Post scarcity is kind of an odd man out here. The idea predates tech broism by a solid half century, and informs a lot of contemporary leftist theory. There is nothing inherently wrong with using utopian thinking as a guiding principle for iterative policy. I’d argue that anything which doesn’t do that is cynicism.
It occurs to me that I’d argue we’re heading towards a forced scarcity society rather than post scarcity. That’s the only way they can make sure we don’t get a Star Trek type future if/when we figure out fusion power. Hell, we’ve already basically been able to feed everyone for ages.
We aren’t heading towards that. We’re already in a forced scarcity society, and have been for at least 25, if not 30 years. That’s why all these “economic bubbles” keep happening. The ultra rich worldwide have hoarded $350,000,000,000,000 at the expense of the other 8,000,000,000 people. Maybe 5000 people have more than $50,000,000 in personal wealth. Not only do they have nothing to spend it on, they keep throwing trillions of dollars into the latest dumpster fire of an “investment,” so they don’t have to pay $0.01 to anyone that isn’t them.
If we killed the obstructions to progress and innovation, who are nothing but leeches, then we may have to kill 5000 people, but everyone in the world would be able to have a $400,000 stake in The Sovereign Fund for Humanity’s Poor, paying out an average of $20,000 a year per person while reinvesting 95% of the ROI. When you’re dealing with 100’s of Trillions of dollars, I have no idea what ROI % you could reasonably maintain, but 13.5% would mean that everyone on earth doubles their fund, and therefore their yearly payout every 7.8 years.
It would take around 500 years to finally give the richest people in the world their trust fund, but that’s far faster than our ancestors thought that utopia and UBI could happen, and none of them could have more than $50,000,000 in personal wealth. The poorest get their funds first so that the economy can grow quickly enough to hit an economic singularity.
Artificial scarcity is definitely nothing new. Look at the diamond industry, for example. Diamonds are common as hell, but they regulate the supply so severely in order to sell these cheap chunks of carbon for thousands of dollars.
If there’s no competition in a market willing to race others to the bottom in terms of price, there’s no incentive to actually produce a reasonable amount of something people want. You can just withold supply and charge way more.
Or just the fact that grocery stores throw away thousands of tons of perfectly edible food every day while there are people dying of malnutrition. They aren’t starving, they are being starved.
tbh i’m happy whenever someone at least acknowledges the tension between these two facets.
anyway my actual point, imo the “too many humans” propaganda is part of the forced scarcity lobby. there’s perhaps too many humans to live as wastefully as we are, so why wouldn’t reducing waste be our #1-3 top priorities?
but waste is more ‘profitable’ (in short term), so we go all in - while pretending Us Living & Others Not-Living is a moral obligation on our part wtflol
There is also nothing inherently wrong with “optimization” and “automation”. It’s just that they are buzzwords and how the tech bros approach these topics.
While post scarcity is excellent and I do believe it is possible in theory, it’s used as a buzzword to handwave away all the dystopian things being pushed.
Post scarcity is kind of an odd man out here. The idea predates tech broism by a solid half century, and informs a lot of contemporary leftist theory. There is nothing inherently wrong with using utopian thinking as a guiding principle for iterative policy. I’d argue that anything which doesn’t do that is cynicism.
It occurs to me that I’d argue we’re heading towards a forced scarcity society rather than post scarcity. That’s the only way they can make sure we don’t get a Star Trek type future if/when we figure out fusion power. Hell, we’ve already basically been able to feed everyone for ages.
We aren’t heading towards that. We’re already in a forced scarcity society, and have been for at least 25, if not 30 years. That’s why all these “economic bubbles” keep happening. The ultra rich worldwide have hoarded $350,000,000,000,000 at the expense of the other 8,000,000,000 people. Maybe 5000 people have more than $50,000,000 in personal wealth. Not only do they have nothing to spend it on, they keep throwing trillions of dollars into the latest dumpster fire of an “investment,” so they don’t have to pay $0.01 to anyone that isn’t them.
If we killed the obstructions to progress and innovation, who are nothing but leeches, then we may have to kill 5000 people, but everyone in the world would be able to have a $400,000 stake in The Sovereign Fund for Humanity’s Poor, paying out an average of $20,000 a year per person while reinvesting 95% of the ROI. When you’re dealing with 100’s of Trillions of dollars, I have no idea what ROI % you could reasonably maintain, but 13.5% would mean that everyone on earth doubles their fund, and therefore their yearly payout every 7.8 years.
It would take around 500 years to finally give the richest people in the world their trust fund, but that’s far faster than our ancestors thought that utopia and UBI could happen, and none of them could have more than $50,000,000 in personal wealth. The poorest get their funds first so that the economy can grow quickly enough to hit an economic singularity.
Artificial scarcity is definitely nothing new. Look at the diamond industry, for example. Diamonds are common as hell, but they regulate the supply so severely in order to sell these cheap chunks of carbon for thousands of dollars.
If there’s no competition in a market willing to race others to the bottom in terms of price, there’s no incentive to actually produce a reasonable amount of something people want. You can just withold supply and charge way more.
Or just the fact that grocery stores throw away thousands of tons of perfectly edible food every day while there are people dying of malnutrition. They aren’t starving, they are being starved.
So we need cultured post-scarcity, the lab-grown stuff
tbh i’m happy whenever someone at least acknowledges the tension between these two facets.
anyway my actual point, imo the “too many humans” propaganda is part of the forced scarcity lobby. there’s perhaps too many humans to live as wastefully as we are, so why wouldn’t reducing waste be our #1-3 top priorities?
but waste is more ‘profitable’ (in short term), so we go all in - while pretending Us Living & Others Not-Living is a moral obligation on our part wtflol
There is also nothing inherently wrong with “optimization” and “automation”. It’s just that they are buzzwords and how the tech bros approach these topics.
While post scarcity is excellent and I do believe it is possible in theory, it’s used as a buzzword to handwave away all the dystopian things being pushed.
Humans have created all scarcity, because we think money is more important than human happiness.
Or at least we go along with that system and cant change it.