3 ms·

> Not all of the lessons of history apply in a post-scarcity world. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I'm not sure what you mean

> Not all of the lessons of history apply in a post-scarcity world. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I'm not sure what you mean by "post-scarcity"? Things may be "available", but that doesn't mean people have access to them. While it's nice to think of land as "unowned", in practice, someone controls it, and they almost never have the interests of the occupants in mind. Besides, I've found that people tend to treat property better when they consider it theirs and have space AWAY from people. Going along with your point though, it might be best if everyone received some designed size plot of land (large enough to build a small family residence on at least). Yes, there would be competition, but in competitive areas, the land plots could be smaller. In "unwanted" areas (Kansas, Wyoming), plots could be large enough for profitable cattle and farming industry. The good thing would be that no one would be without land to built on; they would have their own space to "be them" and live as they wished without rubbing shoulders with their neighbors (which tends to make Americans rough around the edges, regardless of age/sex/political views). Currently, many people struggle just getting an apartment, let alone a house. Notably, the mechanics of a new system would need to be worked out, and would likely be abused, manipulated, and ruined because of selfish people, but it's a nice thought.

lisper 7y ago
> in practice, someone controls it, and they almost never have the interests of the occupants in mind Yes, that's why I'm advocating leases. This allows you to separate short-term control from long-term control more easily. The interests of the occupants are best attended to via short-term control (the sink needs to be fixed now) but the interests of society are best attended to via long-term control (we need to tear down this single family house, which made sense 50 years ago, and replace it with a multi-family unit). > it might be best if everyone received some designed size plot of land That might work if there was a constant supply of new land to distribute, but there isn't.
- nercht12 7y ago
  > The interests of the occupants are best attended to via short-term control ... but the interests of society are best attended to via long-term control. Sounds nice, but good luck finding politicians and leaders who will exercise just (as in "justice") decisions in this manner. More generally: The problem right now is a people problem, corruption. The system isn't the primary problem. If everyone were benevolent, sharing, kindhearted individuals, then we'd work together to see everyone had a home, regardless of whether the system was capitalistic, socialistic, or communistic. Instead, we live in a world of selfish people. sigh It's nice to talk about theories though. :) > That might work if there was a constant supply of new land to distribute, but there isn't. True, but there is plenty of unused land. Just that people tend to crowd the coasts. EDIT: I didn't finish my thought. I meant to add that there's still enough earth for people to occupy for years... and we can build vertical realestate too.
  - lisper 7y ago
    > The problem right now is a people problem, corruption No, I don't agree. I've done a lot of traveling in Africa so I know what corruption looks like, and what we have in the West ain't it (yet). The situation we're in is a result of people acting rationally within a set of rules that were predicated on some assumptions that are no longer true, like that the demand for labor is essentially infinite. The rules are also based on some assumptions that were never true, like that societal well being can be objectively measured in terms of GDP or ROI or something like that, and that infinite growth is possible. To fix this problem we need to fundamentally change the rules of the game to better align with today's reality, and more importantly, tomorrow's likely reality: machines can do pretty much anything that humans can do, so the market value of labor is almost certainly going to plunge. That's good for buyers, but bad for sellers. But sellers are people too. We can't just discard them the way we do excess horses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_Need_Not_Apply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_Need_Not_Apply).
