I see that that one pretty closely parallels people’s thoughts in this thread. My views certainly haven’t changed much.
BTW, to those who say we won’t be able to fab meat or potatoes - in addition to mycoprotein, I give you: organ printing.
I’d like to chime in that this is not the case. We have one of those machines in my office, and it will make a convincing model that has nowhere near the properties of a real molded part.
Not as strong (for FDM-fabbed ABS, this is 65-80% strength of injection-molded, depending on stress direction), but as solid, which was my point. At least in the FDM plastics I’ve actually had a chance to see, which were not particles held together with polymer.
It’s my understanding the major drop in strength comes from the lack of grain structure in the FDM products.
There is already a community that works with (virtually) no form of money, and it is not a barter system either, it is a gift economy. We call it Burningman.
Granted this city of 50,000 only exists for 1 week a year, and is unsustainable in the current scarce-resource world, but it does have many of the things people here have mentioned, and it is done with no cash or other commodity expected in return.
We have:
- Volunteer policemen (we call them Rangers).
- Huge amounts of no-charge entertainment, dance performances, live bands, lots and lots o DJ’s , all in very creatively composed tents and other temporary structures– some of the best music I have ever heard was there (we call them Theme Camps).
- Probably the densest grouping of all kinds of multimedia art in any city in the world, all done for the pure enjoyment of creating it, and so it can be shared with other appreciators of art.
- Free transportation on “Art Cars” – elaborately decorated and highly altered vehicles that drive around and people jump on and off as they please.
- No commercial vendors, no street fair feel, and virtually every public place is open to all.
- Another ethic of this community is “Leave No Trace” – we make sure that our camping area, and the streets nearby, are cleaned before we leave. When we say lave no trace, I am talking about combing the ground for bits of costumes, popcorn kernels, etc. And then we take all of the trash home with us in our cars, to dispose of individually.
Now, there are a few exceptions to the ethic of decomodification. There are paid workers there cleaning out the porto poties daily, and you can pay them to drain your RV sewage. The event facilitates the sale of ice and coffee (with volunteer workers), but all profits from those activities go to local charities and schools.
There are real police there, but mostly to harass people for vice and as a way of taking money from the event and employing all of the part time rent-a-cops in Nevada for a week. Any actual crime (you know, with victims and all) are dealt with first by our rangers, but eventually passed off to the real police.
Obviously, we save and work all year to support our art and gifting projects, and spend a large percentage of our discretionary funds to do all of these things, but while at the event, scarcity of resources is not an issue in the way it is in the “default world”, as we call it. The rangers give their time, the art car people do not ask passengers to kick in for gas money, and my camp gave out 150 lbs of bacon last year, all for just a smile.
It is an interesting experiment in intentional community, decomodification, self reliance, sharing, and art, and has come up with some answers to the questions many of you have brought up in this thread.
As far as why people do what they do – well, a lot of it is for “respect”, feeding people is a good way for a somewhat shy me to meet lots of people, and make that first encounter very positive. Being the organizer of a project means you get to see your vision come to fruition. Another camp I have been in (“The Purple Turtle”) brought my 1500 sq ft tent out, DJ,s lights, and decorations – I have always wanted to run a disco, and now I have! (And 10 or 20 other people can say the same thing, and that is just my little group.) I have also now run a restaurant (Tacos del Gringo – a Mexican style food buffet - gift kitchen) – but all for fun, with no need to make compromises because of a profit motive. Those of us that are active do this for the sense of satisfaction that we have made these things happen. In a local mini version(5-600 people, I am the “city planner” – a volunteer bureaucrat, with a volunteer staff, and I get all kinds of positive energy from the group for doing this.
There is a lot more to the Burningman project’s alternate community, like we have established a minimum amount of bureaucracy that is needed with large groups of people, ways of deciding things based on consensus and do-ocracy (the guy actually doing stuff gets to decide how it turns out, people sitting around talking can go get him a beer, and then he may listen to their opinion), etc, but all of that is not relevant to this thread.
Dag
The creation of a sustainable post-scarcity society.
