/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2984707]

You will never live in a society with a resource-based economy

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2984710]

Challenge accepted.

[Anonymous No.2984747]

Should've known it would get Inurdaes' attention. How you doing you wee Aussie?

[Anonymous No.2984755]

>>2984710
Silly. But you'll die before space resources are available.

[Anonymous No.2984771]

>>2984710
>he's Australian

hhahaa! faggot outbacks couldn't catch bin laden. fuck you!!!

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2984774]

I don't care.

All your silly political and economic quabbles will not stop the future. All you people are merely a vessel through which I will achieve posthumanity.

[Anonymous No.2984784]

>>2984774
>implying the corporations have an economic interest in granting immortality to humans

[Anonymous No.2984793]

>>2984784
Really? You're an idiot.

[THE RESOURCES No.2984797]

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2984799]

>>2984784

>implying I won't do the research and eventually rebuild my telomeres if I fucking have to

Because I fucking hate you people.

[Anonymous No.2984803]

>>2984784
>Implying i'm not rich and part of the group that achieves immortality
>Implying i'm not actively pushing poor down so that i could go up.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2984811]

>>2984747
I'm doin' good. A bit fed up already with the overwhelming American patriotism.

>>2984755
The technology:
http://techland.time.com/2011/04/06/spacexs-falcon-heavy-most-powerful-private-rocket-ever/
http://www.universetoday.com/73536/nasa-considering-rail-gun-launch-system-to-the-stars/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4799369.ece

The will:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bIQLiKi3g
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/02/lord-british-wants-to-take-you-to-space-and-hes-closer-th
an-you-think.ars/3

The time (and one of the main kicks in the ass to get it started):
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/manhattan-beach-project-end-aging-2029
http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3329065877451441972#
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

The economic benefits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
>At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Earth_Objects#Near-Earth_asteroids
>As of May 2010, 7,075 near-Earth asteroids are known,[14] ranging in size up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed).[16] The number of near-Earth asteroids over one kilometer in diameter is estimated to be 500 - 1,000.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/

>>2984799
Why so angry recently, CCM?

[Anonymous No.2984812]

>resource-based economy

[Anonymous No.2984819]

>>2984799
>implying you will do the research
Do you research age-related degeneration? I'm interested in going into this for my PhD.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2984822]

>>2984812
Actually I really fucking hate the idea of no possessions in the way the Venus Project set it out. I prefer Manna's approach to private property.

[Anonymous No.2984823]

>>2984811
Elon Musk is basically a Randian hero and he's going to beat all of you faggot lefties to the stars

[Axel the Possum No.2984830]

>>2984784

>implying they don't

What's that, you say? An ever-growing number of consumers who are literally going to be buying from you forever?

Human longevity is all the fucking pharmaceutical industry is about.

That said, I think the future for humanity lies in brain uploading, myself. Biological immortality isn't bad for now, though.

Also, Inurdaes! CCM! Hey guys!

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2984832]

>>2984830
Sup.

[Anonymous No.2984835]

>>2984822
Explain how the resource based economy differs from communism as we saw in the 20th century. Don't include things like "sustainable use of resources" which makes it even less prosperous at the beginning.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2984841]

>>2984811

>Why so angry recently, CCM?

Haha I'm just kidding. I won't RKKV you once I'm a glorious diamondoid spacecraft :>

On a more serious note: Transhumanism has had enough time for the philosophy, now it's time to put it in practice. Which is sorta why I want to be an Aerospace Engineer: It might not be genetic or nanotech engineering or all such nonsensery, but fuck, it's so mltidisciplinary I would have the starting knowledge in most fields related to that and could, at the very least, understand research papers on the subject. The development of some type of aggressive nootropic capable of giving me the time to become a polymath would help with my plans too.

As for Randian heroism: I agree with a lot of what Ayn Rand said and I like Elon Musk and I will like capitalism for the next ~20 or years, afterwards it might become a bit tightening on my plans, and some random-ass "Transition Economy" that does not allow for any steady group to form (Gubernamental or private) might ease a few things.

[Anonymous No.2984846]

>>2984830
>Human longevity is all the fucking pharmaceutical industry is about.

Yes. But apparently you aren't hoping to have good health thrown into the mix.

