Post scarcity motivations

[Dan Jones]

However, last year he had almost the whole summer off without money worries, and what did he do with it? Eff all.

Maybe he was just "resting". Did he go and visit Uncle Monty during that summer?

 

[Locrian]

Thanks for all the responses, I'm finding it interesting to read them all. A common thing people are saying is some people would be motivated to spend a lot of time working on their fitness, creative pursuits, science, etc and some would do very little with themselves. How do you see these people interacting or viewing each other? I could see which one you gravitated towards coming down to your upbringing instead of being deprived of any opportunities. Could you see it almost becoming a class system? Rather than the have and have nots, being the do and do nots?

 

[Stable]

@Biskit There's always people who want to game whatever system is in place. I think the bigger question is how do you control (limit) the acquisitiveness of people who want more, more, more all the time until, as you say, the system collapses. And if you do control it then is the system still post-scarcity?

BTW, I don't want people to think I'm ragging on welfare recipients. Being on welfare is often a horrible experience and most people who use it need that safety net. I'm more interested in those areas as models for what happens when generations of people can't get a job.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Could you see it almost becoming a class system? Rather than the have and have nots, being the do and do nots?

Personally I don't think so. The people 'doing eff all' aren't really doing nothing. They might not be attaining whatever we (or they even!) deemed worthy but they must be filling up their time with something. Sure it might be all epicurean in nature and what's wrong with that.

Because it's really all subjective. I have a great deal of respect for someone who has worked all his life trying to solve the Riemann hypothesis, even if they don't manage it. But others may look at this and go 'what a total waste of time, what a loser! Why bother.'

So does this post-scarcity society reward those that do 'worthy' things (and what could this reward be?) or is sitting on a couch all day munching Doritos and watching classic movies just as likely to give you as much standing in society as finding a non-trivial zero off the critical line and destroying hundreds of years of mathematical assumptions?

I suppose to try and answer this I'd try and think what, in this post scarcity society, will actually remain scarce? Society would then organise itself around that and no doubt there will be winners and losers. (Off the top of my head, attraction and the romantic ideal of the 'perfect partner' seem pretty hardwired into us. Will we still be slaves to our biological imperatives and organise around that, and how 'faddy' can they be?)

 

[Venusian Broon]

Maybe he was just "resting". Did he go and visit Uncle Monty during that summer?

I bet he had to have some booze. Nay, demanded it.

 

[Biskit]

And if you do control it then is the system still post-scarcity?

I don't think any such system will work without some sort of control. Unless you have truly infinite resources, there is going to be at least one limiting factor, and realistically many more than one. The best you can have in a supposed post-scarcity environment is that there is enough of everything for everyone, provided no-one takes too much. Since people (both individually and en-mass) seemed to be generally incapable of self-restraint, someone or something is going to have to control the rationing.

 

[RX-79G]

nce people (both individually and en-mass) seemed to be generally incapable of self-restraint, someone or something is going to have to control the rationing.

What rationing? It's post scarcity. The limiting factor for individuals is going to be the lack of coercive power they have in a world where there are no courts to back them or officials to influence.

A common thing people are saying is some people would be motivated to spend a lot of time working on their fitness, creative pursuits, science, etc and some would do very little with themselves. How do you see these people interacting or viewing each other?

It is already like that. A lot of people spend work their 40 hours a week and spend the remaining 72 waking hours doing next to nothing, while other people pack their waking hours with activities and pursuits. Remove that 40 hours of work and you haven't necessarily created a new lifestyle or society for a lot of folks. You've just put them on holiday.

 

[Biskit]

What rationing? It's post scarcit

Unless you have an effectively infinite supply of everything, your post scarcity is only going to function if there is some sort of control/rationing.

 

[Nick B]

Automation Biskit. We've had the technology to automate most of our jobs for years.

 

[RX-79G]

Unless you have an effectively infinite supply of everything, your post scarcity is only going to function if there is some sort of control/rationing.

Then that really isn't "post scarcity".

One model for post scarcity would be the nanotech ultimate recycling program, where everyone would have the ability make most anything out of garbage or things they no longer need. Such a technology would certainly produce some hoarders (who don't get an infinite amount of storage), but most people won't keep stuff they aren't using when they can just turn it into something they would prefer instead. Individual artifacts will have very little intrinsic value to people.

It is little different than assuming that with an infinite supply of food everyone won't eat themselves to death.


