Post scarcity conundrum - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The solving of mankind’s problems and abolition of government via technological solutions alone.

Moderator: Kolzene

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14273383
Whilst automation may allow us to provide for people’s needs with minimal labour or risk of scarcity I feel that desires may be less easily satisfied.

If food were free millions would switch from the cheap tasteless grease they currently consume in favour of steak, lobster and regional specialities such as Champagne and Kobe beef. Currently beef and steak is more expensive than other foods because cows require more food and water than other animals in order to produce 1kg of meat. Would technocrats be able to meet this demand? Would they ration sea food whilst fish stocks replenish?

Buildings and cars that are designed by machines (or people attempting to obey strict environmental and safety standards) are often bland and monotonous. Architects and mechanics would have enough free time to produce their own property and may offer their services to others but since their time is finite and rewards for working are reduced wouldn’t there be shortages of new designs? Would people attempt to barter or steal products that are scarce? (Whilst housing isn’t scarce, charming and quaint buildings are.) Or perhaps someone has specific ideas about the design of the house s/he would like to live in but lacks the skills to implement them. Would there be enough architects available to satisfy the whims of people who suffer no cost at the point of use?

What if it were very important to someone that their house was unique? Is there any way for them to monopolise the design?

If the goal was to minimise labour in favour of automation then flexibility and diversity would be sacrificed.
#14273398
If food were free millions would switch from the cheap tasteless grease they currently consume in favor of steak, lobster and regional specialities such as Champagne and Kobe beef. Currently beef and steak is more expensive than other foods because cows require more food and water than other animals in order to produce 1kg of meat. Would technocrats be able to meet this demand? Would they ration sea food whilst fish stocks replenish?


In-vitro tank meat is already being developed and aquaculture should certainly be put into greater use in the absence of rational laws regarding fishing. In-vitro steak would be extremely cheap. You also make the mistake of seeing a lack of need as everybody automatically gets the best of everything all the time.
Buildings and cars that are designed by machines (or people attempting to obey strict environmental and safety standards) are often bland and monotonous. Architects and mechanics would have enough free time to produce their own property and may offer their services to others but since their time is finite and rewards for working are reduced wouldn’t there be shortages of new designs? Would people attempt to barter or steal products that are scarce? (Whilst housing isn’t scarce, charming and quaint buildings are.) Or perhaps someone has specific ideas about the design of the house s/he would like to live in but lacks the skills to implement them. Would there be enough architects available to satisfy the whims of people who suffer no cost at the point of use?


In my mind technocracy would be a system that allows people the freedom to chase their desired purposes without concern of material needs. Architects would be architects because they love architecture, not for material gain but for its own sake. Someone who's major goal in life would be to have their own unique house but aren't willing to wait for an architect would be free to study architecture and design their house. To suggest technocracy should simply make their desired house appear out of thin air effortlessly is quite an unfair expectation of any system, and even if it were possible to create such a system I would be against it as it would drain all meaning from human life.

If the goal was to minimise labour in favour of automation then flexibility and diversity would be sacrificed.


Why is this neccesarily true? 3D printers are automatic but they have a plethora of different things they can produce, why would flexibility and diversity be sacrificed as a matter of course?
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14273420
Someone who's major goal in life would be to have their own unique house but aren't willing to wait for an architect would be free to study architecture and design their house.


That doesn't allow for a division of labour. Consumers regularly make suggestions and demands for improvements in goods and services they enjoy using, even if they are incapable of implementing them.

To suggest technocracy should simply make their desired house appear out of thin air effortlessly is quite an unfair expectation of any system


That's not what I'm thinking. I'm suggesting that people may feel dissatisfied with the lack of markets and opportunities to choose from a variety of products.

Is the population expected to follow the dictates of experts?
When I order a car from a distribution center how many models are there to choose from?

My understanding is that there are no markets and limited democratic structures.
People may find this dissatisfying.
#14273431
When I order a car from a distribution center how many models are there to choose from?


What satisfaction would you derive from driving a Ferrari to work? If a Ferrari cost more in resources than it would provide in routine services it would not be available in a distribution center because it would be a luxury. If your thing is classic cars you could certainly fix up a classic car and drive it around all day long, it would be personal property. Even today such things are wanted by many many people but available to only a small minority of people, why should it matter if technocracy will only provide you a regular car if capitalism isn't expected to even provide you a bicycle? Besides, such luxury items have been shown to not actually add anything to human happiness besides a temporary boost.

