4 ms·

Most of what societies give to us are a set of rules to manage scarcity in exchange for the benefits of group membership. We've got more than enough resources

Most of what societies give to us are a set of rules to manage scarcity in exchange for the benefits of group membership. We've got more than enough resources to ensure a good and happy baseline existence for a large number of people but we don't have the systems to distribute it fairly or effectively. Identity is something we fall back on when times are "bad" and we feel like there isn't enough to go around. It's far less important when times are "good" (but humans are hard-wired to survive scarcity rather than abundance). Turchin’s elite overproduction is another, separate issue.

newacct583 6y ago
> We've got more than enough resources to ensure a good and happy baseline existence for a large number of people but we don't have the systems to distribute it fairly or effectively. FWIW: this seems like a poor explanation for the current situation in the US, given that the people most angry with the direction of society are disproportionately wealthy, and the subjects about which they choose to fight are generally not related to personal wealth or resource distribution.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  > this seems like a poor explanation for the current situation in the US, given that the people most angry with the direction of society are disproportionately wealthy How do you know this?
- everdrive 6y ago
  I think you're generally correct, but there are a few things worth noting: - There's still a lot of frustration in the lower classes: people without college educations, living near the poverty line (either over or under) - A person's sense of poverty is unfortunately relative. 100 years ago, people didn't necessarily have running water, or access to any medical care whatsoever. - There seems to be a lot of frustration with the makeup of the popular culture, and a misguided belief that an election can fix this. (eg, "I hate those elites in Hollywood, we'd better elect someone they disapprove of!")
  - telesilla 6y ago
    I agree about relativity. How poor one feels depends on who their neighbours are. I lived in a gigantic but cheap city and felt like a queen, being able to afford unlimited dinners and taxis, which would have been unobtainable had I lived in Manhattan at the same age.
  - mbg721 6y ago
    Culture in general is the elephant in the room--it's not really about money. Middle-America sees a bunch of obnoxious elites who openly ridicule and hate their values, lecture them about voting against their interests, and hand-wring about how to "educate" them into submission. Resources aren't going to buy happiness in this environment.
- redleggedfrog 6y ago
  "...given that the people most angry with the direction of society are disproportionately wealthy..." Fairly sure that's not true. The insurrectionist hew from red states that are lagging the rest of the country hard. Less educated, under or unemployed, very little upward mobility, extreme feelings of powerlessness (hence the gun fetish to feel powerful) and truly are not really represented by anyone in government except their local officials and congressmen/senators. And they get disparaged by the coasts as dumb hicks. You'd be pretty chaffed if you were in their shoes, too. It doesn't excuse their behavior, but it explains it. If you want peace and a thriving nation, those people need their place, too.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    Do you have a citation for that? This is a VERY common meme, but it doesn't have much grounding in actual numbers. It's been reported ad nauseum that republican voters everywhere, even in red states, are wealthier than democratic voters. In all demographics, even white voters, wealth correlates with republican lean. And as far as the insurrection at the capitol: almost everyone arrested there has been an employed or retired middle class person, often in a white collar job. Which isn't surprising, of course: most people had to travel to be there.
    - Miner49er 6y ago
      I think you are working with old data. In 2008 that was true, now it's the opposite. The median income of Democrats is higher than Republicans'. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/19/economic-divide-in-the-us-is-becoming-as-stark-as-its-politics.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/19/economic-divide-in-the-us-is... I guess that maybe doesn't take into account cost of living differences and all that, though.
      - newacct583 6y ago
        Gah, that's comparing districts, not voters! They're saying not that poor people vote republican, but that poorer areas tend to be red. Even within those districts, poorer folks vote democrat. It also runs afoul of the problem of using median statistics in a distribution that isn't gaussian. In fact per this quick article I found trying to check out the conclusion in your link, it's bathtub-shaped: both the poorest and wealthiest counties trend strongly blue. https://qz.com/1919592/why-joe-biden-will-win-rich-places-but-not-rich-people/ https://qz.com/1919592/why-joe-biden-will-win-rich-places-bu...
qsort 6y ago
> We've got more than enough resources to ensure a good and happy baseline existence What is this supposed to mean? What is 'enough' is relative. Present-day Western society would have looked like the literal garden of Eden to the average human from 2000 BC. There have never been, nor there will ever be, 'enough' resources for everyone: resources are limited, human desires are (thankfully) not.
- mmastrac 6y ago
  "Enough" for most people seems to be about 75k-95k USD per year equivalent [1]. We _might_ not have enough resources yet to provide that much for UBI [2] but we can drastically raise the baseline level of happiness of the populace. [1] https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q1/money-only-buys-happiness-for-a-certain-amount.html https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q1/money-only-... [2] More and more automation could get us there
  - matz1 6y ago
    > More and more automation could get us there The only thing that can work is if technology/automation is advance enough that everybody can live happily without depending on other people at all. That even 'other people' can be replaced by virtual people that indistinguishable from real one. The problem is if everybody live like this, can it be still called society ?
  - qsort 6y ago
    Quoting from your own link: "And, there was substantial variation across world regions, with satiation occurring later in wealthier regions for life satisfaction," Jebb said. "This could be because evaluations tend to be more influenced by the standards by which individuals compare themselves to other people." Sure, it's 75k now. Is it guaranteed to stay at 75k? There isn't a universal constant by which you can assert "okay, this level of wealth is, and will always be, enough for everyone". > We _might_ not have enough resources yet to provide that much for UBI. That's... way more than the US GDP per capita...
- Ericson2314 6y ago

newacct583 6y ago

> We've got more than enough resources to ensure a good and happy baseline existence for a large number of people but we don't have the systems to distribute it fairly or effectively. FWIW: this seems like a poor explanation for the current situation in the US, given that the people most angry with the direction of society are disproportionately wealthy, and the subjects about which they choose to fight are generally not related to personal wealth or resource distribution.

