Will you, your children, or your grandchildren live to see a post-scarcity economy?

First, here’s a quick link to the wikipedia article on post-scarcity. (Encyclopedia name left uncapitalized in childish gesture of contempt.)

Second, let me exclude digital resources from the discussion. I’m interested in talking about physical resources. Water. Fuel. Food.

Third, though the childless obviously have no children to live in a PS world, they should feel free to vote anyway, thinking of the descendants of their peers rather than their own.

Fourth, I’m not going to apologize for writing childless rather than childfree.

Okay, housekeeping’s done. Do any of y’all think that you will live to see a post-scarcity economy on a national scale? A global scale? If yes, why? If not, how many generations do you think such a thing will take to be established?

Post-scarcity is an even dumber idea than Marxist communism and that is saying a lot. It ignores so many aspects of reality that it doesn’t even warrant serious debate in my opinion. A debate on a much more simple topic (relatively speaking) highlights why. We have plenty of resources to produce more than enough food to feed everyone in the world today yet there are still millions of people starving or suffering from malnutrition. Why?

It won’t ever happen even if someone invented the magic replicators just because of human nature and that is just one issue of many.

I think it’s possible to achieve but, as Shagnasty points out, it requires more than just technology for it to occur. Even if we essentially happened upon virtually free and unlimited energy and other sorts of fantastic technology like replicators, we will still need a fundamental shift in the system for it to happen. Our current economy essentially works on the idea that people will be looking out for themselves and produce something of value to get things they want and need. In such an economy, even if we can produce things nearly free, we’ll still have some jobs that need to be done by people, like maintenance, leadership, research, etc. and we’ll need enough people willing to work those jobs without an ultimate goal of self interest. Of course, we can hope that in the same way that some people will be poor now to pursue a particular dream, not burdened by a need to feed and clothe themselves forcing them to work a job they hate, we can hope these jobs that are still necessary will somehow still get done, but I’m not so sure enough people would be interested in getting the training and education it would take to, say, work on maintaining a harvesting machine.

And there’s going to be a transition period no matter what, and that will be the most difficult part. Right now money is what our economy runs on and in such a theoretical economy, money is essentially worthless, but where is the transition? Someone is going to have to foot the initial bill to put in infrastructure. Until all the jobs are automated, who puts in the work to get that done and why? As we automate more and more jobs, money will still have some worth and people will need it, but we’ll have fewer and fewer jobs for people to do and so less ways for people to get that money that need during that transition. That is, in essence, we’ll be raising the minimum living standards, but in so doing, we’ll make the lower class larger and larger. Until we get to a point where that group is sufficiently large and those standards are sufficiently good, there will be enormous growing pains in that transition.

And even if we could make all the necessary discoveries were made today, people in positions of power, particularly the wealthy or those in charge of resources or industries that would be threatened by such a shift, will likely have quite a bit of say in trying to prevent it. Those people really have nothing to gain from moving to such an economy since they more or less already have unlimited access to whatever they want, but they’ll likely have to give up some amount of their living standard and most or all of their status to accomplish it. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose, and yet they’re the people we would most need on board to make it happen. Barring a situation where we have a plethora of altruistic billionaires and corporations willing to do it, I’m not sure how we accomplish it short of force, which sort of defeats the whole purpose.

Still, I think it’s something that can be achieved at some point in our future if we don’t self-annihilate first, but considering that the necessary technology is not only well off but not actively being researched and the necessary changes insociety to make it work would probably take many times longer… I think any estimate short of a few centuries is awfully optimistic.

I think in a sense, it will happen, but it will largely be virtual. As Augmented Realited and Virtual Technology continues to improve, and direct interfacing with the human brain becomes possible, people will be happy living in virtual worlds and interacting in virtual ways that will be in effect post-scarcity. As technology improves, the quality of life will continue to improve for most people, and hopefully political systems will continue to evolve globally that allow for people everywhere to have access to necessities and health care, etc. There will never be a 100% post-scarcity based economy, but I think that there will be a day similar to Star Trek: TNG where money doesn’t have much meaning anymore, and people won’t have jobs just to make ends meet.

It’s more likely the human race will go extinct than achieve a “post-scarcity” economy.

According to Star Trek, it should be some time in the 23rd Century.

