3 ms·

OK, that's one viewpoint on the world. And, to be clear, one viewpoint I mostly agree with in terms of society right-now-this-instant. I've normally dismissed

OK, that's one viewpoint on the world. And, to be clear, one viewpoint I mostly agree with in terms of society right-now-this-instant. I've normally dismissed the idea of post-scarcity economics as some unrealistic utopia. While there is an undeniable trend of a smaller and smaller percentage of the economy devoted to basic survival necessities, it was never clear to me that that number could get close to zero. But when I step back and take a clear headed look at it, I think maybe it could. We're not there now, and we won't be tomorrow, but we will be someday. I'm coming to believe in that conclusion. We could get there in a decade or so if we pulled out all the stops and chased it at damn-the-torpedoes speed. We'll likely be pretty close in a few decades no matter what we choose (barring self-destructive paths, always possible of course). So then, now that I'm coming to accept the outcome, I've started thinking about what will make it happen as quickly as possible. Why drag the transition out? It's going to be painful, but it's better to get the pain over with. The band-aid philosophy- rip it off all at once. What are the obstacles to the transition? How can they be mitigated or avoided? What can we, as engineers and entrepreneurs, do to make it happen faster and smoother? Even if you DON'T accept the inevitability of the post-scarcity economy, it's worth taking some time to pretend you do, imagine what that world is like, and how you would get there from here. Certainly more value than in just insisting that the system we have will live forever. Even a casual reading of history makes it clear that absolutely will not happen.

dreamdu5t 14y ago
A clear-headed look at the world would tell you that resources are very scarce. Just because we're very efficient at producing food compared to our ancestors doesn't mean things aren't scarce.
brc 14y ago
Well, I've spent a lot of time doing more than a casual reading of history, and I certainly don't subscribe to a 'post-scarcity' view of the world. The human desire for a better life is insatiable. By a better life - this doesn't necessarily mean bigger houses or shinier gadgets - though that is a feature of the current generation, and just about every one before that. By a better life, I mean more health, better education, and a longer and happier life for ourselves and our offspring. Even if, using the thought experiment, we can supply the basic needs of survival for the equivalent of the first ten minutes of our labour per day - most peeople are not going to choose to spend the rest of the day doing nothing. Taking food - already in most developed places excess calories are a problem rather than insufficient calories. But even then, when faced with more choice, many people choose to select organic or specialty foods, which require more of their available funds. Choosing an all-organic diet might take up 2 hours of your working day to purchase, but that's a choice many will make. Similarly, the ultimate human demand - a longer life with less health problems - will never decrease. So even if the provision of basic staples as a proportion of economic activity decreases, it will be offset by increases in unlimited demand for specialised healthcare. Specialised treatments are the ultimate consumable - like fine porcelain dinnerware, what was once available only to the wealth gradually becomes more affordable to more people. My understanding and interpretation of all the recorded human history I have read is that the desires for a better will never be sated. Going to a world in which there is no scarcity means arbitarily drawing a line under 'what is necessary' - any rational observer would say that line has long since passed in many societies - but people don't want to stop at that line. The only way to make that happen is to coerce people to stop at a level of particular of consumption, and that is something I want no part of.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  What you're really arguing there is that there will always be a level of scare resources. Sure, ok, probably true. Maybe not under some distant futures, but for the foreseeable future. But what I'm coming to accept is that a basic survival level of resources may not remain scarce much longer. That's going to have some fundamental impacts on society, and it's worth thinking through what they are. Later iterations will raise the level of what's no longer scarce. First it's survival, then it's comfort, then it's what today is luxury. Of course new levels of luxury will come along that will then be scarce and yet still in high demand. That's obvious. But that isn't all that relevant to the fundamental changes at the bottom of the scale. And those changes are both worth pursuing and likely. How can that be made to happen faster and easier?
  - kamaal 14y ago
    What you fail to notice is a term called law of diminishing utility. Which philosophically means the perceived gains/value/utility from anything over time tend to appear less and less. People get bored. There was thread a while back on Reddit, about discussing free ice creams and chocolates at Google. Thread bought out a very interesting aspect of human life, some people complained about quality of some chocolates in the fridge. So here you have a people who are getting free food, chocolates, ice creams, massage centers, toys and what not for free. And yet after some time they continue to have complains. People will always have something to complain about. Besides look at the communist set ups. They aimed to provide what you say. Yet all of it went in the drain. When you award things uniformly for non uniform efforts. The concept and specialty of distinction goes away. People don't feel compelled to try a little extra or go the extra mile because there are no special rewards for that.
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      I acknowledged people will always want something more. Although I would note Google still considers these perks worthwhile to free up folks to pursue useful work. And I'm not talking about giving everyone the same thing. I'm talking about basic survival needs being met at little to no cost and advancing from there. Nothing about uniform rewards, just a solid base from which to work.
ippisl 14y ago
>>What are the obstacles to the transition? How can they be mitigated or avoided? What can we, as engineers and entrepreneurs, do to make it happen faster and smoother? Few things i can think of are: 1.Focus on solving the problem of basic living as cheaply as possible, to enable moving to different system a political and practical reality and create some sort of stability for a world in transition. One idea: focus on solving problem for the poor and the third world. They are a good market for cheap products. 2.If we learn from the history of the of the industrial revolution, achieving a good change will be very politically dependent. We cannot assume blind "technological optimism". So one way is to think how do we create a political change. One idea: focus on technologies that automate lawyers out of a job. The lawyers will create political pressure. 3.I think that many engineers/entrepreneurs lack exposure to problems and knowledge needed to create the transition, so instead they're thinking on facebook apps. Ideas:Build a database of real problems and projects for engineers/entrepreneurs to work on,find some way to break big problems into small one, and share knowledge or built communities for this. 4.One big obstacle to the transition is existing power structures. Hacking regulatory barriers that prevent disruptive innovation seems a solution here.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  The political obstacles are large, since both pro and con sides involve a lot of near-religious thought. The reactions are almost reflex. Finding someway to short-circuit that would be key. 1,2, and 4 all depend on politics. 3 is relatively straight forward, but risks getting co-opted by politics. Tricky. Hmmm.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

