4 ms·

It's just a little funny to say an essentially communist society has a scarcity of labor... It's like yes, that's kinda the point! They often note on the show

It's just a little funny to say an essentially communist society has a scarcity of labor... It's like yes, that's kinda the point! They often note on the show itself that it is in fact replicator tech itself that sealed the deal for their era of post-scarcity, so yeah, that would imply some kind of scarcity in handmade goods. I think when people generally talk about "post-scarcity" it isn't that literally everything that could possibly exist is plentiful, at your fingertips, its more talking about the things we find scarce now (housing, food) being plentiful.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
By that definition we already live in a post-scarcity economy. Food & housing are extremely plentiful in the US. We consume over 3600 calories per person, and waste a similar amount. Livestock eat over 10,000 calories per person. We have over 800 square feet of living space per capita.
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  Ok sure but all those things are still subject to whatever artificial scarcity the market needs in order to survive, which is not the case in Star Trek. The fact that there is no money in that world is not a byproduct, it is the whole thing. Whatever is scarce or not follows from that, not the other way around. Granted, especially as you get later on, star trek is not the best at realizing its original conceit. But I choose to believe!
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    We should call ours an "artificial scarcity economy."
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      I am totally stealing that phrase the next time I get in this debate. Thanks!
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > housing are extremely plentiful ...and therefore extremely cheap? Instead it's extremely expensive and therefore exclusionary. So it is healthcare. Polls clearly show that younger generations feel very unsure about their work, their ability to save, buy a home end even retire and have a pension. The complete opposite of post-scarcity.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    Yes, that's my point. In economics a scarce resource is a limited resource. Defining post-scarcity as an abundance of goods is a bad definition, unless the goods are truly unlimited. Neither us nor 24th century Star Trek has post-scarcity. Star Trek TNG has a post-capitalist, non-monetary economy, but it's not post-scarcity.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      Star Trek TNG is very clearly post-scarcity. It fits the definition completely, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy --- Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely --- Post-scarcity does not require all goods/services to be infinitely abundant.
      - bryanlarsen 5y ago
        In the US today a bushel of wheat (60 pounds) is worth $7.50 and contains about a month's worth of calories, for about half an hour worth of the average American's labour. Chinese factories produce widgets for pennies. Under that definiton either both the 24th and the 22nd centuries are post-scarcity or neither are. Trekonomics writer Manu Saadia has a much better definition: "Post-scarcity is not so much a matter of material wealth or natural bounty, but an organizational option for society". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics
        deleted 5y ago
bryanlarsen 5y ago
"sealed the deal" meaning that the replicator wasn't essential for their economy. Today we have industrial farming, robot factories and ships that can carry 100,000 tonnes, allowing us to produce an incredible amount of stuff with very little human labour. The difference between that and a replicator based economy is small. If the Star Trek reputation economy is feasible in the 24th century, it's feasible today.
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  I agree its logistically feasible and plus it would have broad support from regular people. Main issue I can see is swift and devestating interventions from the USA. Remember, star trek timeline had to go through a century of fascism and war before they could get to post-capitalism. We want post capitalism, not scarcity.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

By that definition we already live in a post-scarcity economy. Food & housing are extremely plentiful in the US. We consume over 3600 calories per person, and waste a similar amount. Livestock eat over 10,000 calories per person. We have over 800 square feet of living space per capita.

beepbooptheory 5y ago
Ok sure but all those things are still subject to whatever artificial scarcity the market needs in order to survive, which is not the case in Star Trek. The fact that there is no money in that world is not a byproduct, it is the whole thing. Whatever is scarce or not follows from that, not the other way around. Granted, especially as you get later on, star trek is not the best at realizing its original conceit. But I choose to believe!
- DarylZero 5y ago
  We should call ours an "artificial scarcity economy."
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    I am totally stealing that phrase the next time I get in this debate. Thanks!
goodpoint 5y ago
> housing are extremely plentiful ...and therefore extremely cheap? Instead it's extremely expensive and therefore exclusionary. So it is healthcare. Polls clearly show that younger generations feel very unsure about their work, their ability to save, buy a home end even retire and have a pension. The complete opposite of post-scarcity.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Yes, that's my point. In economics a scarce resource is a limited resource. Defining post-scarcity as an abundance of goods is a bad definition, unless the goods are truly unlimited. Neither us nor 24th century Star Trek has post-scarcity. Star Trek TNG has a post-capitalist, non-monetary economy, but it's not post-scarcity.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    Star Trek TNG is very clearly post-scarcity. It fits the definition completely, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy --- Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely --- Post-scarcity does not require all goods/services to be infinitely abundant.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      In the US today a bushel of wheat (60 pounds) is worth $7.50 and contains about a month's worth of calories, for about half an hour worth of the average American's labour. Chinese factories produce widgets for pennies. Under that definiton either both the 24th and the 22nd centuries are post-scarcity or neither are. Trekonomics writer Manu Saadia has a much better definition: "Post-scarcity is not so much a matter of material wealth or natural bounty, but an organizational option for society". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics
      - deleted 5y ago

bryanlarsen 5y ago

"sealed the deal" meaning that the replicator wasn't essential for their economy. Today we have industrial farming, robot factories and ships that can carry 100,000 tonnes, allowing us to produce an incredible amount of stuff with very little human labour. The difference between that and a replicator based economy is small. If the Star Trek reputation economy is feasible in the 24th century, it's feasible today.

beepbooptheory 5y ago
I agree its logistically feasible and plus it would have broad support from regular people. Main issue I can see is swift and devestating interventions from the USA. Remember, star trek timeline had to go through a century of fascism and war before they could get to post-capitalism. We want post capitalism, not scarcity.