Controlling resources is the most effective way to wield and display power over others. It doesn't matter how many resources exist. As long as society is based on authoritarian hierarchy, there will always be haves and have-nots.
Post scarcity is one of those terms that just does not make sense.
How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore?
I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.
An incredible article, it seems so clear the way it is stated.
If demand is the problem, as stated in the article, would a basic-income, providing extra income and arguably more free time for consumers usher in a new "Golden Age" of growth as we have seen post-WWII?
You don't even need basic income. Just let people's incomes rise at the same rate the economy grows instead of funneling all gains to the business owners like it happened over the last 30 years or so. Unfortunately in the US the Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans.
I don't know how to change this realistically. It probably needs some change in moral attitudes so it's just not accepted by society that certainly people claim all the gains for themselves instead off spreading them out. Child labor used to be prevalent but in most Western societies it's not ok anymore even if there is profit to be made. So maybe this will happen to income inequality too.
Basic income has become a buzzword, with different people having different understanding about what it really means. Even right-wing libertarians seem to be in favor of basic income if it means replacing all other forms of social safety net, like welfare, disability benefits, etc.
The more you think about it, the more it doesn't make sense. Should a disabled veteran receive the same amount of basic income as a billionaire heir? Should a single mother of three working at Walmart receive the same total basic income as three Google employees?
A well managed welfare state is a much better option than basic income, in my opinion.
Media seems to be a good example of this. Movies and TV shows continue to be created and preserved increasing the supply, but consuming media does not mean less for others.
Scarcity is imposed by physics. Energy is conserved, entropy increases. Even if we realized the wildest extropian dreams and moved all intelligent life into efficient simulations, physics still dictates that every non-reversible computation creates entropy.
A homeless person in the US today has universally better prospects than 99% of the population a thousand years ago; better than all of them in many ways. It’s impossible to starve in a first world country. Even the poorest of the poor are jacked into the global communication network. Necessary survival goods are non-scarce. Are we satisfied? No, we want more. As productive capacity increases, our definition of non-scarcity becomes more and more demanding. I don’t see why this would stop if the only commodity left was mass-energy.
[+] [-] baron816|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protonfish|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brightball|8 years ago|reply
How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore?
I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.
[+] [-] jstanley|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jchanimal|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ionised|8 years ago|reply
The problem is it is not being distributed fairly.
[+] [-] marcosdumay|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddnb|8 years ago|reply
If demand is the problem, as stated in the article, would a basic-income, providing extra income and arguably more free time for consumers usher in a new "Golden Age" of growth as we have seen post-WWII?
[+] [-] maxxxxx|8 years ago|reply
I don't know how to change this realistically. It probably needs some change in moral attitudes so it's just not accepted by society that certainly people claim all the gains for themselves instead off spreading them out. Child labor used to be prevalent but in most Western societies it's not ok anymore even if there is profit to be made. So maybe this will happen to income inequality too.
[+] [-] baursak|8 years ago|reply
The more you think about it, the more it doesn't make sense. Should a disabled veteran receive the same amount of basic income as a billionaire heir? Should a single mother of three working at Walmart receive the same total basic income as three Google employees?
A well managed welfare state is a much better option than basic income, in my opinion.
[+] [-] francisofascii|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wyager|8 years ago|reply
A homeless person in the US today has universally better prospects than 99% of the population a thousand years ago; better than all of them in many ways. It’s impossible to starve in a first world country. Even the poorest of the poor are jacked into the global communication network. Necessary survival goods are non-scarce. Are we satisfied? No, we want more. As productive capacity increases, our definition of non-scarcity becomes more and more demanding. I don’t see why this would stop if the only commodity left was mass-energy.
[+] [-] kiliantics|8 years ago|reply