5 ms·

Post-scarcity cannot come fast enough; the (external) need to work hard should just die in a fire.

esens 5y ago
It never actually seems to come though. I wouldn't count on it. I believe that getting something for nothing is usually not sustainable. Just because you serve no purpose to those giving the things away for free. Something will give (some type of resource constraint will arise, even if it is just competitive/alternatives) and it will fail if you are not providing value.
- BingoAhoy 5y ago
  It's only been, what a few hundred years since the industrial revolution began? We haven't given it enough time for the innovators to figure out how to manufacture the needs of society in an overflowing plentiful way that's also automated & low effort. Some things never will be of course.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    On the other hand, here in the US we throw out something like 60% of the food we produce and have an obesity problem. One could argue that we've kinda already reached post-scarcity for feeding people, yet people still go hungry.
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      > and have an obesity problem. I'd argue that's because we have a ton of junk food availability. If I wanted to eat a roast and veggies from a local farm not covered in glyphosate, I'm going to pay for it. Doritos and Cheerios are cheap af. But they're killing people. We are arguably post scarcity of low quality corn and wheat, but what good is that? And that only comes because of subsidies.
- Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
  If you think in terms of money, then yes. But people can certainly provide value that cannot be measured in money and profits. And for me that's the whole idea of have a post scarcity society where you don't have to work.. I'm fairly sure that most people would actually start providing value on their own and for the good of society if they weren't forced to think about money.
randomopining 5y ago
That external need is the force that spurs on evolution lol. Literally you would not be here if not for that force.
clarkmoody 5y ago
The greatest kings of history had a worse standard of living than much of humanity has today. Certainly the average American has a vastly superior standard of living. Think of things the ancients could only dream of that are available to most people in developed nations: - Fast transportation - Antibiotics - Instant global communications - All of human knowledge in your pocket - Climate controlled buildings - Access to the global supply chain for goods Yet scarcity persists, and people want more because wants are relative. A thousand years from now, people will be jealous of others who have an annual off-world holiday, a family jet, life-extension therapy... And even then, lots of people will work hard because they want to improve their standard of living. As long an human minds remain bound to human bodies, then we are limited by the finite resources of the physical world.
reedjosh 5y ago
I don't like what I'm going to say, but post scarcity can't come without either a worldwide culture change or an exploding population that would lead back to scarcity. We are still animals, and evolution is still a thing. We're clearly a k-selected species, but in post scarcity, what's to stop a portion of us from becoming r-selected? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
sgeisler 5y ago
There will never be post-scarcity, because we'll never have enough. Using cutting-edge technology always requires people to work hard to build said technology. If it didn't require work and just wishful thinking we'd already have it. The builders and engineers will always want _something_ in exchange or they won't make said tech accessible to you. The curiosity of nerds only gets you so far (see open source UX). Maybe you won't have to work/pay for food if accounting for it becomes more work than producing it (if sufficiently automated and not resource-constrained). But if you want to live in a hip neighborhood (by definition there is limited availability), have your own flying car, go on vacation on the moon once a year where real people service you etc. you'll have to work for that. Because the ingenuity and work necessary to make this all happen will still be enormous. Maybe you think you'd be happy with your today's lifestyle, which might be attainable for ~free. But I think the reality for most is that they'd grow jealous of their friends posting selfies from the moon and resent "the evil rich" again. The small amount of work necessary to _survive_ today would sound marvelous to someone from even 100 years ago (clothes, food, shelter outside major cities). Mowing one lawn for 1-2h every day would probably be enough for that. But surviving isn't the point of being human, it's about stretching the limits of what is possible and that will always take as much work as we are willing to put into it.
pugets 5y ago
Post-scarcity is a pipe dream. Even amoeba understand that life is a competition for resources. Stand still and you die. Even if the whole world lived in a post-scarce global society, there would be wars fought over who controls the supply chains, who lives downtown and who lives uptown, who eats veal and who eats chicken, etc. And there would be entrepreneurial types who are willing to trade food for lumber, or land for sex.

