3 ms·
This article has the typical fallacy of any post-scarcity writing: ownership. It assumes that we reach a point where the cost of producing goods becomes close t
by karmakurtisaani 3y ago
This article has the typical fallacy of any post-scarcity writing: ownership. It assumes that we reach a point where the cost of producing goods becomes close to zero and we happily share it all.
Interesting premise for some philosophical musings, but terribly unrealistic. In fact, I think the first assumption is easier to achieve than the second.
- ggm 3y agoIf we don't earn money, how do we buy the goods the robots make abundant? What's the price when nobody has any money.. The whole point of money is lubrication under scarcity. If you don't have a job, you don't have money. No lubrication.
- tempestn 3y agoA small percentage of people control the vast majority of the money, and thereby control the output of the AIs. Everyone else most likely gets by on a UBI. If everything is truly abundant, they may well even have objectively better quality of life than the average person now, just no real ability to impact the world.
- CRConrad 3y ago> If everything is truly abundant, they may well even have objectively better quality of life than the average person now, just no real ability to impact the world. So no difference from current conditions, then, except the objectively better quality of life.
- RGamma 3y agoUBI is not inevitable. The capital class may well enjoy a world without the 99%.
- magpi3 3y agoPerhaps scarcity is the reason why humanity hates to share. But in a post-scarcity world, I imagine later generations used to that level of security (and with no memory of scarcity) might begin to think differently. I do agree that the first-generation that experiences post-scarcity won't change their habits a wit.
- karmakurtisaani 3y agoWell, we already have generations of ultra wealthy who essentially have lived post scarcity life. They don't seem so eager to share their wealth, quite the opposite even.
- CRConrad 3y ago> Well, we already have generations of ultra wealthy who essentially have lived post scarcity life. They live a post-scarcity life, but not everyone does -- or can (probably, still). Once everyone could, the greedy hoarder mentality they (and pretty much all of us) operate under right now might (hopefully?) come to be seen as pathological, not ideal.
- sungho_ 3y agoTheir wealth is scarce in that they can't share it endlessly. No one is ultra-wealthy enough to say, "I'm going to give $1 million to random people so that people don't have to suffer anymore. That's a critical difference.
- karmakurtisaani 3y agoIf it was in human nature to start sharing once you've hoarded enough, we would certainly start seeing it with our billionaire class. Instead, we're seeing the opposite. I think it's even been studied that the more wealth you have, the more selfish you become. Plus, of course the physical limitation that no one can ever be rich enough to share endlessly.
- sungho_ 3y ago