3 ms·

>No evolutionary reason, that is. So, no reason that would stick a couple of generations down. >The best hope would be to band together with others of similar

>No evolutionary reason, that is. So, no reason that would stick a couple of generations down. >The best hope would be to band together with others of similar circumstances and burn it all down. They are trying, last seen on 7 Oct 2023. I'd say long odds. >It's in everyone's best interest for this not to happen. Which leads me to wonder if there is some optimal equilibrium between advantage and disadvantage. It's indeed undesirable that the evolutionary black hole is in your own group, therefore various safety nets. That's still just the lower bound, removing the higher bound is Harrison-Bergeron-style societal suicide. >And interesting corollary is that society has basically trumped evolution. There are so many competing contradictory forces that only the most basic changes have a hope of surviving. It's just the first time that we know of when the fittest don't want to breed. There's plenty of arguments out there to the effect that it sucks. >In hindsight I somewhat disagree with this. Nearly all post-scarcity fictions depict societies in which all are given equal opportunity to realize their personal ambitions. Status and additional allocation of societal-level resources then depends on the outcomes. So for some definition of opportunity I think it is theoretically possible to afford everyone equal opportunity. If the parents' success have no bearing on the children the best strategy is to push out as many kids as you can. Something of commons, can't put my finger on it.

orbisvicis 3y ago
> If the parents' success have no bearing on the children the best strategy is to push out as many kids as you can. Hmm that's an interesting thought. You think that a post-scarcity society is impossible because the evolutionary urge to further one's genes will always outstrip the capacity to produce resources. That there can never be any equilibrium? Very Malthusian. Hopefully we can apply lessons from this article - that subtle social nudges can have outsized and hopefully beneficial effects.
- jojobas 3y ago
  Where is that post-scarcity society you're talking about? The whole demographic catastrophe unfolding in the West is to do with how hard and expensive it is to raise even 1-2 kids to have good chances at life, and people largely choosing scarce commodities over having kids. There are no lessons in this article other than that made-up preferences lead to silly outcomes.
  - drewdevault 3y ago
    Artificially scarce commodities, as any basic inquiry into social economics would illustrate. Naturally no one wants to have kids when they can't afford a home and need two jobs just to feed themselves and pay off their student debt.
    - jojobas 3y ago
      Artificially my 50-hectar beachfront mansion ass. Electronics and factory farm tomatoes are cheap, and near nobody lacks food or a phone. Good teachers, black caviar, decent real estate away from poor people (lol) are inherently scarce. As for social economics enquiries, they always seem to require people to give up fruits of their labour for no compensation. As much as I like free stuff, I very much find this undersirable.
      - drewdevault 3y ago
        >Electronics and factory farm tomatoes are cheap, and near nobody lacks food or a phone. The price of tomatoes has inflated at a rate of about 3.55% per year, up a total of 1,049% since 1953. In that same period, minimum wage rose from $0.75 to $7.25. In 1953, an hour's work would have bought you one tomato with a bit left over, today an hour's work leaves you short. Tomatoes have not become cheaper. Source: https://www.in2013dollars.com/Tomatoes/price-inflation https://www.in2013dollars.com/Tomatoes/price-inflation
        jojobas 3y ago
        The 50s were an anomaly (as was the Great Depression).
        drewdevault 3y ago
        No they weren't? Look at the graph in my source. In any case, sure, start in 1965; tomatoes cost $0.85 and minimum wage was $1.25, so your purchasing power was even better by comparison to today.

orbisvicis 3y ago

> If the parents' success have no bearing on the children the best strategy is to push out as many kids as you can. Hmm that's an interesting thought. You think that a post-scarcity society is impossible because the evolutionary urge to further one's genes will always outstrip the capacity to produce resources. That there can never be any equilibrium? Very Malthusian. Hopefully we can apply lessons from this article - that subtle social nudges can have outsized and hopefully beneficial effects.

jojobas 3y ago
Where is that post-scarcity society you're talking about? The whole demographic catastrophe unfolding in the West is to do with how hard and expensive it is to raise even 1-2 kids to have good chances at life, and people largely choosing scarce commodities over having kids. There are no lessons in this article other than that made-up preferences lead to silly outcomes.
- drewdevault 3y ago
  Artificially scarce commodities, as any basic inquiry into social economics would illustrate. Naturally no one wants to have kids when they can't afford a home and need two jobs just to feed themselves and pay off their student debt.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    Artificially my 50-hectar beachfront mansion ass. Electronics and factory farm tomatoes are cheap, and near nobody lacks food or a phone. Good teachers, black caviar, decent real estate away from poor people (lol) are inherently scarce. As for social economics enquiries, they always seem to require people to give up fruits of their labour for no compensation. As much as I like free stuff, I very much find this undersirable.
    - drewdevault 3y ago
      >Electronics and factory farm tomatoes are cheap, and near nobody lacks food or a phone. The price of tomatoes has inflated at a rate of about 3.55% per year, up a total of 1,049% since 1953. In that same period, minimum wage rose from $0.75 to $7.25. In 1953, an hour's work would have bought you one tomato with a bit left over, today an hour's work leaves you short. Tomatoes have not become cheaper. Source: https://www.in2013dollars.com/Tomatoes/price-inflation https://www.in2013dollars.com/Tomatoes/price-inflation
      - jojobas 3y ago
        The 50s were an anomaly (as was the Great Depression).
        drewdevault 3y ago
        No they weren't? Look at the graph in my source. In any case, sure, start in 1965; tomatoes cost $0.85 and minimum wage was $1.25, so your purchasing power was even better by comparison to today.