
"Scarcity" is good and we're stuck with it anyway. If nothing manufactured is scarce, then weapons aren't scarce.If we don't need each other, we start killing each other. If for some reason humans don't need each other and each other's cooperation, then the only relationship left is the antagonistic one.Scarcity is good because it induces us to cooperate.
(1) + (2) + (3) = we will always have a scarcity economy using money. Scarcity is best managed non-violently on the large scale with money in some form. We will invent scarcity if it doesn't exist naturally. objects that can't be manufactured, services of human beings. Some desired or needed objects and services will always be scarce i.e. This went long so let me put conclusions at the top with details at the bottom so you don't have to waste your time if I didn't come close to answering the question.Ī "post-scarcity" economy is impossible because: Perhaps the stack exchange model would be king (people gain reputation based on how others perceive their contribution). The individuals may be driven by the potential for acclaim rather than monetary compensation. A hobbyist writes a screenplay which another hobbyist decides to direct. That could explain how movies get made for instance. Some of that people may be willing to do as hobbies. computer programming, engineering design, scientific theorizing, and writing. It's unclear if there are some things that simply can't be automated, e.g. We'd need automated garbage pickup, food production, manufacture, utility maintenance, etc. To have a true post-scarcity society, we'd have to get rid of scarcity of labor as well. The garbage man picks up garbage in exchange for food. Ninety percent of everyone is in farming. People have to fetch their own food and assemble meals from scratch. Then it needs to be transported again to the grocery store.Īssume that we can drop the conversion into food and transport. tomatoes being turned into spaghetti sauce). After harvest, a crop needs to be transported to be made into food (e.g. Someone has to plant, weed, fertilize, remove pests, and harvest a crop. Why would anyone take the trouble to grow crops, process them into food, and transport them to market? Trash is relatively easy. Wouldn't there be a high level of pollution from this?Įven ignoring pollution, look at it from the other side. So rather than one garbage truck collecting trash for a hundred people, we have fifty people each collecting their own trash. The problem with this of course is pollution. Instead of having a garbage truck drive around and pick up trash, perhaps everyone has to take their trash to the dump. Perhaps what happens is each person is responsible for their own garbage. Assume energy and raw materials are not scarce. In your garbage example, I'm not clear on why there isn't automated pickup. Are raw materials scarce? Energy? Skills? I suppose you have to go through what is and is not scarce. Assume society still generated garbage and didn't have automated pickup how would you convince your standard human to pick up other people's garbage.
I guess a specific example would be a garbage man. But are their other options since nobody really wants for anything in such a society? Sorry if this is poorly asked. Now I happened upon this link in my quest to find a similar societal structure, where it suggests that people who don't want to do anything won't and vice versa, but then how do you motivate anyone to do something that isn't particularly glamorous? In our society it's money, in communism it's things, in fascism it is the military state. Not particularly what I am looking to demonstrate. But those simply state that a world without scarcity is doomed to fail.
The shift exchange cracked#
This sort of society was addressed humorously in a Cracked After Hours video, but was also touched on in The Matrix (originally the matrix was free of scarcity) and the experiments of John B. Basically a dystopian future based on minimal, if any, resource scarcity. I have a basic idea for a world that I am fleshing out.