This article will attempt to explain how a Post Scarcity Society would function. A lot of this material is based on the research of [Technocracy, Inc](http://www.technocracy.org). As this topic is broad in scope I have attempted to make this article as concise as possible. Entire books could be written on this subject, and have been. For those interested in a more complete examination of Technocracy Inc.'s findings, they have a Study Course book which is freely available online.
Classical economics says that scarcity will always be a fact because human wants are infinite and resources are finite. However, there are actually definite limits as to how much a person can physically consume. If a person spends all day travelling, there is only so much fuel they can consume. If a person spends all day eating, only so much food they can consume. If they spend all day changing clothes, only so many outfits they could buy. If we look at these physical limits it then becomes theoretically possible to satisfy all these needs and desires. The only question that remains is whether or not the area in question has sufficient resources to meet these needs. If it is possible for a society to produce more than could be physically consumed, such a society is capable of becoming a post-scarcity society. Today it is obvious that we can produce more than can be physically consumed. Keep in mind: to be consumed. It is impossible to ever satisfy everyone's ownership wants, because these have no physical limits. This is true of both a post-scarcity system and a Price System. However, a Price System with its artificial scarcity can neither meet all people's ownership wants or fully satisfy their consumption wants. A post-scarcity system would at least be capable of achieving the latter.
One of the main projects of a Technocratic society would be the total elimination of urban sprawl and the construction of new living environments called Urbanates (living areas). Urbanates are first mentioned in the article "A Place To Live In" by the Technocrat Wilton Ivie. The article explains the basic concept of urbanates which is still sound today. However, a few of the specifics mentioned in that article could probably be changed knowing what we know today. Whenever a new technology comes out there is fascination with it. Skyscrapers were a relatively recent invention when that article (A Place To Live In) was published, so there were still a lot of people thinking about how we could use this new technology. There was no data available at the time showing that mid-rise buildings were more efficient than high-rises. Several urban planning studies have been done since the publishing of that article to confirm that mid-rise buildings would be more efficient than high-rises for the same size population. If we look at urbanate design today we would see that the tallest buildings in the urbanate would probably be 8 stories. 6-8 stories is about as efficient as you can get in terms of construction costs per square foot, as well as in terms of efficiency in heating and cooling. 6-8 story buildings provides us with the lowest per-unit cost for housing, and so it is this form which would be used. In addition we already have experience with building 6-8 story buildings out of pre-fabricated, modular components, which is a construction technique that Urbanates would use as well. An Urbanate is an assembly of buildings containing all the services and facilities required by a self-contained community, with a sufficient population to support those services, in a small enough geographic area that everything can be easily walked to. Urbanates would contain housing, shops, entertainment and recreation facilities, hospitals, schools, and park areas.
Urbanate area: 1/2 mile wide (160 acres)
Urbanate population: 20,000 people max.
The residential buildings are located on the edge and form the perimeter of the Urbanate. At the center of the Urbanate would be the public facilities such as schools, distribution centers (shops), hospitals, recreation areas, etc. Dividing this central "service area" from the residential area is a large park space. Outside the Urbanate would be factories and other industrial uses. Also outside the Urbanate would by anything to big to be located within the Urbanate, such as college campuses and airports. These would be located a safe distance away from Urbanates but still connected to them by mass transit and road. Surrounding the Urbanate would be vast open spaces, unpolluted by the urban sprawl of today. One would be free to go anywhere in this land and enjoy its natural beauty.
The sequence of housing would be charged with determining the most efficient way of housing the population. Only by using the most efficient strategy possible can we attain an abundance and be rid of the Price System. It must be understood that Suburbia with its reliance on automobiles is a direct product of the Price System and as such represents a type of artificial scarcity. A truly efficient design for housing the population would be bad business. If a system were proposed that could house the population with half of the cost of the present system, every business gang on the continent with a stake in housing would oppose it because they would lose half of their profit. All of the business gangs on the continent are in favor of more costly housing and more costly transportation. In the past, businesses talked about the "goal" of having the consumer spend at least 25% of their income on housing. Today it is normal for 50% of the average individual's income to be spent on housing. Another 20% of the average individual's income goes toward the car if he or she owns one. Together, we can say that the house and the car account for roughly 70% of the economy, since it is average individuals who do the bulk of the consuming by virtue of their sheer numbers.
