining services become cheap or free too.
I don't know how it will work out, but I'd choose any of those options over bloody revolution and a return to the dark ages.
Post by: Bohandas on October 13, 2014, 11:42:24 pm
Sexbots and VR have the potential to address the gender shortage issue. Her (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/her/) and Cherry 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_2000) probably aren't too far away.
and the Fleshlight. Don't forget that.
Post by: mainiac on October 14, 2014, 12:46:25 am
Sexbots and VR have the potential to address the gender shortage issue. Her (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/her/) and Cherry 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_2000) probably aren't too far away.
and the Fleshlight. Don't forget that.
Yeah. New technologies are much more likely to be things that aren't exact analogues to what they replace. Compare Facebook and skype. In the 50s everyone in the world would have predicted video telephone like skype, it's like talking or telephone but better. Nobody would have predicted Facebook. Facebook is the much bigger deal.
So I think sexbots are less likely to revolutionize sex compared to some method of stimulation that people aren't thinking about yet.
Post by: LordBucket on October 14, 2014, 01:00:13 am
So I think sexbots are less likely to revolutionize sex compared to some method of stimulation that people aren't thinking about yet.
Well, there's this (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140321-orgasms-at-the-push-of-a-button). But there are benefits to companionship besides sex. And while the cost effectiveness of VR might tend to give advantages to software-only companions...along with being easier to distribute, clean and repair, a robot might have an easier time feeding your cat, taking out the trash, chasing away spiders, etc.
Post by: Bohandas on October 14, 2014, 01:28:22 am
So I think sexbots are less likely to revolutionize sex compared to some method of stimulation that people aren't thinking about yet.
Well, there's this (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140321-orgasms-at-the-push-of-a-button).
IMHO that is something like that probably is something that peopleare thinking of as things similar to it and to the other technologies mentioned in the article have turned up in many different unrelated sci-fi movies and series (Sleeper [the Orb and, you know, the Orgasmotron; the guy in this article actually lifted his product's name directly from Sleeper], Demolition Man [the sex helmet thingy], The Adventures of Pluto Nash [the happiness chip], and the Red Dwarf novels [where stimulation of the brain's pleasure centers is combined with virtual reality to create an experience more addictive than speedballing], just to name a few)
Post by: alexandertnt on October 14, 2014, 05:36:14 am
I'm not even sure there's ever truthfully been a concept of lifetime marriage, honestly, at least in regards to emotional relationship fidelity (fiscal relationship fidelity is an entirely different discussion). It's certainly been a cultural norm given lip service over the centuries, but extramarital affairs have been incredibly common for at least as long and often either tacitly or explicitly accepted.
I quite agree with you.
It would have been more accurate if I had said there was less social pressure to pursue marrage or other traditional relationships, and flexability in relationships is being more and more accepted. People have more of a "live and let live" attitude than they used to, which is great.
Post by: Bohandas on October 31, 2014, 07:38:43 pm
if everyone on the planet each had a magic box with a button on it that every time anyone pressed it, a paperclip magically materialized inside the box...would you claim that paperclips were scarce because the work of pushing the button was required to generate paperclips?Since the creation of the paperclip is a production process, and human labor, no matter how trivial, is not infinite, the paperclips are a limited resource and therefore scarce. That's going by the definition of scarcity I can find anyway, I haven't studied economics.
From wiktionary
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scarce
Scarce (adj)
1. Uncommon, rare; difficult to find; insufficient to meet a demand.
2. Scantily supplied (with); deficient (in); used with of.
The paperclips in that example could hardly be called difficult to find or scantily supplied
Post by: Angle on October 31, 2014, 09:35:44 pm
Post by: Helgoland on November 01, 2014, 07:24:36 am
The paperclips in that example could hardly be called difficult to find or scantily suppliedDepends on the scale. They're not scarce if you want to hold papers together with them; they are scarce if you want to use them as a source of metal to replace traditional mining.