4 ms·

I think your comment is pretty spot-on. One thought about the WALL-E scene though. While I'm not at all advocating the satiation of everyone, I do wonder about

I think your comment is pretty spot-on. One thought about the WALL-E scene though. While I'm not at all advocating the satiation of everyone, I do wonder about its perceived inevitability. If that was the only outcome, wouldn't we see evidence of this with the extremely rich today? (I'm talking about the case where wealth was strictly inherited here, not the self-made fortunes from hard work.) I don't have any examples in mind, but I do think it's worth asking the question. If we assume those who are satiated would not work on anything of value, that might very well contain a similar misunderstanding to what you've highlighted here. We just need more data to know what level "too much" really is, or if that's even a thing at all (I believe it is, but I certainly can't prove it).

maerF0x0 11y ago
When I think about infinite consumption, it says to me "There is literally no limit to how many X a person would take". I really think there is a limit. I will never (consistently) eat more than 3000 calories a day. I couldnt imagine living >1000 sq ft per person. 3 cars per person ought to satisfy every occasion (Sports car, SUV, Comfort car), etc etc. There is some finite limit before the marginal object is worth less than the difficulty of obtaining/maintaining it. ex, adding a car means I, at the very least, need to buy it, drive it to my garage and walk around it to get to my other car each day. I think food is the ultimate example of a post scarcity good: if pizza was free (forever), how many would you take? 1, 1000, 1000000? I'd take 1 a day and maybe put a few in my freezer just in case. But I certainly wouldnt have 1000x or even 10x as much pizza. The extremely wealthy display wealth for differentiation, not because they actually enjoy all 100000 sq ft of living space they own. Its a status symbol to say " I have a house in every state" or whatever else they brag about. IMO part of the reason its so absurd to have those in want of health care, whilst others brag about horsepower, square feet, planes and yachts.

maerF0x0 11y ago

When I think about infinite consumption, it says to me "There is literally no limit to how many X a person would take". I really think there is a limit. I will never (consistently) eat more than 3000 calories a day. I couldnt imagine living >1000 sq ft per person. 3 cars per person ought to satisfy every occasion (Sports car, SUV, Comfort car), etc etc. There is some finite limit before the marginal object is worth less than the difficulty of obtaining/maintaining it. ex, adding a car means I, at the very least, need to buy it, drive it to my garage and walk around it to get to my other car each day. I think food is the ultimate example of a post scarcity good: if pizza was free (forever), how many would you take? 1, 1000, 1000000? I'd take 1 a day and maybe put a few in my freezer just in case. But I certainly wouldnt have 1000x or even 10x as much pizza. The extremely wealthy display wealth for differentiation, not because they actually enjoy all 100000 sq ft of living space they own. Its a status symbol to say " I have a house in every state" or whatever else they brag about. IMO part of the reason its so absurd to have those in want of health care, whilst others brag about horsepower, square feet, planes and yachts.