3 ms·

Post-scarcity isn't nonsense, it's a distant future that will lead to vast social upheaval long before it's actually achievable. The problem is long term struct

Post-scarcity isn't nonsense, it's a distant future that will lead to vast social upheaval long before it's actually achievable. The problem is long term structural unemployment numbers that will continue to grow until our current economic system is no longer feasible.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Post-scarcity isn't nonsense Yes, it is. > it's a distant future that will lead to vast social upheaval long before it's actually achievable. Retrocausality -- something causing something else before it even exists -- is also nonsense. Increasing productivity that is more limited by capital than labor, such that returns flow to capital, will cause much social upheaval, precisely because even as this occurs, scarcity of goods valued by people will still be present as an unalterable feature of life. As long as there is an opportunity cost to anything, you aren't post-scarcity. > The problem is long term structural unemployment numbers that will continue to grow until our current economic system is no longer feasible. Yes, and that problem has nothing to do with "post-scarcity". Employment is only important for welfare because people, in our current system, need it for money to buy goods and services, and money, which is ultimately a rationing system, is only a thing because of scarcity.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > Retrocausality -- something causing something else before it even exists -- is also nonsense. It would be, if that's what I'd said or implied, but it isn't because something like post-scaricity isn't binary, it doesn't just occur at one point in time, we'll grow in that direction slowly and problems will arise long before we get there due to rising unemployment, but I think you know that and you're just being obtuse. We are not discussing post-scarcity, we're discussing the problems along the way there if/when it occurs. You seem intent on pendantically ignoring points being made by re-framing them as strawmen. This is dishonest and not how to have a civil discussion. Since you seem unable to communicate rather than quibble over words you don't like, we're done.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > because something like post-scaricity isn't binary, it doesn't just occur at one point in time It doesn't occur at all, and the problems you point to aren't problems that are even related to an absence of scarcity, they are problems stemming directly from scarcity. > we'll grow in that direction slowly and problems will arise long before we get there due to rising unemployment, but I think you know that and you're just being obtuse. No, we won't "grow in that direction". You seem to be be unable to comprehend the idea of someone disagreeing with your basic premise, so instead you assume that I agree with you and am being obtuse. There's no route from here to there, and there's not even any there to get to. We'll continue to progress toward greater abundance, but the basic economic problem that relative abundance does not alter the basic nature of scarcity will not be affected. Its sort of a perennial mistake to confuse greater relative abundance with the absence of scarcity.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      You can't disagree with a premise you haven't demonstrated you even understand and your continued incessant pedantry leads me to believe you can't understand, so as I said, we're done; leave it at that.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Post-scarcity isn't nonsense Yes, it is. > it's a distant future that will lead to vast social upheaval long before it's actually achievable. Retrocausality -- something causing something else before it even exists -- is also nonsense. Increasing productivity that is more limited by capital than labor, such that returns flow to capital, will cause much social upheaval, precisely because even as this occurs, scarcity of goods valued by people will still be present as an unalterable feature of life. As long as there is an opportunity cost to anything, you aren't post-scarcity. > The problem is long term structural unemployment numbers that will continue to grow until our current economic system is no longer feasible. Yes, and that problem has nothing to do with "post-scarcity". Employment is only important for welfare because people, in our current system, need it for money to buy goods and services, and money, which is ultimately a rationing system, is only a thing because of scarcity.

gnaritas 10y ago
> Retrocausality -- something causing something else before it even exists -- is also nonsense. It would be, if that's what I'd said or implied, but it isn't because something like post-scaricity isn't binary, it doesn't just occur at one point in time, we'll grow in that direction slowly and problems will arise long before we get there due to rising unemployment, but I think you know that and you're just being obtuse. We are not discussing post-scarcity, we're discussing the problems along the way there if/when it occurs. You seem intent on pendantically ignoring points being made by re-framing them as strawmen. This is dishonest and not how to have a civil discussion. Since you seem unable to communicate rather than quibble over words you don't like, we're done.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > because something like post-scaricity isn't binary, it doesn't just occur at one point in time It doesn't occur at all, and the problems you point to aren't problems that are even related to an absence of scarcity, they are problems stemming directly from scarcity. > we'll grow in that direction slowly and problems will arise long before we get there due to rising unemployment, but I think you know that and you're just being obtuse. No, we won't "grow in that direction". You seem to be be unable to comprehend the idea of someone disagreeing with your basic premise, so instead you assume that I agree with you and am being obtuse. There's no route from here to there, and there's not even any there to get to. We'll continue to progress toward greater abundance, but the basic economic problem that relative abundance does not alter the basic nature of scarcity will not be affected. Its sort of a perennial mistake to confuse greater relative abundance with the absence of scarcity.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    You can't disagree with a premise you haven't demonstrated you even understand and your continued incessant pedantry leads me to believe you can't understand, so as I said, we're done; leave it at that.