[Figlio di Moros]

Post-scarcity is not about giving everyone a lamgburghini, nor am I merely suggesting increased funding for sciences. The technicalities of MagLev trains aside, what exactly are you having a problem with?

[Fasces]

It is an exaggeration, but the Technate aims to fulfill man's wants, not merely needs.

[Rainbow Crow]

If you weren't serious about the lamborghini Fasces then I think you may have accidentally fed into my criticism. I dont believe we could ever satisfy everyone's wants.

As for my criticisms of a technate, if it's not what I said earlier and it's not what Fasces said either, I have no idea what it is supposed to be anymore now, so I can't really criticize it

[Fasces]

Yes, you can. A society of abundance is defined as fulfilling a man's wants. Liberal economists argue this is impossible - wants are infinite. This is a false preposition, which while useful for modeling concepts like utility or demand, does not work practically.

First, however, we must make something clear - the concept of ownership makes no sense in a Technate. Rather, consider goods to be distributed similar to a library: when you want a specific good, such as a car, you request it, have it either delivered to you or go to a distribution center where you "rent" it (at no cost), and use it until such a time that you no longer have need of it, at which point it is stored again in a distribution facility. Real world programs similar to this are Capital Bikeshare or ZipCar, which serve as a proof of concept.

Since one does not own, one cannot "possess" more than they are currently consuming. While desires may be unlimited, the physical capacity to consume is not. You cannot drive two cars at once. You cannot live in two houses at one time. You cannot eat more than a certain amount of steak in a single sitting. In this way, the physical ability to fulfill your desires is limited, even if the desires themselves are unlimited. A society of abundance aims to meet your ability to consume what you want whenever you want within those limitations, not your ability to want in abstract.

So a man may say "I want to drive a Lamborghini" and, theoretically, go out and do so immediately and without limitation. Though while he sleeps, or watches a film at an entertainment center, that vehicle is stored in the distribution center again, and others may in turn use that same vehicle, as he cannot use it while he is fulfilling other desires.

[Rainbow Crow]

Interesting stuff, though we are still pretty far from being able to "download" a car and then put the resources back later. So this would make a technocracy even more theoretical than I had thought it was. If the distribution center is a physical warehouse and not related to some kind of advanced 3d-printer then we are still looking at there being advantages of ownership.

I am hoping to buy a 3d printer myself, possibly within a year after I finish up some other projects. At this point though the use is not actually more cost efficient than just buying new things...

[Fasces]

You don't need to "download" it. Usage statistics from the previous "production period" (ex: the last year, or six months, etc) would help determine production for the next cycle, with a buffer. Shortages may remain theoretically possible, of course, especially in the early stages of implementation.

And what advantages of ownership? Are there any that could not be feasibly replicated?

[Rainbow Crow]

Well, if you have to travel to the factory or wait for delivery, and some items are in high demand and regularly in transit, owning it yourself would be advantageous because there would be no waiting period.

This is unless personal ownership of vanity items with a high production cost is outlawed.

It would probably be viewed as akin to the difference between a guy who owns a nice car and a guy who rents one. We all know which of the two women prefer and if weren't for women, we men would just wear the same five-year old clothes every day and drive nothing but old pick up trucks

So, if you'll forgive me for bringing women into this, I still have my doubts as to the physical and social potential of post-scarcity society.

[Fasces]

Well, if you have to travel to the factory or wait for delivery, and some items are in high demand and regularly in transit, owning it yourself would be advantageous because there would be no waiting period.

Powerful infrastructure, like MagNev lines , can be used to decrease the waiting period. In the Technocracy forum, they would argue that according to present calculations on North American capabilities, for all non-luxury goods, the waiting period could be as low as minutes. In turn, a slight waiting period would be a small price to pay compared to the costs of ownership - storage, security, and maintenance.

It would probably be viewed as akin to the difference between a guy who owns a nice car and a guy who rents one. We all know which of the two women prefer and if weren't for women, we men would just wear the same five-year old clothes every day and drive nothing but old pick up trucks

Would you be open to consider the possibility that when material goods are not a sufficient indicator of social status, the acquisition of them will lose their cultural, social, and sexual appeal? After all, what is that expensive car but a symbol of conspicuous consumption, and with it, status? If a woman cannot tell at a glance whether you own the luxury car or are renting it, would it be too much to say it may lose its sex appeal?

As an aside, there would not be private ownership of objects occurring in a Technate. There would be no "owners" of a Lamborghini at all, other than the distribution center/society.

[Rainbow Crow]

It may be possible that they could lose much of their appeal, though I don't think they could lose all appeal. And good one about the maglev lines, you got me there

Being a boring (or maybe just hardcore and cool) conservative, I would fear that post-scarcity would backfire. What if people just start to value access to a good plastic surgeon over intellect? Since I believe that earning power is the closest thing to an unbiased indicator of intelligence. Obviously it is far from perfect, but it is more accurate than man-made tests.

In my opinion we want to breed for intellect and the only way to do that is to make intellect as advantageous a trait as possible.

Looking at the welfare-dependent sub-cultures in many societies, a lot of them are frankly very good looking while also being very stupid, which makes me suspect that if you don't require intellect in order for there to be success, intellect will decline, and nothing says success like material acquisition. As such, there is nothing actually wrong with scarcity or private ownership.

