4 ms·

Eh, the strong market for virtual goods and the existence of significant virtual economies[1] like those found in Roblox and Second Life lead me to believe that

Eh, the strong market for virtual goods and the existence of significant virtual economies[1] like those found in Roblox and Second Life lead me to believe that markets can and will always exist, regardless of how far we progress into and beyond post-scarcity (assuming humanity persists in its current form and consumption preferences remain stable). I'm less certain about the capitalist model in particular, but it too may continue to exist, although maybe just for fun. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_economy

sgu999 3y ago
We are already in a post-scarcity world, we have been for decades. The problem is inequalities and the inefficiency of how we use the resources, it doesn't look like we'll change that soon, sadly. I'm more prone to think that in a "virtual" economy we'll still have miserable workers to empty the chamber-pots of the lucky ones who are plugged in the new world.
- logicchains 3y ago
  > We are already in a post-scarcity world, we have been for decades. It's only a post-scarcity world if you define scarcity by absence of enough resources to satisfy the bare-minimum required for existence. People don't want to live at the subsistence level, and we're not evenly remotely close to having enough resources to satisfy everybody's wants.
  - sgu999 3y ago
    > People don't want to live at the subsistence level, and we're not evenly remotely close to having enough resources to satisfy everybody's wants. What people want is defined by society. Somehow some people want to be alone in a 2 tons EV, a 200 sqm mansion for a family of 4 and retire at 40. Others are tremendously happy with a much, much less resources intensive lifestyles. You would also need to define what is part of the subsistence level. I'd put it roughly at what my grandma wanted: food, shelter, healthcare, some leisure time. A bit more than that is absolutely doable in a civilisation that went from one farmer to feed 1.3 people to one farmer to feed 60 people.
    - logicchains 3y ago
      >What people want is defined by society. Somehow some people want to be alone in a 2 tons EV, a 200 sqm mansion for a family of 4 and retire at 40. Others are tremendously happy with a much, much less resources intensive lifestyles. You just undermined your own assertion. If what people want was defined by society, then everybody would want the same things. But in fact as you stated they don't; some people want a lot, some people want little. There's no way you're going to stop people wanting nice things short of killing the 90% of the population that aren't ascetics, which you'll never be able to do (at least in the US) because that's also the part of the population that owns most of the guns.
      - sgu999 3y ago
        We don't have a fully globalised culture yet, what an average American wants isn't what an average Japanese wants. Of course even then, there are disparities and outliers, but we can't really overlook that if you "want" an SUV or an Apple Watch, that's quite likely going to be because the people around you find it valuable. I'd go even a bit further as to say that what is important is probably what people "need", not "want". Apparently we mostly "want" as much as we can have anyway, because that used to be helpful for not dying before being able to reproduce enough. > because that's also the part of the population that owns most of the guns That made me giggle
        logicchains 3y ago
        >I'd go even a bit further as to say that what is important is probably what people "need", not "want". Which makes you a self-righteous prick, thinking you have the right to determine what other people should and shouldn't have.
        sgu999 3y ago
        Did I prescribe anything in that regard? What does it make you, to think that you are entitled to anything you want regardless of resources limits and collective good?
  - troupo 3y ago
    > It's only a post-scarcity world if you define scarcity by absence of enough resources to satisfy the bare-minimum required for existence. We have enough food to feed the entire world, and enough clothes to cloth the entire world. It could be a good start
dotnet00 3y ago
What comes to mind is when the entire metaverse and NFT craze was at its peak, there were many unironic suggestions floating around that NFTs were an important aspect of the metaverse because they would substitute for exclusive ownership of digital goods in the way physical items have to be "exclusive" to a certain quantity and quality. The vision basically being that such limitations are a feature in a world where replication is supposed to be effectively free.
hgomersall 3y ago
Those virtual economies are typically designed to mimick the real economy. They're often even hampered in ways the real economy isn't due to a misunderstanding of how the real system functions.
meheleventyone 3y ago
The economies in Roblox and Second Life didn’t just appear they were built intentionally to make money out of the platforms. They are literally bringing our economy into those games on purpose. Same with other virtual worlds that don’t offer trading for real money they’re just transplanting ‘money’ into their world without much thought beyond the analogue to the real world often with hilarious consequences like runaway inflation. It basically says more about the overriding culture the games are made within than anything about market economies. I also find myself thinking like a rat in a maze towards markets as well. But I also remind myself that far more innovative thought is put towards hustling other rats in the maze than working out how to get out.