It never actually seems to come though. I wouldn't count on it. I believe that getting something for nothing is usually not sustainable. Just because you serve no purpose to those giving the things away for free. Something will give (some type of resource constraint will arise, even if it is just competitive/alternatives) and it will fail if you are not providing value.

BingoAhoy 5y ago
It's only been, what a few hundred years since the industrial revolution began? We haven't given it enough time for the innovators to figure out how to manufacture the needs of society in an overflowing plentiful way that's also automated & low effort. Some things never will be of course.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  On the other hand, here in the US we throw out something like 60% of the food we produce and have an obesity problem. One could argue that we've kinda already reached post-scarcity for feeding people, yet people still go hungry.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > and have an obesity problem. I'd argue that's because we have a ton of junk food availability. If I wanted to eat a roast and veggies from a local farm not covered in glyphosate, I'm going to pay for it. Doritos and Cheerios are cheap af. But they're killing people. We are arguably post scarcity of low quality corn and wheat, but what good is that? And that only comes because of subsidies.
Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
If you think in terms of money, then yes. But people can certainly provide value that cannot be measured in money and profits. And for me that's the whole idea of have a post scarcity society where you don't have to work.. I'm fairly sure that most people would actually start providing value on their own and for the good of society if they weren't forced to think about money.

randomopining 5y ago

That external need is the force that spurs on evolution lol. Literally you would not be here if not for that force.

clarkmoody 5y ago

The greatest kings of history had a worse standard of living than much of humanity has today. Certainly the average American has a vastly superior standard of living. Think of things the ancients could only dream of that are available to most people in developed nations: - Fast transportation - Antibiotics - Instant global communications - All of human knowledge in your pocket - Climate controlled buildings - Access to the global supply chain for goods Yet scarcity persists, and people want more because wants are relative. A thousand years from now, people will be jealous of others who have an annual off-world holiday, a family jet, life-extension therapy... And even then, lots of people will work hard because they want to improve their standard of living. As long an human minds remain bound to human bodies, then we are limited by the finite resources of the physical world.

reedjosh 5y ago

I don't like what I'm going to say, but post scarcity can't come without either a worldwide culture change or an exploding population that would lead back to scarcity. We are still animals, and evolution is still a thing. We're clearly a k-selected species, but in post scarcity, what's to stop a portion of us from becoming r-selected? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

sgeisler 5y ago

There will never be post-scarcity, because we'll never have enough. Using cutting-edge technology always requires people to work hard to build said technology. If it didn't require work and just wishful thinking we'd already have it. The builders and engineers will always want _something_ in exchange or they won't make said tech accessible to you. The curiosity of nerds only gets you so far (see open source UX). Maybe you won't have to work/pay for food if accounting for it becomes more work than producing it (if sufficiently automated and not resource-constrained). But if you want to live in a hip neighborhood (by definition there is limited availability), have your own flying car, go on vacation on the moon once a year where real people service you etc. you'll have to work for that. Because the ingenuity and work necessary to make this all happen will still be enormous. Maybe you think you'd be happy with your today's lifestyle, which might be attainable for ~free. But I think the reality for most is that they'd grow jealous of their friends posting selfies from the moon and resent "the evil rich" again. The small amount of work necessary to _survive_ today would sound marvelous to someone from even 100 years ago (clothes, food, shelter outside major cities). Mowing one lawn for 1-2h every day would probably be enough for that. But surviving isn't the point of being human, it's about stretching the limits of what is possible and that will always take as much work as we are willing to put into it.

pugets 5y ago

Post-scarcity is a pipe dream. Even amoeba understand that life is a competition for resources. Stand still and you die. Even if the whole world lived in a post-scarce global society, there would be wars fought over who controls the supply chains, who lives downtown and who lives uptown, who eats veal and who eats chicken, etc. And there would be entrepreneurial types who are willing to trade food for lumber, or land for sex.