4 ms·

This argument has a lot of big words, but in the end, we humans run up against the hard wall of reality in a world of scarce resources. To say that the nearly a

This argument has a lot of big words, but in the end, we humans run up against the hard wall of reality in a world of scarce resources. To say that the nearly all misery arises from how we currently work is laughable. Let me know when winter stops being cold and food falls from heaven onto our dinner tables.

Bakary 6y ago
It's estimated that around half of produced food is wasted/thrown away so maybe we aren't that far from what you're describing
- notahacker 6y ago
  Much of the produced food is thrown away because it's no longer considered fit to eat, however. And scarcity also takes into account the where. Malnourished people in poor countries might happily eat bread which is past its 'sell by' date in rich countries' supermarkets, or even the slightly burned leftovers from my plate, but there isn't a distribution system to get it there (and the resources needed to transport that food to them whilst the food is still edible genuinely are scarce)
  - Bakary 6y ago
    I've written a lengthier response to that in the conversation tree, but the gist of it is that it is a political choice whereas the OP sarcastically alluded to a physical problem (mana from heaven, which we already have thanks to tech) The problem is that the massive tech surplus is captured and not allocated to make life less hellish.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > the gist of it is that it is a political choice I disagree, it is economic reasoning. > The problem is that the massive tech surplus is captured and not allocated to make life less hellish. What massive tech surplus is there that could move food across the ocean for free?
- pfalcon 6y ago
  Let me guess - it's thrown when it's already not in the very edible condition? And it's produced in the first place in the hope that it will be bought at the price asked? So, I'm not sure that those who produce (or distribute) it will agree at once "let's give right away half of produced for free". But if you pressure them much, they might "agree" to cut the production in half. But you may imagine where that could lead. Finally, you may expect the government to buy half of it right away to give away for free. Well, good luck with running with that line for president, probably won't work even in Sub-Saharan Africa. And likely the food will still be trash when reaching the target audience, due to government efficiency.
  - Bakary 6y ago
    This misses the point. The original poster made reference a reference to medieval beliefs in earthly paradise with the idea of food falling from the heavens. In reality, we already sorta live in the land of Cockaigne given the dizzying variety and quantity of food we are able to produce, as well as the amount of energy. We have the technology, and we have the ability. Granted, it would be nice to have much cheaper energy sources but these no longer seem to be a distant dream. So all I am saying is that the idea that we don't have to work as much is not that unrealistic. Already much of work is relatively meaningless, or merely redistributive. The portion of the economy that actually produces things is small. Most people shift wealth around in the tertiary sector. So yes, there indeed are enormous challenges when it comes to distribution. But these are mostly the result of political choices and not physical barriers to which the original poster was hinting at sarcastically. If you take electric vehicles, no progress is made for decades then suddenly when people focus their efforts on it the landscape changes completely. Coca Cola can manage an extremely proficient distribution system, so who is to say governments can't? With increasing automation they will have to start redistribution anyway or indeed lose elections. This reminds me a bit of members of the House of Commons wondering if the poor would become too lazy if we decrease the working day from 16 hours to a mere eight. >Finally, you may expect the government to buy half of it right away to give away for free Governments all over the world already prop up agriculture with price controls. India is currently wracked by the largest protests in history because that system was put on pause. So it's not like people aren't receptive to governmental intervention in critical sectors. The notion of government efficiency is amusing in the first place when we consider the half of food that is wasted by market action
charlesu 6y ago
What resource is scarce? We can’t give everyone an iPhone or a McMansion, but we could probably feed everyone.
- postingpals 6y ago
  We actually can give everyone a phone since there are well over 8 billion in circulation.
  - pfalcon 6y ago
    By taking them from whoever owns them already? That's still popular petty street crime tactics in 3rd-world countries.
    - charlesu 6y ago
      No, we can just give people used phones. We have such a surplus of some things that we can actually redistribute them in a non-zero sum way.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  I'd say you're completely right, but there are a couple of caveats. 1) Most people would not be content with just the basics. We like shiny new stuff like iPhones or fancy clothes or nice food 2) Even if there was no scarcity of anything, our distribution systems (Globally) are pretty poor. I doubt we could flip a switch and begin distributing resources to everywhere in the world that needs them.
postingpals 6y ago
I find people who argue scarcity more often than not don't have actual numbers to back it up. Amongst human beings biggest necessities, what are actually scarce? Food? Not at all, tons and tons are thrown out daily. Housing? Well there's enough of that for everyone we just don't know how, and don't want to, distribute it. Clothing? Even though people burn through clothing almost as quickly as food, it is produced in surplus so much that we invented fashion. What necessity exactly is scarce in 2020? Classical economics has no explanation for this modern surplus of production.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > I find people who argue scarcity more often than not don't have actual numbers to back it up. Amongst human beings biggest necessities, what are actually scarce? Scarcity in the economic sense just means there are material limits to the things people want. It's not a synonym for "rarity." > Food? Not at all, tons and tons are thrown out daily. The places that are throwing out food also have charities and food banks so that few people actually starve to death. People who starve to death are in parts of the world with poorly functioning distribution systems. The people in those parts of the world who have food don't throw it out, they lock it up so they can give it to their friends. > Housing? Well there's enough of that for everyone we just don't know how, and don't want to, distribute it. This is a good point and there are homeless people in cities with vacant housing. > Clothing? Even though people burn through clothing almost as quickly as food, it is produced in surplus so much that we invented fashion. Crucially, there are very few naked people but the things people want to wear are still of limited supply. > Classical economics has no explanation for this modern surplus of production. Its literally called "capitalism"; People with means of production make profit by producing commodities and this incentivizes other people to invest their surplus in additional capital and compete to produce more commodities. This expansion of production drives the marginal rate of profit down which causes people to invest in producing other things; the capital and products are thereby multiplied over and over and the result is a system that makes these basic things extremely plentiful and low cost. > What necessity exactly is scarce in 2020? Human labor, time, space, raw materials, and products that are the output of specific processes that cannot be commodified in this way (art, haute couture, and antiques are examples)
jancsika 6y ago
Just curious-- what action would you take if tech made it so that food fell from the heavens? Are you just saying that you'd slightly alter your opinion of "The Abolition of Work" in response? Or would you, say, give your life to protect that tech from embargo/destruction?