Instead of efficiency we have planned waste, planned obsolescense, and unnecessary consumption by artificially tempted consumers. These inherent qualities of the Price System have resulted in Suburbia, which is probably the least efficient way possible to house people if you are trying to achieve an abundance, but the most efficient way to house people if you are trying to make money. People think fondly of suburbia because it is "what they grew up with." Usually, we cherish the familiar and are wary of change. If people understood that suburbia was a deliberate strategy to enforce artificial scarcity and prevent an abundance, they might be less inclined to think fondly of it. No grand conspiracy gave rise to this artificial scarcity; it is the natural product of the Price System. When confronted with multiple ways of performing a given function, a Price System will naturally select the least efficient (most expensive) way of performing that function that is still within the limits of social tolerance.
Two things conservatives get right:
- Conservation is bad for the economy.
- We need more growth to sustain the system.
The evolution of exchange/distribution systems:
Type of System: Social Condition: Means of Exchange:
-
Barter Scarcity Direct Trade
-
Price System Scarcity Money
-
Resource-Based Economy Post-Scarcity Energy Accounting*
*Energy Accounting could more accurately be called a distribution system, since nothing is technically being exchanged.Energy accounting would completely replace money in a post-scarcity economy. Energy accounting is a direct measurement of activity. If I dedicate 10% more energy to milk production for the next cycle, than 10% more milk is produced. If I dedicate 10% less energy to milk production, 10% less milk is produced. With such a system all items would be priced according to the energy used to make them. First it would be determined how much energy the society could use for a 2 year period, taking into account resource availability and environmental constraints. 2 years is chosen because the longest cycle of production and consumption involves the growing of sugar cane, but the exact length of time is a detail which would have to be worked out whenever such a system is established. After the available energy supply is determined, it is then determined how much energy would be needed to run the society - the schools, hospitals, transportation, etc. After this is subtracted from the total, the remainder is what gets distributed to the citizens as personal energy units to be consumed. Only consumable items would be priced in this way, everything else being calculated as part of the overhead for operating the society. At the end of a 2 year period, personal energy units would become void and new ones would be issued, so that consumption and production are kept in constant balance. Such a system would also be capable of tracking how much of a particular item was consumed, so that it would be capable of allocating enough energy to each process to keep production matched to consumption. If x units of energy were consumed by milk production than x units of energy are allocated to milk production.
Such a system only works if the society is capable of producing more than can be physically consumed by the population. Under such conditions, a person’s share of energy units would be more than they would be able to physically consume, making any differentiation in incomes pointless. All “unspent” energy units are simply added to the available energy total when calculating the energy supply for the next production cycle. With production kept in balance with consumption, there is never any shortage of anything or any waste of resources.
It should be noted that such a system would have to be self-sufficient in resources and also have enough resources to produce an abundance sustainably. This would encourage the recycling of almost everything, and the use of only the most efficient and durable designs. Obviously we cannot produce more than can be physically consumed if we are to continue running society as we are now, because our society is the direct result of a scarcity-based system and therefore is itself based on scarcity. Every aspect of our society is based around the need for scarcity and growth. This means that some drastic changes will be needed. We will need to use only the most efficient strategy possible to perform a given function if we are to achieve an abundance. Who will be responsible for designing this strategy? The method of choosing the people responsible for the overall operation of the social mechanism is a completely scientific method which is already in operation in many of the successful functional organizations in existence today.
Today, when one picks up the phone or flips on the light switch, it works (at least 99.99% of the time). This means obviously that the person responsible for making sure those things work is doing their job adequately. When they fail at their duties they are quickly replaced. That the phone service continues 24 hours a day without an interruption proves that whatever method they use for placing people in their jobs is working. So, what do we know about that method? It is based on selection from below and appointment from above.
It is easier to explain by providing an example. Let’s look at a 5 level system, with the lowest level being level 1. If a position becomes vacated, for whatever reason, in level 3, then those in level 2 would choose among themselves candidates for the position. Those in level 4 would then choose from this pool of candidates who to promote. People keep their positions until retirement or death. Anyone can be removed at any time from their position by a two-thirds majority vote of their peers. Since every citizen would be a member of this organization at some level, this would prevent someone from keeping their position if they were incompetent. At some point, some one will step in to do the job simply because they want the lights to stay on.
