6 ms·

I get what you are saying, but what about if we optimize not for equality but for happiness. Redistribution of value is a zero-sum game, while non-material valu

by vdaniuk 13y ago

I get what you are saying, but what about if we optimize not for equality but for happiness. Redistribution of value is a zero-sum game, while non-material value as happiness is not. I was thinking how equality movemen failed to produced social change in short time as world is extremely unbalanced. I think post-scarcity economy will bring new solutions and new social contracts.

Havoc 13y ago
>what about if we optimize not for equality but for happiness. Again, you make a valid point. Let me stop the debate right here though. We're venturing into philosophical territory here...the kind more suited to 5000 word essays than HN posts. One thing we can debate however: >post-scarcity economy I find this notion decidedly problematic. We've been optimizing the sht out of production for decades and yet the average family is battling to make ends meet more than ever. "post-scarcity economy"...I don't buy it...not even close.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  > I don't buy it...not even close. I get where you are coming from and I agree that the current track record doesn't allow for such predictions. However, I am linking the advent of post-scarcity to the widespread adoption of some transhumanism values. Maybe that'll work. Or we'll be consumed by grey goo. The future is too bright to see it clearly. On the somewhat unrelated note my favorite flavor of transhumanism is abolitionism that aims to remove suffering as much as possible.
  - Havoc 13y ago
    I suspect we're on the same (idealistic) philosophical wave length here, I just can't link my current (personal) projections of the future with what you describe. You speak of "remove suffering" whilst I speak of inequality increased a 100 fold. You are clearly a very reasonable person, but I don't see a "meeting of minds" happening here unless I misunderstood you dramatically - there is no overcoming that gap. A 100 fold increase in inequality destroys everything in its path.

by vdaniuk 13y ago

Havoc 13y ago

>what about if we optimize not for equality but for happiness. Again, you make a valid point. Let me stop the debate right here though. We're venturing into philosophical territory here...the kind more suited to 5000 word essays than HN posts. One thing we can debate however: >post-scarcity economy I find this notion decidedly problematic. We've been optimizing the sht out of production for decades and yet the average family is battling to make ends meet more than ever. "post-scarcity economy"...I don't buy it...not even close.

vdaniuk 13y ago
> I don't buy it...not even close. I get where you are coming from and I agree that the current track record doesn't allow for such predictions. However, I am linking the advent of post-scarcity to the widespread adoption of some transhumanism values. Maybe that'll work. Or we'll be consumed by grey goo. The future is too bright to see it clearly. On the somewhat unrelated note my favorite flavor of transhumanism is abolitionism that aims to remove suffering as much as possible.
- Havoc 13y ago
  I suspect we're on the same (idealistic) philosophical wave length here, I just can't link my current (personal) projections of the future with what you describe. You speak of "remove suffering" whilst I speak of inequality increased a 100 fold. You are clearly a very reasonable person, but I don't see a "meeting of minds" happening here unless I misunderstood you dramatically - there is no overcoming that gap. A 100 fold increase in inequality destroys everything in its path.