dreamdu5t 14y ago

A clear-headed look at the world would tell you that resources are very scarce. Just because we're very efficient at producing food compared to our ancestors doesn't mean things aren't scarce.

brc 14y ago

Well, I've spent a lot of time doing more than a casual reading of history, and I certainly don't subscribe to a 'post-scarcity' view of the world. The human desire for a better life is insatiable. By a better life - this doesn't necessarily mean bigger houses or shinier gadgets - though that is a feature of the current generation, and just about every one before that. By a better life, I mean more health, better education, and a longer and happier life for ourselves and our offspring. Even if, using the thought experiment, we can supply the basic needs of survival for the equivalent of the first ten minutes of our labour per day - most peeople are not going to choose to spend the rest of the day doing nothing. Taking food - already in most developed places excess calories are a problem rather than insufficient calories. But even then, when faced with more choice, many people choose to select organic or specialty foods, which require more of their available funds. Choosing an all-organic diet might take up 2 hours of your working day to purchase, but that's a choice many will make. Similarly, the ultimate human demand - a longer life with less health problems - will never decrease. So even if the provision of basic staples as a proportion of economic activity decreases, it will be offset by increases in unlimited demand for specialised healthcare. Specialised treatments are the ultimate consumable - like fine porcelain dinnerware, what was once available only to the wealth gradually becomes more affordable to more people. My understanding and interpretation of all the recorded human history I have read is that the desires for a better will never be sated. Going to a world in which there is no scarcity means arbitarily drawing a line under 'what is necessary' - any rational observer would say that line has long since passed in many societies - but people don't want to stop at that line. The only way to make that happen is to coerce people to stop at a level of particular of consumption, and that is something I want no part of.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
What you're really arguing there is that there will always be a level of scare resources. Sure, ok, probably true. Maybe not under some distant futures, but for the foreseeable future. But what I'm coming to accept is that a basic survival level of resources may not remain scarce much longer. That's going to have some fundamental impacts on society, and it's worth thinking through what they are. Later iterations will raise the level of what's no longer scarce. First it's survival, then it's comfort, then it's what today is luxury. Of course new levels of luxury will come along that will then be scarce and yet still in high demand. That's obvious. But that isn't all that relevant to the fundamental changes at the bottom of the scale. And those changes are both worth pursuing and likely. How can that be made to happen faster and easier?
- kamaal 14y ago
  What you fail to notice is a term called law of diminishing utility. Which philosophically means the perceived gains/value/utility from anything over time tend to appear less and less. People get bored. There was thread a while back on Reddit, about discussing free ice creams and chocolates at Google. Thread bought out a very interesting aspect of human life, some people complained about quality of some chocolates in the fridge. So here you have a people who are getting free food, chocolates, ice creams, massage centers, toys and what not for free. And yet after some time they continue to have complains. People will always have something to complain about. Besides look at the communist set ups. They aimed to provide what you say. Yet all of it went in the drain. When you award things uniformly for non uniform efforts. The concept and specialty of distinction goes away. People don't feel compelled to try a little extra or go the extra mile because there are no special rewards for that.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    I acknowledged people will always want something more. Although I would note Google still considers these perks worthwhile to free up folks to pursue useful work. And I'm not talking about giving everyone the same thing. I'm talking about basic survival needs being met at little to no cost and advancing from there. Nothing about uniform rewards, just a solid base from which to work.

ippisl 14y ago

>>What are the obstacles to the transition? How can they be mitigated or avoided? What can we, as engineers and entrepreneurs, do to make it happen faster and smoother? Few things i can think of are: 1.Focus on solving the problem of basic living as cheaply as possible, to enable moving to different system a political and practical reality and create some sort of stability for a world in transition. One idea: focus on solving problem for the poor and the third world. They are a good market for cheap products. 2.If we learn from the history of the of the industrial revolution, achieving a good change will be very politically dependent. We cannot assume blind "technological optimism". So one way is to think how do we create a political change. One idea: focus on technologies that automate lawyers out of a job. The lawyers will create political pressure. 3.I think that many engineers/entrepreneurs lack exposure to problems and knowledge needed to create the transition, so instead they're thinking on facebook apps. Ideas:Build a database of real problems and projects for engineers/entrepreneurs to work on,find some way to break big problems into small one, and share knowledge or built communities for this. 4.One big obstacle to the transition is existing power structures. Hacking regulatory barriers that prevent disruptive innovation seems a solution here.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
The political obstacles are large, since both pro and con sides involve a lot of near-religious thought. The reactions are almost reflex. Finding someway to short-circuit that would be key. 1,2, and 4 all depend on politics. 3 is relatively straight forward, but risks getting co-opted by politics. Tricky. Hmmm.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]