3 ms·

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

by roenxi 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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.
- roenxi 8mo ago
  > Affordability requires something to exist. Ok so jumping back to applies, say I have an apple and Mr A and Mr B want it. I'm going to give the apple to the person who pays me the most money. To keep it simple, this is the only apple. Maybe I've drawn a smiley face on it to make it an artwork, maybe there has been a breakout of Apple Plague, I dunno. How do you square that with this conception of affordability? Since only one apple exists, is the person who doesn't get the apple in a state where they can afford it even though they didn't have enough money to buy it? > The only thing standing in your way from not getting the oil you want to have is what people believe. I'm pretty sure it is physical limits. I can think of a lot of schemes for infinite oil it is were available. There'd be a lot of space travel involved.
  - 9rx 8mo ago
    > I'm going to give the apple to the person who pays me the most money. Right. Purely a social construct. You are enabled to make that choice because Mr A and Mr B also believe you should be able to make that choice. But what if they stop believing? Consider that Mr A and Mr B now believe the Mr B has the devine right to the last remaining apple. Do you think they are going to continue to respect that you want the most money for it? Of course not. They'll simply take it from you. > I'm pretty sure it is physical limits. Do you mean like if you attempted to take oil that isn't considered to be yours that an army will roll in and destroy you? That is quite likely, but the consideration of it not being yours and even the army itself are social constructs. That only plays out because the people believe in it. If, instead, people believed that the oil should be yours, you'd have no issue. Again, whether or not you can afford oil — or anything else — simply comes down to whether or not people believe you should have it. It is entirely a social construct.

by roenxi 8mo ago

ryandrake 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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.

roenxi 8mo ago
> Affordability requires something to exist. Ok so jumping back to applies, say I have an apple and Mr A and Mr B want it. I'm going to give the apple to the person who pays me the most money. To keep it simple, this is the only apple. Maybe I've drawn a smiley face on it to make it an artwork, maybe there has been a breakout of Apple Plague, I dunno. How do you square that with this conception of affordability? Since only one apple exists, is the person who doesn't get the apple in a state where they can afford it even though they didn't have enough money to buy it? > The only thing standing in your way from not getting the oil you want to have is what people believe. I'm pretty sure it is physical limits. I can think of a lot of schemes for infinite oil it is were available. There'd be a lot of space travel involved.
- 9rx 8mo ago
  > I'm going to give the apple to the person who pays me the most money. Right. Purely a social construct. You are enabled to make that choice because Mr A and Mr B also believe you should be able to make that choice. But what if they stop believing? Consider that Mr A and Mr B now believe the Mr B has the devine right to the last remaining apple. Do you think they are going to continue to respect that you want the most money for it? Of course not. They'll simply take it from you. > I'm pretty sure it is physical limits. Do you mean like if you attempted to take oil that isn't considered to be yours that an army will roll in and destroy you? That is quite likely, but the consideration of it not being yours and even the army itself are social constructs. That only plays out because the people believe in it. If, instead, people believed that the oil should be yours, you'd have no issue. Again, whether or not you can afford oil — or anything else — simply comes down to whether or not people believe you should have it. It is entirely a social construct.