3 ms·

> That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. Hence resource allocation. If there were no physical limit, there would be nothing in need

by 9rx 7mo ago

> That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. Hence resource allocation. If there were no physical limit, there would be nothing in need of allocation. Allocation is intrinsically bound to scarcity. > If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it. Hence resource allocation. If there were an infinite number of apples, there would be nothing in need of allocation. Allocation is intrinsically bound to scarcity. > There is a large social element involved There is only the human social element involved. There isn't a magical deity in the sky waving a magic wand or a group of space aliens from Xylos IV deciding who gets what. Resources are allocated only by how people, and people alone, decide they want to allocate them. You being unable to afford something isn't some fundamental property of the universe. It is simply something people made up at random and decided to run with it. People could, in theory, change their mind on a whim such that suddenly you could become able to afford something. > The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources Now you're finally starting to get on-topic. So given that you see humans as being beyond terrible at allocating resources, why do you think, if they were relieved of having to handle resource allocation, that they would suddenly become not terrible at everything else in order to see all of those other problems magically disappear, per the contextual parent comment? Not going to happen. The harsh reality is that creating problems is human nature.

roenxi 7mo ago
That is quite hard to marry up with > Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. though. If there are n people who want things and (n-1) things, then someone being unable to afford something isn't some pretend state. There is certainly an element of social construct in that the word we use is "afford", if we all agreed to use a different word that'd be possible. But the thing/people ratio being below one is not a social construct; and whatever you want to call it and whatever allocation scheme you want to use there will still be people who can't have one. Someone can't afford the thing. > You being unable to afford something isn't some fundamental property of the universe. In many cases it is. Eg, topically, how much economically extractable oil is available on earth is actually a fundamental property of the universe. Ditto most energy emasures like watts of solar energy or power from nuclear decay. > So given that you see humans as being beyond terrible at allocating resources, why do you think, if they were relieved of having to handle resource allocation, that they would suddenly become not terrible at everything else in order to see all of those other problems magically disappear, per the contextual parent comment? Well I suppose I don't. Although I'll admit the question is too convoluted for me to be sure of that.
- ryandrake 7mo ago
  Energy is definitely a better example than food. There is enough food produced to feed the entirety of humanity, probably several times over, but the social and political problem of who the food gets distributed to is the limiting factor, so hunger exists. Same is true for homes. There are enough homes to house everyone, yet homelessness exists. I'd argue we are already post-scarcity for many things, but distribution is socio-political and therefore deliberately uneven.
  - 9rx 7mo ago
    > Energy is definitely a better example than food. All of these examples are irrelevant. Resource allocation happens because of scarcity, not alongside it. > There is enough food produced to feed the entirety of humanity, probably several times over, but the social and political problem of who the food gets distributed to is the limiting factor, so hunger exists. We theoretically produce enough calories to feed the entirety of humanity, but we do not come anywhere close to producing enough nutrients to feed the entirety of humanity. Calories are not sufficient to stave off hunger. One must also meet their nutrient needs to become "full". This is one of the reasons for why we see obesity: People continue to eat even after their caloric needs are met as nutrient deficiencies sees them continue to want to eat more to satisfy what is lacking. However, even calories are only theoretically sufficient when you ignore the inefficiencies in the food supply system. Even if the social order was perfection, we don't have the technology or know-how to avoid those inefficiencies. It is, for now, a necessary part of the food supply chain.
  - roenxi 7mo ago
    > Energy is definitely a better example than food. They're the same thing. The point of food is to provide energy and the constraint limiting food availability is energy.
- 9rx 7mo ago
  > how much economically extractable oil is available on earth is actually a fundamental property of the universe. Affordability requires something to exist. Once all the oil is used up it won't be affordability that prevents you from obtaining some. As oil still exists, your ability to afford it is entirely a social construct. There isn't some fundamental property of the universe that prevents you from having that oil. The only thing standing in your way from not getting the oil you want to have is what people believe. Again, resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Scarcity is the reason for that construct. Allocation is not a thing where there is no scarcity.

by 9rx 7mo ago

roenxi 7mo ago

That is quite hard to marry up with > Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. though. If there are n people who want things and (n-1) things, then someone being unable to afford something isn't some pretend state. There is certainly an element of social construct in that the word we use is "afford", if we all agreed to use a different word that'd be possible. But the thing/people ratio being below one is not a social construct; and whatever you want to call it and whatever allocation scheme you want to use there will still be people who can't have one. Someone can't afford the thing. > You being unable to afford something isn't some fundamental property of the universe. In many cases it is. Eg, topically, how much economically extractable oil is available on earth is actually a fundamental property of the universe. Ditto most energy emasures like watts of solar energy or power from nuclear decay. > So given that you see humans as being beyond terrible at allocating resources, why do you think, if they were relieved of having to handle resource allocation, that they would suddenly become not terrible at everything else in order to see all of those other problems magically disappear, per the contextual parent comment? Well I suppose I don't. Although I'll admit the question is too convoluted for me to be sure of that.

ryandrake 7mo ago
Energy is definitely a better example than food. There is enough food produced to feed the entirety of humanity, probably several times over, but the social and political problem of who the food gets distributed to is the limiting factor, so hunger exists. Same is true for homes. There are enough homes to house everyone, yet homelessness exists. I'd argue we are already post-scarcity for many things, but distribution is socio-political and therefore deliberately uneven.
- 9rx 7mo ago
  > Energy is definitely a better example than food. All of these examples are irrelevant. Resource allocation happens because of scarcity, not alongside it. > There is enough food produced to feed the entirety of humanity, probably several times over, but the social and political problem of who the food gets distributed to is the limiting factor, so hunger exists. We theoretically produce enough calories to feed the entirety of humanity, but we do not come anywhere close to producing enough nutrients to feed the entirety of humanity. Calories are not sufficient to stave off hunger. One must also meet their nutrient needs to become "full". This is one of the reasons for why we see obesity: People continue to eat even after their caloric needs are met as nutrient deficiencies sees them continue to want to eat more to satisfy what is lacking. However, even calories are only theoretically sufficient when you ignore the inefficiencies in the food supply system. Even if the social order was perfection, we don't have the technology or know-how to avoid those inefficiencies. It is, for now, a necessary part of the food supply chain.
- roenxi 7mo ago
  > Energy is definitely a better example than food. They're the same thing. The point of food is to provide energy and the constraint limiting food availability is energy.
9rx 7mo ago
> how much economically extractable oil is available on earth is actually a fundamental property of the universe. Affordability requires something to exist. Once all the oil is used up it won't be affordability that prevents you from obtaining some. As oil still exists, your ability to afford it is entirely a social construct. There isn't some fundamental property of the universe that prevents you from having that oil. The only thing standing in your way from not getting the oil you want to have is what people believe. Again, resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Scarcity is the reason for that construct. Allocation is not a thing where there is no scarcity.