Every function of society would be organized into a particular “Functional Sequence”. There would be a sequence for housing, for transportation, for healthcare, for communications, for education, etc. Society would probably be divided into 70-100 such functions. The research being performed at all times would be available to a single organization, the Continental Research. Another special sequence, the Social Relations Unit, would take the place of the judiciary. The Armed Forces would be another special sequence. The Sequence of Foreign Relations would handle foreign affairs. The directors of each of the Functional Sequences as well as the special sequences would form the Continental Control Board, and they would choose who among themselves to be the Continental Director. The Continental Director would be the head of the entire social mechanism, and would remain in place until retirement, death, or removal by a 2/3rds majority vote by the Continental Control. His decisions can be vetoed by a 2/3rds vote by the Continental Control.
What would motivate people to work in such a society, if everyone is guaranteed an income larger than they can spend? Human behavior is a direct response to the environment. This is not utopian, this is scientific.
- self-actualization
- esteem
- love
- security
- physiological
In a Price System, security can never be guaranteed, because the Price System itself is never secure. Therefore in a Price System people’s energy is mostly directed towards attaining security and fulfilling physiological needs. Under such a system it is remarkable that people are ever able to direct their energies toward other ends, such as charity or art. In a Post-Scarcity System, security is as close to guaranteed as possible, which means that people’s energy would be directed towards other things: love, esteem, and self-actualization. This is obviously somewhat simplified but is basically what would occur. People act lazy and greedy in our present society because the Price System creates an environment which rewards and encourages those behaviors. If you change the environment, human behavior will change automatically. The generation born into such a society would have no difficulty adapting to the new situation. Human behavior adapts to the environment as automatically as water turns to ice given a sufficient decrease in temperature.
The work week in a North American post-scarcity society would probably be around 10 hours long, for half of the year. People would retire at age 45 with no loss of income. The calculations of Technocracy, Inc. from more than 70 years ago indicated that a 16 hour work week for four days a week for half of the year would have been sufficient. Given the increase in our productive abilities in the past 70 years it is safe to assume that we could have an even shorter work week today. In our present society we could probably produce everything we consume with less than 5% of the work currently being done, in terms of man-hours. Today, if a bridge went out and thousands of people were unable to get to work, our production would most likely be completely unaffected. This is because the vast majority of people in today's society are involved in some form of manipulation or paper pushing which does not directly contribute to production at all. The number of people required for such tasks would be greatly reduced in the type of society described by this article. The only reason we need so many non-productive workers today is to create jobs to sustain the Price System. The bridge example has been scientifically verified. There have been instances where bridges have gone out and thousands had to stay home, and yet our production was not affected at all.
Because such a society would be concerned with fulfilling people's consumption desires and not their ownership desires (the latter is impossible), the concept of ownership would be done away with altogether. The concept of ownership itself makes sense only within a social condition of scarcity, and ceases to make sense in a social condition of abundance. Replacing the concept of ownership would be the concept of personal property. Nothing would be privately owned, but anything you were currently using could only be used by you. This means no one else could use your house, your clothing, your computer, etc. You would not own a car yourself but would be able to drive any type of car for however long you wanted, and would also have access to many other types of transportation for as long as you wanted. In this way all of the transportation you could possibly consume would be yours, although you would not be able to own anything individually.
Urbanates have already been discussed as Technocracy's solution to the housing problem, but what are some of the other solutions to today's problems that have been proposed? Shipping would not be done by truck and highway. Instead, a network of canals would be built across the continent and connecting Urbanates. These canals would connect every river and lake on the continent and provide for direct water routes across the entire continent. These would be capable of providing water to desert areas but would primarily be utilized by large sail barges which would handle freight. Sail barges would use almost no energy, therefore the energy currently consumed by freight would be reduced to almost 0. The canal network could also be used by cruise liners. The network would also be capable of preventing or reducing flooding in other areas by allowing the water to drain into the canals and channeling it elsewhere. This network of canals would also be able to provide sufficient hydroelectric power for the entire continent.