Now, we could call a universal welfare system "post scarcity", but it really isn't one if everyone doesn't have the means or method to get whatever sort of junk makes them happy (that's really just collectivism or communism). If there is desire for stuff that can't be easily obtained, then that is "scarcity", and it comes with an economy. True post-scarcity is only really possible from a near infinite ability to reuse matter, not an infinite supply of matter.

The other post scarcity scenario would be if people become uninterested in stuff, and were able to live happily with no food, shelter or possessions due to some other very wild technological development.

 

[RX-79G]

Automation Biskit. We've had the technology to automate most of our jobs for years.

Automation doesn't lead to post scarcity unless the for-profit corporations creating the automation are knowingly performing suicide. Automation arises from cost cutting programs designed to yield profits from capitalism, and requires a huge infrastructure investment.

 

[Biskit]

Automation Biskit. We've had the technology to automate most of our jobs for years.

I'm not convinced about that. There are these handy self-service tills at the supermarket that generally need someone on hand to fix it when they go wrong. I had a conversation with my boss the last time I had a day-job - we were discussing the problem of recruiting/retaining staff where we wanted skilled/qualified people to do a relatively dull job because automation was not feasible. An lot of automation looks or sounds great, but only functions well in a very structured environment and even them needs some real people around to fix it when it goes wrong which in itself is a difficult thing to automate.

True post-scarcity is only really possible from a near infinite ability to reuse matter

Which is going to take energy, and probably a lot of it, and something likely to run short if everyone keeps re-making stuff. I find the idea of 'real' post scarcity somewhere in the region of impossible, but just to get it to the point of being able to suspend disbelief for story-telling, I need something that addresses the limitations of resources.

 

[tinkerdan]

Now this is why Star Trek had those dad-blasted replicators.

 

[Nick B]

Look up the venus project. Research WHY we live in a scarcity based economy. Look up who bought up the largest solar farm ever planned then scrapped it. Research how much arable land is left on the planet and why it isnt farmed. Look up planned obselescence.

We have the technology right now to create enough sustainable energy to scrap all fossil fuel use. We have enough food production capability right now to end starvation.

Scarcity is planned and executed in order to protect the status quo. The rich must stay rich, and the poor must stay poor. Why? Because the 1% can only be the 1% while the 99% stay poor. So they protect the status quo ferociously.

 

[RX-79G]

Which is going to take energy, and probably a lot of it, and something likely to run short if everyone keeps re-making stuff. I find the idea of 'real' post scarcity somewhere in the region of impossible, but just to get it to the point of being able to suspend disbelief for story-telling, I need something that addresses the limitations of resources.

Everything takes energy, but systems that process already refined materials will take less net energy than mining, factory farming, trucking, etc. Post scarcity people would be able to convert environmental energy sources, like solar, for no cost. There is a tremendous amount of ambient energy available on earth if you don't have the costs associated with production.

Germany is nearly in the polar circle, yet has produced up to 90% of its energy with renewables - on a capitalist economic model and standard energy grid. If they had electric storage the number would be higher.

Ambient energy sources don't necessarily put more energy into the environment, since it is just re-purposing what's already there. You actually run a risk of a net cooling effect over time.

 

[RX-79G]

We have the technology right now to create enough sustainable energy to scrap all fossil fuel use. We have enough food production capability right now to end starvation.

The problem is the "we" part. Humanity as a whole does, but the number of individuals that have control over technologies and production is actually a very tiny few, and they got that way by doing the opposite of what the Venus Project is about.

 

[Nick B]

Exactly.

 

[tinkerdan]

So this utopia free of scarcity would likely be a sham engineered by those few who have found a way to make everyone believe that everything they could possibly want is available to them and their entire life of carefree leisure is something that benefits those few.

Anyone who figures this out just quietly disa....

 

[RX-79G]

It isn't necessarily a utopia. It is just post scarcity. A utopia could have scarcity, but a social structure where it is accounted for.

 

[Biskit]

Post scarcity people would be able to convert environmental energy sources, like solar, for no cost.

To my physicist's brain, that sounds like trying to get something for nothing, which never ends well.

There is a tremendous amount of ambient energy available on earth if you don't have the costs associated with production.

There are always costs, no matter how hard you to try to hide them. Even if no humans are involved in producing the energy, something has to do it. Something has to build the machinery and maintain it, and all those layers of machines use energy which is the cost of production. Somewhere, something has to put work into producing the energy. If you do miraculously manage to harness large percentages of this ambient energy then you need to expect environmental impacts as the natural transport of energy and materials around the planet gets changed. There is no such thing as a free lunch, let alone a free energy system.