    - nercht12 7y ago
      No, there is corruption, but it's better disguised and hidden in the US than in other countries (because otherwise it'd be caught, and no one committing the crimes wants that). People are wicked the world over. Why should it be any different in the US than elsewhere? When people don't have a moral compass, they are free to do as they choose. We have in the US some humanitarian traces of Christianity, some influences of Buddhism, some traces of other things, but in reality, the only ethical tethers politicians have these days is the shame of being caught. It's easier to get caught in a semi-transparent government like the US. In Russia? Nope. People like Putin can do all kinds of things without the populous knowing. > The situation we're in is a result of people acting rationally within a set of rules that were predicated on some assumptions that are no longer true, like that the demand for labor is essentially infinite. IBYP? I don't know anyone who thinks the demand for labor is infinite. I can see in your next paragraph, you're jumping the gun and thinking about a robotic society, but hang on there, cowboy (a pun on your last line). While such a shift in system may seem necessary in light of such a future, you're still thinking about economics in terms of how the system will improve things. It's natural for most people on HN to be the rationally-minded architectural types, so they think systems will solve problems. But pause for a moment and consider: Which world would you rather live in: A) A world where humans (and maybe robots) compete in the market place, where people pursue their own interests and ends in effort to "get ahead". i.e. The world we're headed for. And by the way, this world could be either capitalistic, socialistic, or communistic. The fact is, people will pursue their own interests regardless of the system. B) A world where humans (and maybe robots) are supportive of each other, offering help to those in need, sharing resources, and seeking the well being of each other. Yes, it's a leading question, but I think you'd agree world B is nicer. That's the one we want. However, that's the one that requires change in the MORAL AND ETHICAL CHARACTER of people, i.e. the part of people that says "Do good to your neighbor", "Help your neighbor buy groceries", "Help your neighbor fix his/her sink/tub/car", "Help teach your neighbor's kids", as opposed to selfish mentality of "Pay the Stanford coach to let your kid be admitted ahead of other kids" and "When the balance is in your favor, say nothing" and "Make the poor pukes be the garbage man while I, privileged individual, get the high-paying executive role". The fact is, if everyone supported each other, we'd all be ahead by now. But then each person gets the idea that they'll let OTHER people be helpful while THEY get ahead, and the whole thing collapses. In short, unselfishness would work. And before you object and say it won't happen here (which is quite plausible and very likely), you can't say it NEVER works. For example, Tokyo is one of the safest places in the world due to the underlying philosophical foundations of Japan that taught people to rely on the good of society. It worked for a while (although in more recent times, these philosophical foundations are decaying, so more violence is prevalent, and notably, the reliance on society was directed inwardly (towards the Japanese) not outwardly (towards foreigners), otherwise they wouldn't have been part of WWII). It's a complicated story, and I'm not expounding much. I'm also talking too long and you're going to want to stop reading. tl;dr - It's a human problem, not a problem of the system we have.
Mirioron 7y ago
>Going along with your point though, it might be best if everyone received some designed size plot of land (large enough to build a small family residence on at least). It wouldn't work. Building codes and permits would make it too costly for the poor to ever do anything with it.
- nercht12 7y ago
  True, and I did consider that. The list of reasons why it won't work are too long for a single post. Nevertheless, it might be "best" even though "the best we can do" in this chaotic world is no where near "ideal".

