/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14568400]

Wouldn't a post-scarcity society always just be some form of communism

[Anonymous No.14568416]

>>14568400
Some human resources are more valuable than others

[Anonymous No.14568478]

There's no such thing as a post-scarcity society, it doesn't make any sense if you try to define it.

Your time is still scarce, the resource deposits that are economical to mine are scarce, the amount of people is scarce, real estate is scarce, there are goods & services that are not indistinguishable, etc.

I think you have to believe in communism/marxism to believe a post-scarcity society is something that could be real because you're using an ideological lens and it leads you to conclude things like labour, goods, services, real estate, etc. can all be commodified.

Our reality is just more complex than that.

If you mean post-scarcity in that everyone has access to affordable food, clothing, and shelter then that does not have to be a communist society.

[Anonymous No.14568493]

>>14568478
>your time is still scarce
Whoopsie. *spills the immortality sauce*
https://youtu.be/DSLQYTt8BjA

[Anonymous No.14568502]

>>14568478
>>14568493
The sheer amount of hatred that will spill onto holders of leftists doctrine of the finite, will cause a massacre of infighting so huge, that even the right wing will explode.
What have you done?

[Anonymous No.14568504]

>>14568493
>Believing non Jews will be given immortality treatments

[Anonymous No.14568508]

>>14568400
No, it could be a form of capitalism when corporations give you free goods and money.

[Anonymous No.14568510]

>>14568493
Good lack renewing your nervous system without losing your mind.

[Anonymous No.14568514]

>>14568510
Way, ahead of you.
https://youtu.be/nqG8JW0lWuQ

[Anonymous No.14568633]

>>14568400
I don't want to live in a post-scarcity society that still has capitalism. That's one hell of a sad world if you think about it.

[Anonymous No.14568790]

>>14568633
Why though? You still get free goods and free money. Why does the possibility of letting competent people control their organizations scares you so much?

[Anonymous No.14568834]

>>14568790
What makes you so sure the goods and money would be free if someone else controls them? Ideally yes the ones in power should share the wealth, but given current trends I find it unlikely.

It costs around $4,500 to save a human life on average, but buying that mega yacht is more important.

[Anonymous No.14568953]

>>14568400
>Wouldn't a post-scarcity society always just be some form of communism

Sort of.
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) is pretty much required in post-scarcity society that emerges from a democratic capitalist society,
Capitalism still exist because people can spend their money on whatever they want, but the cost of covering your basic needs is so small that no one suffers from a lack of anything.

Think of NetFlix. Once you have it, all your entertainment needs are fulfilled, but everyone is free to watch whatever they want. New movies and shows are always being made.

[Anonymous No.14569200]

Post scarcity just means everyone's needs are being met (from people to national needs) and they're not threatened in any way. How you get there is what makes it interesting.
You can go communist route and have government provide everything for everyone. Go capitalist and have universal basic income, and just let people buy all their needs. There's the libertarian path, and give everyone either a plot of land and the tools to farm their needs, or a compact micro hydroponic garden for city folk. There's the stoicism path, and pretends the need that aren't being met aren't really needed anyway. I fear there needs to be some mix of these at some point, cause if you go full capitalist but with not a hint of stoicism, then people will be forced to believe through marketing and mental manipulation that no mater how much they have, they'll always believe they need just one more item that they can just barely afford buy.

How about you? Which form of post scarcity sounds best to you? which is most achievable? most practical? most likely?

[Anonymous No.14569207]

>>14568478
This here; there will always be scarce goods and services, that need some method of allocating who gets what. And someone will always want more than others. Even if everyone can have their own personal star system, stocked with robotic industry and services, there will be that guy who wants two.

And there is one key good that by its nature will always be scarce - Power. Not in the physical sense, but in the ideological; Power to control what ideas & behaviors are acceptable for people to have, and which are not. Power over which religions people may or may not be worshiped, power over what kinds of foods people can eat, and so on. By its basic nature, not everyone can have as much power over other people as they want.

[Anonymous No.14569257]

>>14568400
it wouldn't be communism, because communism relies on allocation of resources, and no allocation would be needed without scarcity.
The economy would probably be most focused on things we can't get computers to do, which would probably dwindle quite a bit with all the resources and minds focused on making things increasingly efficient.
If distribution stops being a problem, you'd essentially just always be able to order anything to have your needs met. that's not any economical system in theory, it's just the garden of fucking eden.

[Anonymous No.14569324]

>>14568400
Yes.
Scarcity makes a lot of money, so it will always be present in a capitalist society. So long as it makes a profit that is. Just look up "planned obsolescence", "oligopoly" and "artificial scarcity."