3 ms·

I like the exercise and the thoughts developed, but all of it is based on the fact that a post-scarcity state is happening. This is very XIXth century like : "s

I like the exercise and the thoughts developed, but all of it is based on the fact that a post-scarcity state is happening. This is very XIXth century like : "science will abolish work !". A proof of post-scarcity happening presented is the amount of obesity in US. Let just pretend obesity is just a problem of having too much food, and not at all a problem of bad nutrition or genetics. The fact still remains that while there are a lot of obesity in usa, there still have a lot of hunger in other parts of the world. Could not it be just a repartition problem rather than abundance ? There's an other sign that could lead to think we're indeed not at the edge of post-scarcity. Currently, many previously called poor countries are getting wealthier. What do we observe in previously called rich countries ? Economical crisis hitting harder and harder. That may not be a coincidence.

001sky 13y ago
Scarcity is rooted in social rank, it is a (by) product of psychology, and politics, not strictly speaking economics. Someone has to have the corner office, date the homecoming queen, and be the ranking executive. This is true outside of markets...just look at...firms. That's the unfortunate dead-end of this type of thought experiment. Although, I otherwise applaud its focus on interesting phenomenon. Because in many ways the ~premise is likely true: we can feed, cloth and shelter the world with only a small subset of working primates doing the "work". What we can't do...is give everyone the best house in the neighborhood, the choicest cuts of meats, and the most attractive partners. But that latter bit of ~scarcity is true...logically. Empirically it is an observation independent of the the proposed explanatory variable (economic system X^). Its not the x^, but the physics of life that creates scarcity. At least when sociological factors are considered.[1] Edit: [1] See, for example, the notion of 'hedonic adaptation'. Evidence of this also exists as ~shadow 'fairness' principles, in non-human primates, and also observable in domesticated canines.
- tomp 13y ago
  > What we can't do...is give everyone the best house in the neighborhood I think that we can, because land is plentiful, and construction can soon be automated. True, not everyone will be able to live in city centres, but given that most people come to the cities only for work, if there is no need to work, many would probably prefer to live in villages and close to nature.
  - chii 13y ago
    the guy whose house is next to a beautiful lake, or a nice beach will look the best compared with everyone else. It's true that there will be someone who's gotten the best.

001sky 13y ago

Scarcity is rooted in social rank, it is a (by) product of psychology, and politics, not strictly speaking economics. Someone has to have the corner office, date the homecoming queen, and be the ranking executive. This is true outside of markets...just look at...firms. That's the unfortunate dead-end of this type of thought experiment. Although, I otherwise applaud its focus on interesting phenomenon. Because in many ways the ~premise is likely true: we can feed, cloth and shelter the world with only a small subset of working primates doing the "work". What we can't do...is give everyone the best house in the neighborhood, the choicest cuts of meats, and the most attractive partners. But that latter bit of ~scarcity is true...logically. Empirically it is an observation independent of the the proposed explanatory variable (economic system X^). Its not the x^, but the physics of life that creates scarcity. At least when sociological factors are considered.[1] Edit: [1] See, for example, the notion of 'hedonic adaptation'. Evidence of this also exists as ~shadow 'fairness' principles, in non-human primates, and also observable in domesticated canines.

tomp 13y ago
> What we can't do...is give everyone the best house in the neighborhood I think that we can, because land is plentiful, and construction can soon be automated. True, not everyone will be able to live in city centres, but given that most people come to the cities only for work, if there is no need to work, many would probably prefer to live in villages and close to nature.
- chii 13y ago
  the guy whose house is next to a beautiful lake, or a nice beach will look the best compared with everyone else. It's true that there will be someone who's gotten the best.