lisper 7y ago

> in practice, someone controls it, and they almost never have the interests of the occupants in mind Yes, that's why I'm advocating leases. This allows you to separate short-term control from long-term control more easily. The interests of the occupants are best attended to via short-term control (the sink needs to be fixed now) but the interests of society are best attended to via long-term control (we need to tear down this single family house, which made sense 50 years ago, and replace it with a multi-family unit). > it might be best if everyone received some designed size plot of land That might work if there was a constant supply of new land to distribute, but there isn't.

nercht12 7y ago
> The interests of the occupants are best attended to via short-term control ... but the interests of society are best attended to via long-term control. Sounds nice, but good luck finding politicians and leaders who will exercise just (as in "justice") decisions in this manner. More generally: The problem right now is a people problem, corruption. The system isn't the primary problem. If everyone were benevolent, sharing, kindhearted individuals, then we'd work together to see everyone had a home, regardless of whether the system was capitalistic, socialistic, or communistic. Instead, we live in a world of selfish people. sigh It's nice to talk about theories though. :) > That might work if there was a constant supply of new land to distribute, but there isn't. True, but there is plenty of unused land. Just that people tend to crowd the coasts. EDIT: I didn't finish my thought. I meant to add that there's still enough earth for people to occupy for years... and we can build vertical realestate too.
- lisper 7y ago
  > The problem right now is a people problem, corruption No, I don't agree. I've done a lot of traveling in Africa so I know what corruption looks like, and what we have in the West ain't it (yet). The situation we're in is a result of people acting rationally within a set of rules that were predicated on some assumptions that are no longer true, like that the demand for labor is essentially infinite. The rules are also based on some assumptions that were never true, like that societal well being can be objectively measured in terms of GDP or ROI or something like that, and that infinite growth is possible. To fix this problem we need to fundamentally change the rules of the game to better align with today's reality, and more importantly, tomorrow's likely reality: machines can do pretty much anything that humans can do, so the market value of labor is almost certainly going to plunge. That's good for buyers, but bad for sellers. But sellers are people too. We can't just discard them the way we do excess horses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_Need_Not_Apply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_Need_Not_Apply).
  - nercht12 7y ago
    No, there is corruption, but it's better disguised and hidden in the US than in other countries (because otherwise it'd be caught, and no one committing the crimes wants that). People are wicked the world over. Why should it be any different in the US than elsewhere? When people don't have a moral compass, they are free to do as they choose. We have in the US some humanitarian traces of Christianity, some influences of Buddhism, some traces of other things, but in reality, the only ethical tethers politicians have these days is the shame of being caught. It's easier to get caught in a semi-transparent government like the US. In Russia? Nope. People like Putin can do all kinds of things without the populous knowing. > The situation we're in is a result of people acting rationally within a set of rules that were predicated on some assumptions that are no longer true, like that the demand for labor is essentially infinite. IBYP? I don't know anyone who thinks the demand for labor is infinite. I can see in your next paragraph, you're jumping the gun and thinking about a robotic society, but hang on there, cowboy (a pun on your last line). While such a shift in system may seem necessary in light of such a future, you're still thinking about economics in terms of how the system will improve things. It's natural for most people on HN to be the rationally-minded architectural types, so they think systems will solve problems. But pause for a moment and consider: Which world would you rather live in: A) A world where humans (and maybe robots) compete in the market place, where people pursue their own interests and ends in effort to "get ahead". i.e. The world we're headed for. And by the way, this world could be either capitalistic, socialistic, or communistic. The fact is, people will pursue their own interests regardless of the system. B) A world where humans (and maybe robots) are supportive of each other, offering help to those in need, sharing resources, and seeking the well being of each other. Yes, it's a leading question, but I think you'd agree world B is nicer. That's the one we want. However, that's the one that requires change in the MORAL AND ETHICAL CHARACTER of people, i.e. the part of people that says "Do good to your neighbor", "Help your neighbor buy groceries", "Help your neighbor fix his/her sink/tub/car", "Help teach your neighbor's kids", as opposed to selfish mentality of "Pay the Stanford coach to let your kid be admitted ahead of other kids" and "When the balance is in your favor, say nothing" and "Make the poor pukes be the garbage man while I, privileged individual, get the high-paying executive role". The fact is, if everyone supported each other, we'd all be ahead by now. But then each person gets the idea that they'll let OTHER people be helpful while THEY get ahead, and the whole thing collapses. In short, unselfishness would work. And before you object and say it won't happen here (which is quite plausible and very likely), you can't say it NEVER works. For example, Tokyo is one of the safest places in the world due to the underlying philosophical foundations of Japan that taught people to rely on the good of society. It worked for a while (although in more recent times, these philosophical foundations are decaying, so more violence is prevalent, and notably, the reliance on society was directed inwardly (towards the Japanese) not outwardly (towards foreigners), otherwise they wouldn't have been part of WWII). It's a complicated story, and I'm not expounding much. I'm also talking too long and you're going to want to stop reading. tl;dr - It's a human problem, not a problem of the system we have.

Mirioron 7y ago

>Going along with your point though, it might be best if everyone received some designed size plot of land (large enough to build a small family residence on at least). It wouldn't work. Building codes and permits would make it too costly for the poor to ever do anything with it.

nercht12 7y ago
True, and I did consider that. The list of reasons why it won't work are too long for a single post. Nevertheless, it might be "best" even though "the best we can do" in this chaotic world is no where near "ideal".