Matt_mcl’s Crazy Pinko Idea led me to thinking about this subject from a different angle. In that thread, the topic was about the ethics of requiring people to support a system wherein basic human needs were met for everyone. It’s understood that these needs cost something in terms of labor and production, and the question was whether or not it is fair to spread this cost around to all people.
But what if there were no cost? Suppose that technology advances to the point where robots and computers were able to produce and deliver the most basic needs of people: simple food (soylent green? lentils and cabbages?), some type of shelter, a cure-all medicine. Further, the technology would be self-sustaining, and require only the most minimal human supervision. Individuals would be free to strive for more, of course; you could grow your own strawberries if you wanted, and trade whatever you produce to get what you value. You could still get rich, but no one would be poor. (the theme of Matt’s thread.)
I am sure this is a common theme in science fiction, and several people in various threads have mentioned specific stories about societies in which the people’s needs are met. I haven’t read any of these; do they use the scenario I’ve described, or do people still have to do the work?
What kind of predictions would you make about this future? I can come up with several scenarios, but am unable to say that any of them strike me as the most likely. For example:
Having been freed of the need to work to stay alive, people would turn to other areas, and there would be a renaissance of art, music, literature, etc. With more human resources, science would advance, perhaps even finally reach the stars. All human problems couldn’t be eliminated, but at least there would be a greater effort made and a greater possibility of solving them.
The definition of “need” would just keep expanding, requiring either increased automation or reverting back to the taking of people’s labor for the good of society. An entitlement mentality would become normal. Once food and shelter are expected, it is a small step to beleive “better” food and shelter should be expected. At some point, what the people claim as needs would surpass the ability to fulfill them.
Without need, the human race would simply whither away. There would be no point in creating anything, or procreating. This seems unlikely, as it’s hard to believe that human curiosity and creativity are based solely on need. But maybe they are. I don’t know a lot about animals, but I recall reading that many animals kept in zoos, who have their needs met without having to work for them, eventually stop mating. They unconsciously (or consciously) give up. Someone else might know more about this.
Without need, the human race would expand to its breaking point. For all kinds of reasons, many people will have children, and once the responsibility of providing for them is removed, the birth rate might increase to the point where even automated and human production combined cannot meet their needs, resulting in either great suffering, or imposition of strict population control. Sterilization on the one end, or age limit on the other.
I vote for number 2. After all, it wasn’t all that long ago that the notion that the disadvantaged would “need” fast Internet access would have seemed silly. Now it’s being politicized as being a basic right.
(I’m not taking a position on the rightness/wrongness of the above, at least not in this thread. I’m just using it as an example of the expansion of what we tend to think of as human needs. I could have just as easily brought up color television or personal computers.)
Without the compulsion of need, the rich would have no servants or sycophants. There would be no leverage by which the elite could assert dominance over the masses. Economics is only secondarily a method for efficient distribution of resources; it is primarly a method for “keeping score”: To divide the world into dominants and submissives, and give the dominants a means of exploiting the submissives.
Most books on nanotechology (including “Nano:The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology” by Ed Regis, the one I read), have discussions of this situation, and the ethical implications for the human race. Eric Drexler, one of nanotechnology’s main proponents, seems to think that humanity’s collective will for advancement would not shrivel up and die. Instead, these machines would give us all more time to think Great Thoughts. Of course, they probably said that about the microwave, too.
Maslow characterized human need’s into a pyramid, with physiological needs at the bottom, and self actualization at the top. Presumably, your world would eliminate both the bottom two tiers, physiological needs and safety needs. What that leaves is Love, Affection, and Belonging; Esteem; and Self-Actualization still there for people to strive after.
As models go, I tend to agree with Maslow’s. I think we would still create challenges for ourselves and strive to overcome them. That, you understand, is not saying that 80% of the people wouldn’t spend their time sitting in front of the TV munching Cheesy Poofs
The answer has to be number 2 unless you provide ANYTHING ANYONE could want. While everybody might be guaranteed a tasty treat of Soylent Green people would still want a nice steak and salad. Therefore your problem remains.
If you provide truly everything a person could want then the answer would be number 1.
Speaking of Sci-Fi stories that cover this The Naked God by Peter Hamilton addresses this to some extent. POSSIBLE SPOILER–If you are reading the Reality Dysfunction series you may not want to read this. The series is pretty good if you like Sci-Fi…The Naked God is the last book in the series (5 books).
In The Naked God there is a race of beings who have advanced quite far technologically speaking. Via matter transmitters and huge robotic factories each member could pretty much have anything they wanted. As a result the society was free to think deep thoughts that would ultimately prepare them for the next phase of existence.
It sounds weird when I describe it but it’s not nearly as cheesy in the book. Anyway, you can believe that if any creature comfort you could ever hope for was yours for the asking then life would be good (and so would society).
Thanks for your replies, all. I am unfamiliar with Maslow, and will have to look into this. As for nanotech, I don’t know too much about it other than what it is, but the potential there was one of the things that led me to think of this thread. That is, I didn’t think it was a pointless exercise, as the necessary technology might be possible in the future even if it isn’t now.
SingleDad, I’m not sure those who would assert dominance over the masses wouldn’t find some other way to do so, in the absence of need. People will still keep score even if everyone is given a few points just for playing.