Consumers regularly make suggestions and demands for improvements in goods and services they enjoy using, even if they are incapable of implementing them.


Why should people who don't want to be architects be forced into it, physically or by material necessity, to please someone who doesn't even want it enough to do it themselves? My point is that the architects will be in it for architecture, not for money. There will be as many available architects as there are people who wish to do such work. Otherwise you must be satisfied with whatever standard models exist.

I must also point out that manufactured homes are actually fairly nice nowadays, and customization isn't out of the question even if this hypothetical person was dissatisfied with his homes uniqueness but not dissatisfied enough to actually work past a certain level to change it.

That doesn't allow for a division of labor.


With all necessities hypothetically satisfied, why should anyone be forced to do anything that they did not want to do? In fact why wouldn't people be allowed to specialize in what they loved even more, being detached from the material necessity of putting food on the table and having a home?

My understanding is that there are no markets and limited democratic structures.
People may find this dissatisfying.


The means to end their dissatisfaction will be given to them, I will not pity the person who is dissatisfied but disinterested in working to deal with their dissatisfaction.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14273462
I'm happy that no one will be forced into destitution because there's no market for their labour but if a significant portion of the population feels that their standard of living has declined they may revert to capitalism.

Will people feel dislocated if there's no requirement to work?
Some enjoy structure and working within deadlines and other demands.

Is there a risk of a brain drain (presuming only NA is Techno)?
#14273489
Will people feel dislocated if there's no requirement to work?
Some enjoy structure and working within deadlines and other demands.


Then create some, Just because your only, say an architect, by choice doesn't mean that it doesn't imply some level of real work, deadlines, expectations, structure, and other demands. People certainly do feel dissatisfied without some purpose in life, they will simply have to find some on their own. Even today most people I meet seem to be only drifting along doing whats expected without any real will of their own.

I'm happy that no one will be forced into destitution because there's no market for their labor but if a significant portion of the population feels that their standard of living has declined they may revert to capitalism.


Technocracy generally stipulates a rotating scheduled of people doing whatever labor might still be required to prevent that, usually 20 hours a week for 3 years with 5 year breaks in between is given (that's what was given by technocracy inc. anyway).

Social obligations aren't completely removed because the technology that would be required to maintain our standard of living with no labor force doesn't exist yet.

Is there a risk of a brain drain (presuming only NA is Techno)?


Since brain is whats prioritized in a technocracy in terms of having power, and in terms of a technocracy pushing fields that are generally considered brainier like engineering and sciences I think that's unlikely.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14273613
Figlio di Moros wrote:Why would you expect the standard of living to go down?


It depends on your perspective. I feel that the katascopic process is very prescriptive.

The (current) elites will see their status and wealth decline in a Technate. They have a lot of resources that they can mobolise to oppose it.
User avatar
By Eran
#14273912
A main issue with the entire post-scarcity fantasy is that it ignores the cost of progress.

If society was content with providing people with the necessities as perceived in the 1930s, we would already be in a post-scarcity era.

Inflation-adjusted, per-capita average income in 1929 was about $7,000. The basic component of that income was, say, $5,000. That is equivalent, given today's population, to about half of the Federal income (and, of course, an even small fraction of Federal expenditures).

In other words, the US could (1) cut all its taxes by 50%, and still (2) pay each citizen enough money to purchase goods and services equivalent to the basic needs of the average person in 1929.


The problem is that people aren't content with a stationary standard of living. They always aspire to more. To meet this demand, society has to continue and develop new technologies, new products, new tools, new plans. Even with full automation, stuff cannot be given away for free because then there would be no sources to fund new developments, i.e. progress.


That is before we go into the waste that always accompanies freely-available stuff.
#14273928
The way I see it technocracy seems to be more about post-scarcity of neccesities to a certain level rather than any and all possible wants and desires.
User avatar
By Eran
#14273950
Ah, "necessities"... Such a flexible term.

You see, to maintain a 1929 standard of living, Americans today would have to work only 4 hours a week - pretty much in line with post-scarcity thinking.

