3 ms·

We're no where close to eliminating scarcity or capital. We're so far from that there is almost no point in giving it serious merit. Probably centuries away. Hu

We're no where close to eliminating scarcity or capital. We're so far from that there is almost no point in giving it serious merit. Probably centuries away. Humans being will be limited by scarcity until we're able to convert matter from one substance to another with ease, and able to freely genetically engineer ourselves to survive on other worlds.

commandlinefan 9y ago
I think that's the most important (and one of the least examined) aspect of "post-capitalism". It's easy for me and, I assume, anybody else to _envision_ a world where there's no more useful work for humans to do and therefore no further need for people to "earn a living". However, it seems pretty obvious that we're not there yet. We might be ten years away, we might be a thousand years away - but destroying civilization now because we figure we might get there in the near future strikes me as unwise. While I see lots of people debating about what to do when we get to the "end of capitalism", I see very few people trying to find any common ground as to how to figure out when we get to that point.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I think most people talking about the end of capitalism are imagining the system caving in on itself rather than its gentle evolution into a Utopian post-capitalist state.
albertwenger 9y ago
The opposite of scarcity is not abundance. There is a state in-between which I call "sufficient." See https://worldaftercapital.gitbooks.io/worldaftercapital/content/part-one/Scarcity.html https://worldaftercapital.gitbooks.io/worldaftercapital/cont...
- ameister14 9y ago
  Rather than throwing away the definitions and creating one that is very loosely supported, it may make more sense to divide scarcity into 'artificial' and 'innate' or something similar where artificial scarcity is created by 'attaching property rights' to something like in the air example; though you are correct, I do think that is a ridiculous example despite some people arguing for it.

commandlinefan 9y ago

I think that's the most important (and one of the least examined) aspect of "post-capitalism". It's easy for me and, I assume, anybody else to _envision_ a world where there's no more useful work for humans to do and therefore no further need for people to "earn a living". However, it seems pretty obvious that we're not there yet. We might be ten years away, we might be a thousand years away - but destroying civilization now because we figure we might get there in the near future strikes me as unwise. While I see lots of people debating about what to do when we get to the "end of capitalism", I see very few people trying to find any common ground as to how to figure out when we get to that point.

emodendroket 9y ago
I think most people talking about the end of capitalism are imagining the system caving in on itself rather than its gentle evolution into a Utopian post-capitalist state.

albertwenger 9y ago

The opposite of scarcity is not abundance. There is a state in-between which I call "sufficient." See https://worldaftercapital.gitbooks.io/worldaftercapital/content/part-one/Scarcity.html https://worldaftercapital.gitbooks.io/worldaftercapital/cont...

ameister14 9y ago
Rather than throwing away the definitions and creating one that is very loosely supported, it may make more sense to divide scarcity into 'artificial' and 'innate' or something similar where artificial scarcity is created by 'attaching property rights' to something like in the air example; though you are correct, I do think that is a ridiculous example despite some people arguing for it.