Bakary 6y ago

It's estimated that around half of produced food is wasted/thrown away so maybe we aren't that far from what you're describing

notahacker 6y ago
Much of the produced food is thrown away because it's no longer considered fit to eat, however. And scarcity also takes into account the where. Malnourished people in poor countries might happily eat bread which is past its 'sell by' date in rich countries' supermarkets, or even the slightly burned leftovers from my plate, but there isn't a distribution system to get it there (and the resources needed to transport that food to them whilst the food is still edible genuinely are scarce)
- Bakary 6y ago
  I've written a lengthier response to that in the conversation tree, but the gist of it is that it is a political choice whereas the OP sarcastically alluded to a physical problem (mana from heaven, which we already have thanks to tech) The problem is that the massive tech surplus is captured and not allocated to make life less hellish.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > the gist of it is that it is a political choice I disagree, it is economic reasoning. > The problem is that the massive tech surplus is captured and not allocated to make life less hellish. What massive tech surplus is there that could move food across the ocean for free?
pfalcon 6y ago
Let me guess - it's thrown when it's already not in the very edible condition? And it's produced in the first place in the hope that it will be bought at the price asked? So, I'm not sure that those who produce (or distribute) it will agree at once "let's give right away half of produced for free". But if you pressure them much, they might "agree" to cut the production in half. But you may imagine where that could lead. Finally, you may expect the government to buy half of it right away to give away for free. Well, good luck with running with that line for president, probably won't work even in Sub-Saharan Africa. And likely the food will still be trash when reaching the target audience, due to government efficiency.
- Bakary 6y ago
  This misses the point. The original poster made reference a reference to medieval beliefs in earthly paradise with the idea of food falling from the heavens. In reality, we already sorta live in the land of Cockaigne given the dizzying variety and quantity of food we are able to produce, as well as the amount of energy. We have the technology, and we have the ability. Granted, it would be nice to have much cheaper energy sources but these no longer seem to be a distant dream. So all I am saying is that the idea that we don't have to work as much is not that unrealistic. Already much of work is relatively meaningless, or merely redistributive. The portion of the economy that actually produces things is small. Most people shift wealth around in the tertiary sector. So yes, there indeed are enormous challenges when it comes to distribution. But these are mostly the result of political choices and not physical barriers to which the original poster was hinting at sarcastically. If you take electric vehicles, no progress is made for decades then suddenly when people focus their efforts on it the landscape changes completely. Coca Cola can manage an extremely proficient distribution system, so who is to say governments can't? With increasing automation they will have to start redistribution anyway or indeed lose elections. This reminds me a bit of members of the House of Commons wondering if the poor would become too lazy if we decrease the working day from 16 hours to a mere eight. >Finally, you may expect the government to buy half of it right away to give away for free Governments all over the world already prop up agriculture with price controls. India is currently wracked by the largest protests in history because that system was put on pause. So it's not like people aren't receptive to governmental intervention in critical sectors. The notion of government efficiency is amusing in the first place when we consider the half of food that is wasted by market action