The reason we don't see people do that is that people are not happy with stagnant standards of living. They keep wanting more and better.

Pretty soon, the free "necessities" package will be frowned upon. People will ignore it, and work harder to provide themselves with "luxuries" that will soon be regarded as necessities.
#14273964
So?

Why not cover anything that can be made "post-scarce" and still let people work towards what luxuries are still scarce? As they develop and become aboundent, and automatable, they can move to the post-scarce category.

One of your main concerns seems to be the fear of a stagnating society, so I don't see how its necessarily a problem at all.
User avatar
By Eran
#14274267
Perhaps we can take a step back, and you could explain how things become "post-scarce".

From an economic point of view, goods and resources are scarce if there is more demand than supply at zero price. Very few things aren't scarce. Air, for example.

Once a price of zero is set, two things happen. First, demand increases. People tend to waste goods they don't have to pay for. After all, why not?

Second, supply shrinks. Goods, in general, cannot be produced without the use of resources for which alternative uses exist. Production and distribution is never fully automated. For cost to drop to zero, you would effectively have to create a fully self-contained robot society, with robots creating and maintaining other robots, and with robots designing new robots.

Is the idea of "post-scarcity" going to have to wait until that development is with us?
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14274365
Figlio di Moros wrote:Why would you expect the standard of living to go down?


If a centrally planned retailer runs out of bread I can purchase a loaf in one of dozens of competitors.
If a centrally planned Technate ran out of bread I'm left high and dry.

Look at the USSR or Venezuela for examples of shortages being caused or exacerbated by the state.

Eran- There are non-financial motivations for people to work. These would be more prominent in a technate since the society, culture and propaganda will be structured in a manner that promotes these elements.

Currently many people regularly vote against their economic interests or purchase bottled water in place of tap, for example.
User avatar
By Eran
#14274421
Eran- There are non-financial motivations for people to work. These would be more prominent in a technate since the society, culture and propaganda will be structured in a manner that promotes these elements.

Perhaps. But without feedback based on profit and loss, even in a technate, there would be no way for decision-makers to know how well they do the job of satisfying consumer wants.

If people don't have to pay for free goods, how can you tell whether those goods are any good? Without price signals, you cannot rationally direct production processes.
#14275180
Eran wrote:The problem is that people aren't content with a stationary standard of living. They always aspire to more. To meet this demand, society has to continue and develop new technologies, new products, new tools, new plans. Even with full automation, stuff cannot be given away for free because then there would be no sources to fund new developments, i.e. progress.


You're locked into your own way of thinking, so there's no point into explaining this to you, but there would still be research, resources, etc. Rather than pay for new developments, you'd allocate resources towards them. Allocating resources is much more efficient, as I explained before w/ how private companies are incapable of financing even thirty y/o technologies because the economies of scale aren't there (catch-22 - private company can't build maglev line because it's so expensive, the companies selling superconductors, turboexpanders, etc. can't build up their production because they lack sales). On the other hand, the resources, technology, and human capital all exist to build expansive MagLev systems, simply allocate so much from the producers who can allocate the necessary equipment and resources from another department, and decrease the production of trucks as the new train system comes on line.

Eran wrote:Perhaps. But without feedback based on profit and loss, even in a technate, there would be no way for decision-makers to know how well they do the job of satisfying consumer wants.


Wrong- Dead Wrong. All you have to do is track the "purchases"- old Technocracy proposed energy credits, whereas today we have the logistic systems in place to simply record what people are acquiring and refill those positions- think WalMart. They already track purchases made, alerting workers to bring more products to the front and automatically ordering shipments when the warehouse in the back gets low; I'm unaware if they automate purchases from companies to refill their reserve stocks, but a simple algorithm fills your entire process of fulfilling consumer want.
User avatar
By Eran
#14275493
Simply re-filling supermarket stacks with the same products isn't going to drive progress.

What people prefer when everything is free doesn't tell you how to allocate resource most efficiently.

If product A costs much more to produce than product B, and yet is also more desirable, how can you tell whether the additional quality is sufficiently valued by consumers to justify the extra cost?

