3 ms·

If we dealt rationally and benevolently with it, 100% unemployment would be an age of abundance... almost a post-scarcity society. I do not expect to see it soo

by api 12y ago

If we dealt rationally and benevolently with it, 100% unemployment would be an age of abundance... almost a post-scarcity society. I do not expect to see it soon, but I think it's possible. If technology continues to advance at the same pace it has for the past 50 years and if we can engineer our way out from under the impending fossil fuel energy crunch, I'd say it's probable within the century. Even before things get as extreme as effectively "100% unemployment," I could certainly see a massive drop in the need for labor. We may already be seeing the leading edge of this. It wouldn't mean nobody would do any work, but it would mean that basically everyone would be a trust fund brat and able to work on whatever they want. Truly intelligent beings would do that. But so far we aren't known for being that intelligent. We will probably continue with means-justifies-the-end market fundamentalism, maybe with a bit of ham-fisted wealth redistribution done in an unfair and inefficient way thrown in to keep the masses from rioting too much.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
Indeed. Our real problem is that of coordination, and that there is no easy path from here to there - if we keep just following the market's lead hoping it will magically solve everything, we're not going to get to that age of abundance.
- api 12y ago
  Like I said in another thread: free marketers have adopted the Marxist notion of historical inevitability and automatic progress. I don't think it works that way. We get the future we construct. If we just trust the means to produce the ends, we will just get some random future selected for us by impersonal and amoral evolutionary and economic forces that don't give a damn about our well being.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  I think there is a (relatively) easy path from here to there. Let's presume that we want to create a Star Trek post-scarcity future. One theory I like for Star Trek economics is that they've got an extremely high basic income, the equivalent of $10M/year or so. Energy costs about the same (~10c/kwh), and is the limiting factor in replicator economics. Some stuff is really expensive, like land and human labour. Replicator-made material goods are incredibly cheap, unless you need an huge amount -- you couldn't afford to buy a copy of the Enterprise. Obviously you don't need to work, and most don't. A few are VR addicted, but most are just dilettantes, they spend their time doing hobbies, art and travel, much like the able bodied retired population in the western world. A large minority get "real" jobs, but mainly for purpose and prestige. And some do it to get rich -- they want to buy a planet or a starship or something. The nice thing about this theory is that the path is quite clear: start with a very small (possibly inadequate) basic income, and increase it regularly as circumstances permit.
  - api 12y ago
    That's the only cogent explanation of how the Trek universe's economy might actually function I've ever heard. So huge goods (e.g. Starship) would be pricey, but everything else except labor feels "free." Definitely describes how that society seems to operate, and I could imagine it working if you had replicators, matter antimatter power generation, and other kinds of mega-technology.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      I always thought it's the agreed-upon explanation ;). I.e. Star Trek's post-scarcity society is enabled mostly thanks to the replicator technology. So food, clothing and basic construction materials are essentially free and unlimited. People do whatever they want - most civilians just go and live and further their passions; some do work for others (e.g. Sisko's dad and his restaurant), but they do this because they want to, not because they have to. Many join Starfleet, which basically offers people grand goals and adventure, and enforces structure and obedience based solely on non-monetary incentives. Things like starships are pricey partially because they're huge (and thus reaching the limit of civilization's energy output) and partially because some things apparently just can't be replicated with their-era replicator technology.

by api 12y ago

TeMPOraL 12y ago

Indeed. Our real problem is that of coordination, and that there is no easy path from here to there - if we keep just following the market's lead hoping it will magically solve everything, we're not going to get to that age of abundance.

api 12y ago
Like I said in another thread: free marketers have adopted the Marxist notion of historical inevitability and automatic progress. I don't think it works that way. We get the future we construct. If we just trust the means to produce the ends, we will just get some random future selected for us by impersonal and amoral evolutionary and economic forces that don't give a damn about our well being.
bryanlarsen 12y ago
I think there is a (relatively) easy path from here to there. Let's presume that we want to create a Star Trek post-scarcity future. One theory I like for Star Trek economics is that they've got an extremely high basic income, the equivalent of $10M/year or so. Energy costs about the same (~10c/kwh), and is the limiting factor in replicator economics. Some stuff is really expensive, like land and human labour. Replicator-made material goods are incredibly cheap, unless you need an huge amount -- you couldn't afford to buy a copy of the Enterprise. Obviously you don't need to work, and most don't. A few are VR addicted, but most are just dilettantes, they spend their time doing hobbies, art and travel, much like the able bodied retired population in the western world. A large minority get "real" jobs, but mainly for purpose and prestige. And some do it to get rich -- they want to buy a planet or a starship or something. The nice thing about this theory is that the path is quite clear: start with a very small (possibly inadequate) basic income, and increase it regularly as circumstances permit.
- api 12y ago
  That's the only cogent explanation of how the Trek universe's economy might actually function I've ever heard. So huge goods (e.g. Starship) would be pricey, but everything else except labor feels "free." Definitely describes how that society seems to operate, and I could imagine it working if you had replicators, matter antimatter power generation, and other kinds of mega-technology.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    I always thought it's the agreed-upon explanation ;). I.e. Star Trek's post-scarcity society is enabled mostly thanks to the replicator technology. So food, clothing and basic construction materials are essentially free and unlimited. People do whatever they want - most civilians just go and live and further their passions; some do work for others (e.g. Sisko's dad and his restaurant), but they do this because they want to, not because they have to. Many join Starfleet, which basically offers people grand goals and adventure, and enforces structure and obedience based solely on non-monetary incentives. Things like starships are pricey partially because they're huge (and thus reaching the limit of civilization's energy output) and partially because some things apparently just can't be replicated with their-era replicator technology.