[Fasces]

This is why I endorse the totalitarian fascist implementation, which will create the educational and social incentives necessary to prevent the demise of high society through the promotion of spiritual self-awareness in the population, though we are heading off the topic.

[Rainbow Crow]

Got a link to a post where you set that out? I would be interested in reading such a thing.

[Fasces]

Not really. I try to focus on applying the philosophy to the present day, not how to organize societies which do not exist yet.

As much as she may bother you, individuals like Rei may be better suited to that question.

[Rainbow Crow]

She could not answer it without combining it with feminism... probably by allowing only women to own objects or something...

[Figlio di Moros]

It would probably be viewed as akin to the difference between a guy who owns a nice car and a guy who rents one. We all know which of the two women prefer and if weren't for women, we men would just wear the same five-year old clothes every day and drive nothing but old pick up trucks

You can't be serious...

[youtube]CBQ01X-1AlI[/youtube]

Being a boring (or maybe just hardcore and cool) conservative, I would fear that post-scarcity would backfire. What if people just start to value access to a good plastic surgeon over intellect? Since I believe that earning power is the closest thing to an unbiased indicator of intelligence. Obviously it is far from perfect, but it is more accurate than man-made tests.

There's this thing people do, it's called getting to know someone. You can tell by talking to someone if they're smart or not.

There's also still more aspects to society. You're assuming people take the laziest approach to finding a mate; certainly, someone who's physically attractive will have an advantage, but fitness is a positive trait anyways. The means of establishing status will come from different means; your role in maintaining society, creativity, how intelligent and articulate you are. The 150 IQ financier making millions off of writing codes that hone in on StatArb today would be the 150 IQ engineer, scientist, etc. researching new technologies and distribution methods. Hell, for that matter an astronaut will be no less impressive or intelligent in a post-scarcity society.

[Rainbow Crow]

I think you are being naive. Why would anyone need an engineer or a scientist in a post-scarcity society if there is nothing that we want for? Why would anyone care about what they are doing? Just out of the goodness of their hearts?

You are basically assuming that a desire for advancement and improvement will exist where the need for advancement and improvement has been eliminated. It strikes me as very naive.

[Figlio di Moros]

I think you are being naive. Why would anyone need an engineer or a scientist in a post-scarcity society if there is nothing that we want for? Why would anyone care about what they are doing? Just out of the goodness of their hearts?

90% of all fire companies are volunteer; mine requires me to pay five dollars a year. If we're capable of providing emergency services almost completely on the good nature of men, then it's naive to assume people would not become a scientist or engineer out of the need to hold up their society.

Of course, there are other reasons as well. Remember, my point that the super-smart money making machine would instead be a super-smart technical innovator was in response to your concern that mate selection would overlook intelligence. The people holding the world together will always be desirable mates, and an ingrained preference for those engineers and scientists who improve and maintain the system will be one more factor encouraging those engineers and scientists.

Finally, you have personal iniative. Studies actually show that personal initiative is a better motivator than money; this is why you have scientists today, despite the fact they could have a shorter, easier schooling period and more money if they became stock brokers instead. It's also why you have software-sharing communities online who spend hours upon hours writing code for new programs that they let others use for free.

So, those inclined and able to do the work already have a motivation to do it, which ends up reinforced by social status and recognition. The high school quarterback doesn't need a dime to play, but he has a love of the game and it doesn't hurt with the cheerleaders either.

[Rainbow Crow]

The stock brokers are getting the more attractive mates than the scientists right now, though. If things continue as is, almost everyone might become a stock broker!

[Figlio di Moros]

If things continue as is...

[DeadPresidents]

I think investors could try this on a private scale, using things such as cellphones, clothes, and shoes...run it as a nonprofit, get a tax break and only accept donations.

[Igor Antunov]

Figlio I love what you've written, can't find anything glaringly out of place in the context of your vision. However you do seem to stop abruptly, and there we diverge I suspect.

For one, a fully automated, authoritarian post-scarcity society would inevitably lead to a total monopoly of power by the machinery over the population it provides for. Even a single individual could hijack the mechanisms of production and effectively become overlord. This could be construed as a major flaw, and indeed if unplanned and left to chance, it would be. The invidual or mutated piece of AI taking the reigns could prove hostile and highly destructive to the society at large.

So I propose an amendment to your vision, from the start, this society of yours should be prepared and in the end geared for not just being provided for, but by becoming the machinery itself. Left separate humanity would become so dependent and needy for the technology at play it might as well be absorbed by the very tools it created, lest it be destroyed once the ever more wakeful tools realise they are serving an inferior and relatively incapable intelligence.

So this trascendent nation you speak of, is to me, at the very least a cyborg society, heavily embedded into the technology that drives it, so that neither is destroyed or comes in conflict with the other.

But the universe is a big place, I suppose biologicals and machines/cyborgs could learn to co-exist, but the struggle over choice planetary bodies would be firce, and we would once again end up at conflict with our own creations-ironically...over resources.

Hehe, the sci-fi novel I'm writing deals with these problems and the kind of society you describe.