The solution, if I understand correctly, is to have "experts" decide which products are distributed for free, and which would be deemed "luxury", and charged for. Am I correct? If so, is there going to be a "shadow economy" in luxury goods? Would people be allowed to manufacture luxury goods, sell them for a profit, and enjoy purchasing luxury goods with the proceeds?
#14281636
Desire can be fulfilled with a hobby or two. But an empty belly is a serious problem.

The resource based economy seeks to address pressing infrastructure, median living and healthcare concerns. It would seek to effect and maintain very high living conditions for all individuals as a base line-because we know that it is entirely possible, provided the technology in terms of allocation, tracking and distribution is there. i.e organisation and efficiency must seek to diverge from profiteering as the base line of progress. The most successful resource economies would not be those that generate $100 trillion in perishable consumer goods and associated services every 12 months, but those that generate extremely elevated and sustainable living conditions for each and every person participating with minimal energy and resources lost to wastage.

On the question of innovation, it is important to note that directed public endeavour is key in kick starting pretty much ALL radical new trajectories in technology mass adaptation. Without the initial sweetener, often utterly and ludicrously radical and expensive, we would not be living in the 21st century world of today. Ranging from regime sponsored colonisation, mass transportation, the internet, world wide web that came after it, space exploration, mass sanitation, socialised healthcare, civil governance, subsidised agriculture, labor market regulation, etc; it all stems from non-capitalistic enterprise borne out of collective need and will. Profit based competition and the private sector may have refined such technologies, but it is immensely wasteful to continue on this path when viable alternatives now exist.
What if all those resources could be utilised in new but equally innovative ways? That is something the technocratic approach seeks to address. We build tools in order to design better tools. At some point a self perpetuating singularity will arise which is no longer reliant on wasteful competition and iterative re-invention between disperate groups.

Technocracy is all about unshackling ourselves from the undirected clusterfuck that is the immensively wasteful consumer economy. Capitalists like to call it the 'innovation economy' but we know they're in it for the profit first and foremost. They want to invent new PROBLEMS for you so they can sell you the SOLUTIONS. Increasingly under-regulated private profiteering and dynastic corporate culture built upon a mis-distributed resource sector = disaster because it does not account for the big, long term picture. When you enter the realm of bond/debt trading, the fantasy bloating of the financial sector that no longer represents the real world it is based in, and the absolutely laughable stock market derivative antics where speculation = causation, you have officially come to the end of the line. It is here we either re-organise or get clusterfucked to a position of uneasy stagnation and worse. It is telling that the fastest growing sector of western economies presently is the IT services sector. Virtual economies based around virtual services seeking to address virtual problems. The way political discourse has shifted from the real world to the virtual battleground- lend your credence in order to affect precisely fuck all because everybody is quite happy to have their support represented with a single click tallied by a shitty javascript routine. Your corporate controlled regimes can safely and happily IGNORE YOU. Slacktivism is finally a widespread phenomenon. Enter the matrix. We are losing control of the the economy, the future of entire populations; the future of our world as it pertains to us.

Will the cockroaches actually inherit the earth one day? Sadly they might.
User avatar
By Eran
#14281671
Several comments.

First, your depiction of public spending as the necessary basis for radical technological innovation is ludicrous.

Ranging from regime sponsored colonisation, mass transportation, the internet, world wide web that came after it, space exploration, mass sanitation, socialised healthcare, civil governance, subsidised agriculture, labor market regulation, etc;

Some of the above have actually been initiated by private enterprises, and later taken over by governments. For example, mass transportation (early trains, rail lines and toll roads).

In the case of space exploration, government has squandered billions upon billions of dollars with relatively little to show for it. Targeting the moon rather than close-Earth orbits, for example, was an entirely PR-driven waste.

Some of the items on your list have been pure waste, such as Socialised healthcare, subsidised agriculture and labour market regulation.

As for the Internet, it is an often-mentioned and thus deserves particular attention. It is true that the Department of Defence funded research into computer communication technology. However, the developments that led to today's WWW, both before and after that particular research, have been dominated by the private sector.

In particular, calling today's WWW a "refinement" is like calling a modern Porches a "refinement" of an Ox-driven cart. Only much more so.