Miner49er 6y ago
> this seems like a poor explanation for the current situation in the US, given that the people most angry with the direction of society are disproportionately wealthy How do you know this?
everdrive 6y ago
I think you're generally correct, but there are a few things worth noting: - There's still a lot of frustration in the lower classes: people without college educations, living near the poverty line (either over or under) - A person's sense of poverty is unfortunately relative. 100 years ago, people didn't necessarily have running water, or access to any medical care whatsoever. - There seems to be a lot of frustration with the makeup of the popular culture, and a misguided belief that an election can fix this. (eg, "I hate those elites in Hollywood, we'd better elect someone they disapprove of!")
- telesilla 6y ago
  I agree about relativity. How poor one feels depends on who their neighbours are. I lived in a gigantic but cheap city and felt like a queen, being able to afford unlimited dinners and taxis, which would have been unobtainable had I lived in Manhattan at the same age.
- mbg721 6y ago
  Culture in general is the elephant in the room--it's not really about money. Middle-America sees a bunch of obnoxious elites who openly ridicule and hate their values, lecture them about voting against their interests, and hand-wring about how to "educate" them into submission. Resources aren't going to buy happiness in this environment.
redleggedfrog 6y ago
"...given that the people most angry with the direction of society are disproportionately wealthy..." Fairly sure that's not true. The insurrectionist hew from red states that are lagging the rest of the country hard. Less educated, under or unemployed, very little upward mobility, extreme feelings of powerlessness (hence the gun fetish to feel powerful) and truly are not really represented by anyone in government except their local officials and congressmen/senators. And they get disparaged by the coasts as dumb hicks. You'd be pretty chaffed if you were in their shoes, too. It doesn't excuse their behavior, but it explains it. If you want peace and a thriving nation, those people need their place, too.
- newacct583 6y ago
  Do you have a citation for that? This is a VERY common meme, but it doesn't have much grounding in actual numbers. It's been reported ad nauseum that republican voters everywhere, even in red states, are wealthier than democratic voters. In all demographics, even white voters, wealth correlates with republican lean. And as far as the insurrection at the capitol: almost everyone arrested there has been an employed or retired middle class person, often in a white collar job. Which isn't surprising, of course: most people had to travel to be there.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    I think you are working with old data. In 2008 that was true, now it's the opposite. The median income of Democrats is higher than Republicans'. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/19/economic-divide-in-the-us-is-becoming-as-stark-as-its-politics.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/19/economic-divide-in-the-us-is... I guess that maybe doesn't take into account cost of living differences and all that, though.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      Gah, that's comparing districts, not voters! They're saying not that poor people vote republican, but that poorer areas tend to be red. Even within those districts, poorer folks vote democrat. It also runs afoul of the problem of using median statistics in a distribution that isn't gaussian. In fact per this quick article I found trying to check out the conclusion in your link, it's bathtub-shaped: both the poorest and wealthiest counties trend strongly blue. https://qz.com/1919592/why-joe-biden-will-win-rich-places-but-not-rich-people/ https://qz.com/1919592/why-joe-biden-will-win-rich-places-bu...

qsort 6y ago

> We've got more than enough resources to ensure a good and happy baseline existence What is this supposed to mean? What is 'enough' is relative. Present-day Western society would have looked like the literal garden of Eden to the average human from 2000 BC. There have never been, nor there will ever be, 'enough' resources for everyone: resources are limited, human desires are (thankfully) not.

mmastrac 6y ago
"Enough" for most people seems to be about 75k-95k USD per year equivalent [1]. We _might_ not have enough resources yet to provide that much for UBI [2] but we can drastically raise the baseline level of happiness of the populace. [1] https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q1/money-only-buys-happiness-for-a-certain-amount.html https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q1/money-only-... [2] More and more automation could get us there
- matz1 6y ago
  > More and more automation could get us there The only thing that can work is if technology/automation is advance enough that everybody can live happily without depending on other people at all. That even 'other people' can be replaced by virtual people that indistinguishable from real one. The problem is if everybody live like this, can it be still called society ?
- qsort 6y ago
  Quoting from your own link: "And, there was substantial variation across world regions, with satiation occurring later in wealthier regions for life satisfaction," Jebb said. "This could be because evaluations tend to be more influenced by the standards by which individuals compare themselves to other people." Sure, it's 75k now. Is it guaranteed to stay at 75k? There isn't a universal constant by which you can assert "okay, this level of wealth is, and will always be, enough for everyone". > We _might_ not have enough resources yet to provide that much for UBI. That's... way more than the US GDP per capita...
Ericson2314 6y ago