sgu999 3y ago

We are already in a post-scarcity world, we have been for decades. The problem is inequalities and the inefficiency of how we use the resources, it doesn't look like we'll change that soon, sadly. I'm more prone to think that in a "virtual" economy we'll still have miserable workers to empty the chamber-pots of the lucky ones who are plugged in the new world.

logicchains 3y ago
> We are already in a post-scarcity world, we have been for decades. It's only a post-scarcity world if you define scarcity by absence of enough resources to satisfy the bare-minimum required for existence. People don't want to live at the subsistence level, and we're not evenly remotely close to having enough resources to satisfy everybody's wants.
- sgu999 3y ago
  > People don't want to live at the subsistence level, and we're not evenly remotely close to having enough resources to satisfy everybody's wants. What people want is defined by society. Somehow some people want to be alone in a 2 tons EV, a 200 sqm mansion for a family of 4 and retire at 40. Others are tremendously happy with a much, much less resources intensive lifestyles. You would also need to define what is part of the subsistence level. I'd put it roughly at what my grandma wanted: food, shelter, healthcare, some leisure time. A bit more than that is absolutely doable in a civilisation that went from one farmer to feed 1.3 people to one farmer to feed 60 people.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    >What people want is defined by society. Somehow some people want to be alone in a 2 tons EV, a 200 sqm mansion for a family of 4 and retire at 40. Others are tremendously happy with a much, much less resources intensive lifestyles. You just undermined your own assertion. If what people want was defined by society, then everybody would want the same things. But in fact as you stated they don't; some people want a lot, some people want little. There's no way you're going to stop people wanting nice things short of killing the 90% of the population that aren't ascetics, which you'll never be able to do (at least in the US) because that's also the part of the population that owns most of the guns.
    - sgu999 3y ago
      We don't have a fully globalised culture yet, what an average American wants isn't what an average Japanese wants. Of course even then, there are disparities and outliers, but we can't really overlook that if you "want" an SUV or an Apple Watch, that's quite likely going to be because the people around you find it valuable. I'd go even a bit further as to say that what is important is probably what people "need", not "want". Apparently we mostly "want" as much as we can have anyway, because that used to be helpful for not dying before being able to reproduce enough. > because that's also the part of the population that owns most of the guns That made me giggle
      - logicchains 3y ago
        >I'd go even a bit further as to say that what is important is probably what people "need", not "want". Which makes you a self-righteous prick, thinking you have the right to determine what other people should and shouldn't have.
        sgu999 3y ago
        Did I prescribe anything in that regard? What does it make you, to think that you are entitled to anything you want regardless of resources limits and collective good?
- troupo 3y ago
  > It's only a post-scarcity world if you define scarcity by absence of enough resources to satisfy the bare-minimum required for existence. We have enough food to feed the entire world, and enough clothes to cloth the entire world. It could be a good start

dotnet00 3y ago

What comes to mind is when the entire metaverse and NFT craze was at its peak, there were many unironic suggestions floating around that NFTs were an important aspect of the metaverse because they would substitute for exclusive ownership of digital goods in the way physical items have to be "exclusive" to a certain quantity and quality. The vision basically being that such limitations are a feature in a world where replication is supposed to be effectively free.

hgomersall 3y ago

Those virtual economies are typically designed to mimick the real economy. They're often even hampered in ways the real economy isn't due to a misunderstanding of how the real system functions.

meheleventyone 3y ago

The economies in Roblox and Second Life didn’t just appear they were built intentionally to make money out of the platforms. They are literally bringing our economy into those games on purpose. Same with other virtual worlds that don’t offer trading for real money they’re just transplanting ‘money’ into their world without much thought beyond the analogue to the real world often with hilarious consequences like runaway inflation. It basically says more about the overriding culture the games are made within than anything about market economies. I also find myself thinking like a rat in a maze towards markets as well. But I also remind myself that far more innovative thought is put towards hustling other rats in the maze than working out how to get out.