Second, please define or explain what you mean by "profiteering". Like similar terms ("greed", "exploitation", "usury") it seems like nothing by a negative-connotation laden alternative to the more neutral "profit seeking". In other words, "profiteering" is nothing other than "profit seeking I disapprove of". If so, what are your criteria for approving or disapproving of profit-seeking?



Third, it is impossible to draw a line between waste and need. This may sound like a silly statement, but think about it. In India, you have children climbing on mountains of trash and ultimately recycling every piece of plastic, glass, metal or paper they can find. Does that mean that western waste disposal is wasteful, and we should employ children (or even adults) to mimic Indian practices? Of course not.

Unquestioned human needs are extremely modest, and certainly satisfiable for less than $3/day (probably as little as $1/day). In the US, the Federal government alone spent about $3.5tn in 2012, or $10k per person, corresponding to about $30/day or at least ten times that amount (!).

So we could reduce the Federal tax burden by a factor of 10, eliminate state and local taxes, and still provide every American with all their basic needs. Fine.

But, of course, nobody seriously expects Americans, even poor Americans, to be satisfied with the standard of living that $3/day buys you.

So the key question is, how do you prioritise the goods and service to be produced beyond that minimal subsistence level? Since that is over-subsistence consumption, it is, by definition, luxury.

Our choice then isn't between luxury and need. It is between different forms of luxury. And one of the most important forms of luxury people are willing to pay for is waste. The reason is obvious - eliminating all waste is actually very expensive. You have to pay people (or buy expensive machines) to recycle every little piece of plastic. You have to either consume stale bread, soft fruits and slightly mouldy (but still edible) vegetables, or set production levels low enough that shortages will be common. You have to recycle clothing, effectively forcing people to buy second-hand cloths. And so on.

Capitalists like to call it the 'innovation economy' but we know they're in it for the profit first and foremost.

This is a slightly innovative way of putting a common complaint about capitalists, namely that they are in it for the profit. That is a completely misguided criticism, for at least two reasons.

First, profit is good. Profit is the difference between the cost of production and the (subjective) value of goods produced. A profitable enterprise creates value, a losing enterprise destroys value, while a government enterprise (i.e. one not even measuring its own profitability) is operating completely in the dark regarding whether it produces or destroys value.

Second, intentions are secondary to results. Capitalists might seek profits, but in a free market with (tolerably well) protected property rights, the only way to make profit is to satisfy consumer demand. Thus the free market diverts human greed (which is present in every system) uniquely into productive enterprises that meet consumer demand.



Finally, if you believe that consumers are so gullible as to waste their own money on products they don't really need, how much more gullible are those same people going to be, how much more wasteful, in other words, when it comes to making decisions about spending other people's money through their role as voting citizens?
#14281688
I don't have time to address all points.

Concerning public healthcare, it is only wasteful when it is mismanaged. The US system is a great example of public funding being mismanaged by a compromised corporate regime and then swallowed up by profiteering private enterprise.

If so, what are your criteria for approving or disapproving of profit-seeking?


Very simple, profit maximisation is bad because it promotes consumption. The impetus becomes increasing revenue while at the same decreasing costs. This leads to necessarily greater volume of waste/product per capita. It does not at any stage seek to provide revenue stopping solutions to problems. This is where planned obsolecence and the consumer economy come in. They seek to perpetuate waste by inventing demand. The net result is just waste. You can create demand for just about anything, the question becomes-what is your motive? If the answer is profit, then you're engaged in a vicious free market cycle without end or long term purpose.

First, profit is good. Profit is the difference between the cost of production and the (subjective) value of goods produced. A profitable enterprise creates value, a losing enterprise destroys value, while a government enterprise (i.e. one not even measuring its own profitability) is operating completely in the dark regarding whether it produces or destroys value.


Value is a meaningless term without context. You can invent value for anything. Promotes value of what? Small arms in a civil warzone? Wheat in a region devastated by famine? Typical free market perspective is to focus on figures at the expense of everything else. This is why it is incompatible with long term sustainability, it is a parasite that kills its host. Short sighted and without overall awareness. Long term public policies become impossible to implement-and the solutions to pressing problems.

Until society starts acting more like a coherent organism with some semblance of self-awareness, instead of a bunch of bacterial colonies in a petri dish, it is without longevity.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]