3 ms·

> The basic needs of the underclass are met I mean if you're going to fantasize why not bring this forward and give imaginary relief to millions? I would have

> The basic needs of the underclass are met I mean if you're going to fantasize why not bring this forward and give imaginary relief to millions? I would have predicted this easily for 2016...or even maybe 2012. Obviously any earlier would have been ridiculous.

jimktrains2 8y ago
Poverty has been falling consitently and we, as a species, is more than able to meet everyone's needs, we simply choose not to because we're greedy and short-sighted.
- scandox 8y ago
  I think to talk about this as a moment in time when the job is done is the mistake. It needs to be considered both as something achieved and demonstrably sustained/sustainable for a meaningful length of time into the future. That's why I just find it funny to see that statement. For 2019. Generalizing to some global "underclass" that anyway doesn't exist.
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    > It needs to be considered both as something achieved and demonstrably sustained/sustainable for a meaningful length of time into the future. 100% agree. I just wanted to highlight that one of the largest obstacles to ensuring that everyone's basic needs are met (and that our grandchildren will still have a planet they can easily live on) is our politics and short-nearsightedness, not necessarily our technology.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Please don't blame "us" / "the species" for the decisions and objectives of the 0.1%. That's putting the blame on everyone, while most people don't have any influence on the worldwide direction things are going in.
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    We all have choices we make that contribute to using more than we need to. It isn't _only_ the 0.1%, although the affects of their actions and decisions have much wider consequences. Moreover, the 0.1% have the power they do because a very large portion of the rest of us choose not to partake in politics.
trashtester 8y ago
Except for a very few places with warfare or seriously failed states, the world is already more or less "post scarcity". Most countries already have more health problems due to obesity than mal/under-nourishment. But wealth continues to play a role in determining social hierarchies, and as long as it does, there will be pople that see themselves as poor. And so far, automation has contributed to making the relative differences greater than before, not smaller.
- goatlover 8y ago
  Wouldn't post-scarcity mean that most things are essentially zero-cost? And yet we still pay for food, energy, clothing, transportation, etc. Yes, goods are mass produced cheaply and tons of food is grown, but it still has a cost. It's not like being able to tell the replicator to make you an Earl Gray tea. Instead, that tea has to be grown, shipped and sold.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    If you look at the number of hours an average person (worldwide average, not restricted to Detroit factory workers) must work for the same amount of food, energy, clothing and transportation, the costs have been slashed to a fraction of what they were 50 years ago. If presented with the purchasing power of today, 50 years ago, the average person of that time would see 2019 effectively post scarcity. They would hardly be able to imagine how they would need more wealth that what we have now. But 50 years ago, the coffee was cooked in a kettle at home, while today, people expect to buy it at Starbucks. In East Asia, most people of 50 years ago hardly ever ate meat. Today most can eat at McDonalds, but Kobe beef may still be out of reach, etc. As long as our expectations grow faster than our income, we will feel poorer as we get richer. Today's luxery goods will be taken for granted, and new, more expensive ones will be available. Unless social hierarchi position somehow becomes independent of wealth, some people will continue to see themselves as poor.
fallingfrog 8y ago
I’ll grant him that there’s no physical reason that any sort of underclass has to exist, or that if they do, their needs cannot be met- but that’s a political problem not a technological one.

jimktrains2 8y ago

Poverty has been falling consitently and we, as a species, is more than able to meet everyone's needs, we simply choose not to because we're greedy and short-sighted.

scandox 8y ago
I think to talk about this as a moment in time when the job is done is the mistake. It needs to be considered both as something achieved and demonstrably sustained/sustainable for a meaningful length of time into the future. That's why I just find it funny to see that statement. For 2019. Generalizing to some global "underclass" that anyway doesn't exist.
- jimktrains2 8y ago
  > It needs to be considered both as something achieved and demonstrably sustained/sustainable for a meaningful length of time into the future. 100% agree. I just wanted to highlight that one of the largest obstacles to ensuring that everyone's basic needs are met (and that our grandchildren will still have a planet they can easily live on) is our politics and short-nearsightedness, not necessarily our technology.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Please don't blame "us" / "the species" for the decisions and objectives of the 0.1%. That's putting the blame on everyone, while most people don't have any influence on the worldwide direction things are going in.
- jimktrains2 8y ago
  We all have choices we make that contribute to using more than we need to. It isn't _only_ the 0.1%, although the affects of their actions and decisions have much wider consequences. Moreover, the 0.1% have the power they do because a very large portion of the rest of us choose not to partake in politics.

trashtester 8y ago

Except for a very few places with warfare or seriously failed states, the world is already more or less "post scarcity". Most countries already have more health problems due to obesity than mal/under-nourishment. But wealth continues to play a role in determining social hierarchies, and as long as it does, there will be pople that see themselves as poor. And so far, automation has contributed to making the relative differences greater than before, not smaller.

goatlover 8y ago
Wouldn't post-scarcity mean that most things are essentially zero-cost? And yet we still pay for food, energy, clothing, transportation, etc. Yes, goods are mass produced cheaply and tons of food is grown, but it still has a cost. It's not like being able to tell the replicator to make you an Earl Gray tea. Instead, that tea has to be grown, shipped and sold.
- trashtester 8y ago
  If you look at the number of hours an average person (worldwide average, not restricted to Detroit factory workers) must work for the same amount of food, energy, clothing and transportation, the costs have been slashed to a fraction of what they were 50 years ago. If presented with the purchasing power of today, 50 years ago, the average person of that time would see 2019 effectively post scarcity. They would hardly be able to imagine how they would need more wealth that what we have now. But 50 years ago, the coffee was cooked in a kettle at home, while today, people expect to buy it at Starbucks. In East Asia, most people of 50 years ago hardly ever ate meat. Today most can eat at McDonalds, but Kobe beef may still be out of reach, etc. As long as our expectations grow faster than our income, we will feel poorer as we get richer. Today's luxery goods will be taken for granted, and new, more expensive ones will be available. Unless social hierarchi position somehow becomes independent of wealth, some people will continue to see themselves as poor.

fallingfrog 8y ago

I’ll grant him that there’s no physical reason that any sort of underclass has to exist, or that if they do, their needs cannot be met- but that’s a political problem not a technological one.