While we may someday, in the extreme future, achieve a near-post-scarcity economy with respect to goods, I’m not sure how we could ever do such a thing with regards to services or inevitably scarce possessions. By “inevitably scarce”, I mean something like works of fine art that cannot be truly reproduced (Picasso only painted so many paintings, for instance, and no collector will ever accept a copy, no matter how perfect, as being equal to the original) and real estate (Manhattan is only so big, and even with extremely tall buildings with extremely deep basements, the island can support only so many New Yorkers). While goods may eventually be so inexpensive that charging for them is trivial, and more and more services will be replaced by automated machines*, there are some things that are intrinsically scarce, are valuable primarily because of their scarcity instead of their intrinsic value, and would retain their value in a post scarcity society. I think, though, that a post-scarcity society may be possible for those who want to opt out of the rat race for intrinsically scarce resources that are not materially necessary to human life within the next millennium if the human race stabilizes the Earth’s population below ten billion or so. However, we would have to break our very basic societal equivalence between the accumulation of possessions and the accumulation of cultural status for that to actually happen.
*Prostitution, I think, may be the only service truly imperfectible by technology. While some sort of automated substitute might be objectively better, I think that the value that humans place on sex and the stigma associated with masturbation being inferior to the “real thing” might lead the prostitution being the last, maybe the only, service still economically viable in a post-scarcity economy.

A mirage.

There really should have been an additional option, between “it will take many, many generations but is inevitable” and the option of total utter fantasy – one that said “it would take centuries if it were possible and is by no means certain to happen”. As it stands I’d have to vote for it being fantasy just out of objection to the next choice involving “inevitability”.

I voted “Yes, I will” on the assumption I’ll live a “normal” span of at least another 30 years or so.

And the “fine art isn’t reproducible” objection is silly, as that isn’t what “post-scarcity economy” is about. Ditto the “not everyone can live on the beach” objection.

Because them as has the power to feed aren’t the ones that are hungry, nor do they care for them much.

What makes you believe this? Please be specific.

It’ll happen eventually, but not until we either fundamentally solve the energy problem or experience a massive population crash. The nanoassemblers or whatever are the easy part.

I voted 4-10 generations.

Empirically, it appears that there’s a qualitative difference once a person attains roughly a $40K - $70K income level where they don’t really care about absolute standard of living and care mostly about comparative standards of living. The 20th and 21st Century will hopefully be marked by the transition of a large proportion of the population into this layer which will be a situation we’ve yet to encounter.

On a more pragmatic level, I currently live in a community of young, technology centric urbanites in San Francisco and I think you could plausibly label parts of this community as being post-scarcity. People here buy everything they need because the culture is that you don’t need much. I know people who’s net worths are in the 7 figures who still live with room mates because they’re comfortable with that lifestyle. There’s a lot of people here who work, not for the money, but because their work fills them with meaning.

But I think the one major ideological shift that needs to occur to move into a post-scarcity economy is an acceptance of death. Without this, healthcare costs are going to spiral until they consume all the excess wealth of society. However, I don’t see attitudes around this changing very quickly at all.

I think more like four generations than ten, perhaps as few as three. We’re about there now.

I agree. People aren’t wired in a way that would ever allow for such a thing to happen. Having everything someone could ever need doesn’t over-ride greed in the individual on a person-by-person basis, let alone society as a whole.

Human beings are intrinsically hierarchical. If you made everyone on Earth “rich” by one set of standards, then humans would simply improvise a new set of standards.

Current state of fabrication technology, projected forward with 30 years of continuous improvement, coupled with current state of renewable energy technology, projected forward with 30 years of continued improvement.

Within 20 years we’ll have 3d-printers that can print electronics, including motors and screens. When that happens, ten years should be all it takes for that to trickle down to a cost-effective machine that can clone itself and print almost any other machine. That includes currently expensive solar and wind power tech. That will make a huge difference in the 3rd world.

At the same time, I’m confident we’ll have better biofuel tech as well, probably based around better bacterial cracking. But biofuels are only the start of the sort of things you can do with that level of bio-culture. Fermentation vats can provide the raw feedstock for other fabrication processes, like textured proteins and the like. Mycoprotein production could be scaled down, too, to something where the components can be manufactured by anyone

All that assumes no nanotech robots or anything like that, just continuous improvement of existing technologies.

Neither of those are an argument against post-scarcity. The existence of greed or development of new standards of wealth are not a factor - all that post-scarcity means is a freedom from real wants. Hunger, no medicine, no education. Not Ferraris and Da Vincis.

Sure, but if the people at the bottom get enough to eat, a room to live in, all the education they can handle, health care and opportunities to improve their lives, it really won’t fucking matter if the rich have spaceships, personal nuclear arsenals and gold-plated sex droids to serve their every need.

On edit, I see I am merely reiterating Mr. Dibble’s point. Still, I like the gold plated sex droids.

If anything, I expect scarcity to get worse, not better, in the future. The US and Europe may be declining in population, but Asia is booming. China has over a billion people, and India will be there soon if it isn’t already there. It’s only a matter of time before they go to war with each other over resources.