Transportation within urbanates would be easily accomplished by walking, cycling, mass transit, and moving sidewalks. Connecting Urbanates would be a high-speed rail network capable of travel up to 300mph, and with a per-capita fuel efficiency of 500mpge (miles per gallon equivalent). Personal transportation (cars) would also be available, with highways built between urbanates and also to maximize scenic views. For faster travel, airplanes would also be available, but it is estimated that the demand for these would be far lower than today because of the availability of high-speed rail.
The energy supply would come mainly from the canal network which would connect all the rivers and lakes of North America, and would generate enough hydroelectric power for the entire continent. Our society would probably only need about 1/3rd of the energy it currently consumes if it were re-organized along the lines that have been described in this article. The social system described in this article would be capable of providing the highest possible standard of living to as many people as possible that is sustainable indefinitely. For misanthropes or primitivists, no one would be required to live in such a society. They would be free to go to another country or live in the wilderness.
A Price System makes sense when the primary energy source is human labor. If this is the case, those who work harder must be given more in order to get everyone to work hard. A decrease in human labor results in a decrease in productive capacity, so you need an incentive to get people to work. However, with technology a unique situation occurs that the Price System cannot handle. When a new machine or method is devised that increases our production ability, our ability to produce increases at the same time that our ability to consume decreases. This occurs because if a more efficient method or machine is devised, fewer people are necessarily required to perform a given task. This means that those people lose their jobs and their wages, although they are still willing and able to perform work. The primary way around this problem has been to extend the use of credit, with the promise that debts will be repaid at a greater rate than when they were borrowed. This drives the physical growth of the economy, and is also responsible for all the planned waste we see. Such a situation is also inherently unsustainable since it requires either the constant expansion of physical production or the constant improvement of technology. By “constant improvement of technology” it is meant that our investments in a given technology will continue to yield the same result over time. This is impossible because eventually a point of diminishing returns is reached, where we can continue throwing money at a technology but not get much improvement back. Another way around the problem of technological unemployment is to create more unnecessary tasks for people to perform so that more jobs can be made. This leads to huge, inefficient beauracracies and to the creation of pointless and unsatisfying jobs. Even the service industry, however, is not immune to technological unemployment. Already one sees self-checkout lines replacing cashiers at the grocery store, and online tech support replacing computer technicians. It is only a matter of time before business realizes that it is cheaper to automate the service jobs. It is always cheaper to have a machine perform a given task than a person if that task is routine.
A Price System requires growth even without the above problem of technological unemployment. If we look at the flow of money, there is an obstruction in the flow every time money is withheld as profit, savings, etc. If 100% of the money which passed from the producer to the consumer was returned to the producer, there would be no problems and industry could operate indefinitely. However, a fraction of the money is withheld at every stage of the flow from consumer to producer. This money gets stored in banks which then becomes available as a reserve for the banks to loan out. Because money is withheld, less money is returned to the producer than was expended by the producer in a given production cycle. This means that when the next production cycle comes around, production will necessarily be decreased and therefore wages, salaries, and the other money which is returned to the consumer will also be decreased by a corresponding amount. This process repeats itself until industry shuts down - a Depression. This problem can be temporarily remedied by investing the saved money into expanding production, which will then create new jobs. However, this is only a temporary fix because when the next production cycle comes around you now have to buy all that additional production. This leads to a situation where production must be expanded indefinitely, which is obviously unsustainable.
For the past couple centuries we have been able to sustain a modest rate of continual expansion, due to the availability of an entire untapped continent of resources. Today, we have tapped all those resources and we have no more room to expand. Because the Price System requires scarcity in order to function, it is incapable of distributing an abundance. Because the Price System requires growth, it can only continue to waste resources to needlessly expand production. Our productive capacity has grown beyond the point where a Price System is an adequate means of controlling production and distribution. All of the good intentions of liberals will not solve our social problems so long as we continue to use a Price System. The Price System must be discarded for a Post-Scarcity System if we are to have a society that is both sustainable and capable of providing an abundance.
End
Please note that the design proposals mentioned above such as urbanates are merely intended to be examples of the kind of solution that a Post Scarcity Society would use. The specific design aspects could only be determined after a transition is made to the type of administration structure described above. Only after the administration is in place can an ideal plan be developed.