charlesu 6y ago

What resource is scarce? We can’t give everyone an iPhone or a McMansion, but we could probably feed everyone.

postingpals 6y ago
We actually can give everyone a phone since there are well over 8 billion in circulation.
- pfalcon 6y ago
  By taking them from whoever owns them already? That's still popular petty street crime tactics in 3rd-world countries.
  - charlesu 6y ago
    No, we can just give people used phones. We have such a surplus of some things that we can actually redistribute them in a non-zero sum way.
ZephyrBlu 6y ago
I'd say you're completely right, but there are a couple of caveats. 1) Most people would not be content with just the basics. We like shiny new stuff like iPhones or fancy clothes or nice food 2) Even if there was no scarcity of anything, our distribution systems (Globally) are pretty poor. I doubt we could flip a switch and begin distributing resources to everywhere in the world that needs them.

postingpals 6y ago

I find people who argue scarcity more often than not don't have actual numbers to back it up. Amongst human beings biggest necessities, what are actually scarce? Food? Not at all, tons and tons are thrown out daily. Housing? Well there's enough of that for everyone we just don't know how, and don't want to, distribute it. Clothing? Even though people burn through clothing almost as quickly as food, it is produced in surplus so much that we invented fashion. What necessity exactly is scarce in 2020? Classical economics has no explanation for this modern surplus of production.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> I find people who argue scarcity more often than not don't have actual numbers to back it up. Amongst human beings biggest necessities, what are actually scarce? Scarcity in the economic sense just means there are material limits to the things people want. It's not a synonym for "rarity." > Food? Not at all, tons and tons are thrown out daily. The places that are throwing out food also have charities and food banks so that few people actually starve to death. People who starve to death are in parts of the world with poorly functioning distribution systems. The people in those parts of the world who have food don't throw it out, they lock it up so they can give it to their friends. > Housing? Well there's enough of that for everyone we just don't know how, and don't want to, distribute it. This is a good point and there are homeless people in cities with vacant housing. > Clothing? Even though people burn through clothing almost as quickly as food, it is produced in surplus so much that we invented fashion. Crucially, there are very few naked people but the things people want to wear are still of limited supply. > Classical economics has no explanation for this modern surplus of production. Its literally called "capitalism"; People with means of production make profit by producing commodities and this incentivizes other people to invest their surplus in additional capital and compete to produce more commodities. This expansion of production drives the marginal rate of profit down which causes people to invest in producing other things; the capital and products are thereby multiplied over and over and the result is a system that makes these basic things extremely plentiful and low cost. > What necessity exactly is scarce in 2020? Human labor, time, space, raw materials, and products that are the output of specific processes that cannot be commodified in this way (art, haute couture, and antiques are examples)

jancsika 6y ago

Just curious-- what action would you take if tech made it so that food fell from the heavens? Are you just saying that you'd slightly alter your opinion of "The Abolition of Work" in response? Or would you, say, give your life to protect that tech from embargo/destruction?