Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic: Post-Scarcity Thread  (Read 8217 times)

Morrigi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #45 on: October 11, 2014, 06:04:07 pm »

In my personal opinion, post-scarity would be one of the worst things possible to happen to Humanity. When people have no need to work, many tend to become some combination of lazy, greedy, and depressed, and/or exhibit anti-social behavior. On a global scale, that could be catastrophic, and I would move to a colony, perhaps on Mars.
Logged
Cthulhu 2016! No lives matter! No more years! Awaken that which slumbers in the deep!

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #46 on: October 11, 2014, 06:19:42 pm »

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #47 on: October 11, 2014, 06:55:29 pm »

LB: Sunlight isn't scarce because the future availible amount is independent of current consumption and current supply far exceeds current demand. You'd be right if using sunlight now made the sun go out faster. Also note that alextnt modified your idea of magic boxes, meaning you can stop complaining about his result not being in line with your idea.
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.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #48 on: October 11, 2014, 06:57:53 pm »

in this post-scarcity society, are girlfriends regularly available

They're working on it. 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, drone delivery and robot transport trucks 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 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."

Antsan

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #49 on: October 11, 2014, 06:59:19 pm »

I agree with LordBucket. The definition for "post-scarcity" applied here basically says in itself "physicall impossible", so I don't see why one even should use that definition in the first place.

@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.
Logged
Taste my Paci-Fist

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #50 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.

alexandertnt

  • Bay Watcher
  • (map 'list (lambda (post) (+ post awesome)) posts)
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #51 on: October 11, 2014, 09:47:43 pm »

The magic box was a metaphor for internet services, right? Because I was not criticising the overall concept of post-scarcity, just the idea that these internet services classify as post-scarce now.

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.

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.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 10:13:04 pm by alexandertnt »
Logged
This is when I imagine the hilarity which may happen if certain things are glichy. Such as targeting your own body parts to eat.

You eat your own head
YOU HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN!

freeformschooler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hi!
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #52 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 with months of prepaid data than it is to buy a single family food for a week. Argue the necessity of smartphones if you wish: you won't die without one, but you will die if you don't eat.
Logged

jefam99

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #53 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*
Logged
The doomsday lever would look like any other.  It would be surrounded by the various levers needed in the day to day life of the fortress, such as irrigation or raising the main drawbridge or operating the noble shower chamber.  None of the levers would be labeled.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2014, 05:17:02 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.

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.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #55 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 with months of prepaid data than it is to buy a single family food for a week. 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.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Graknorke

  • Bay Watcher
  • A bomb's a bad choice for close-range combat.
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #56 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.

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.
And technically a lower population would mitigate problems from scarcity. So...
Yeah.
Logged
Cultural status:
Depleted          ☐
Enriched          ☑

jefam99

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2014, 07:16:27 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. (assuming monogamy. if not, then there is another problem to deal with in terms of meeting demand with supply)
Logged
The doomsday lever would look like any other.  It would be surrounded by the various levers needed in the day to day life of the fortress, such as irrigation or raising the main drawbridge or operating the noble shower chamber.  None of the levers would be labeled.

alexandertnt

  • Bay Watcher
  • (map 'list (lambda (post) (+ post awesome)) posts)
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2014, 09:23:08 pm »

One of the key elements of a post-scarce society is that people would be much more free to spend their time how they see fit, so I would imagine that it would be easier to build a social life because of that.

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)...
Logged
This is when I imagine the hilarity which may happen if certain things are glichy. Such as targeting your own body parts to eat.

You eat your own head
YOU HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN!

Tomcost

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Post-Scarcity Thread
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2014, 09:35:45 pm »

Well, as I saw the conlfic regarding certain definitions and hypothesis in the past posts, I think that I actually got what many of the "what if the boxes wear out" responses meant to say, but to explain that I think that I should propose another definition of a post-scarcity society:

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.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5