[Anonymous No.2984849]

>>2984811
I can personally guarantee that you, i or anyone else in this website won't live to see the year 2300.
Could be a possibility with deep freezing the body or something along those lines but not continuously.

"
The economic benefits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
>At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Earth_Objects#Near-Earth_asteroids
>As of May 2010, 7,075 near-Earth asteroids are known,[14] ranging in size up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed).[16] The number of near-Earth asteroids over one kilometer in diameter is estimated to be 500 - 1,000."
>Economic analyses generally show that asteroid mining will not attract private investment at current commodity prices and space transportation costs.
>1mile=/=1km
>ateroid=/=metallic asteroid

Also even if we went to space and got the minerals capitalism would survive. The price of the metals wouldn't go down and you wouldn't get too many major benefits(presuming you are not a major stockholder).
Only thing asteroid mining makes possible is continuing our production of those things that need those metals

[Anonymous No.2984851]

namefaggotry will prevail.

[Anonymous No.2984857]

Is this another communism thread? Communism will definitely work because it has never been tried. All previous communist countries were not really communist.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2984860]

>>2984830

>Human longevity is all the fucking pharmaceutical industry is about.

Yeah but I'm a paranoid fuck, and you know I can't trust this "Big Pharma" or whatever you guys call it. I'm, of course, still hoping that emerging technologies will go the way of software, eventually bringing: "Open Nanotech Movement", "Open Biotech Movement", stuff like that, during the second part of this century.

Afterwards, well, I don't plan on living on this planet anymore. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.2984865]

>>2984849
Excuse my uneducated question, but can asteroid-mining actually considered to be possibly profitable?

Aside from the obvious mining and travelling problems, how would you get that amount of metal down to earth?

[Anonymous No.2984867]

>>2984822
Have you acually read the thing?
The first couple of "pages" in there(you know what i'm talking about) explain well how the dystopial future will come. It actually makes sense and is not that far feched.
Then it just goes: people give money to this dude who buys australia and creates perfect world.
I don't really see that happening anytime soon.
You should be looking to the start of the thing to see how humanity will turn out not the end.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2984869]

>>2984865

Not really, unless you get some real efficient mining equipment, something that is orders of magnitude greater than current brute technology.

I don't want to just wave the Mechanosynthesis wand here, but yes.

[Anonymous No.2984870]

>>2984865
>how would you get that amount of metal down to earth?

You wouldn't. Because the humans would be living in space.

>>2984860
Out of curiosity CCM, how old are you exactly?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2984873]

>>2984835
Well, for one, this actually has a chance of working without relying heavily on people's charity to work for free. Everything that humans don't want to do is automated. As you can see this requires technologies not quite available.
I'm not familiar to what communist system you're referring to, but communism also involved the monetary system, whereas this is a less-centralized approach of creating projects and sustaining people's needs and many of their wants.
A pitfall that I see in many communist supporters or even Venus Project advocates is that we need to be more efficient and become less of consumers and only take what we need, and borrow what we want. This is approaching the problem the wrong way. Rather, all production should be scaled and designed to have as little of an environmental impact as possible, as efficient as possible in recycling metals, but everyone should be allowed to be rampant consumers for nearly everything (except land.)
Once everyone can have anything, the fire to have anything starts dying down.
Whereas in other systems which usually involve money and the exchange of it for labour, materials and so forth, all materials are 'free' in the sense that you only require intelligent automation to take care of that.

- Continued -

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2984878]

>>2984870

>Out of curiosity CCM, how old are you exactly?

16 :<

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2984881]

>>2984873
So let's say you want to create a spaceship with a few likeminded people.
Instead of lobbying for years to get even an iota of the funding required, you and your friends could use your credit allowance to design, buy and fit together the parts into a spaceship. The credit allowanc ei'm talking about is the temporary successor to the monetary system. The amount you have to pay for things is not based on their worth due to scarcity, but rather, if there is xxxxxxxxxx amount of tons of steel able to be produced, then a ton of steel might cost relatively little in credits, perhaps 40 credits out of 1000 in a week.

tl;dr Decisions are made whether you have the know-how to do it, there are enough resources to do it, and the technology to do it exist.

[Anonymous No.2984888]

>>2984865
There are ways to do it if you want to.
Problem is that only thing you get from it is metals and no profit.
Because of this only goverments could do this by using tax money to that.
There are much better ways of spending the money than doing some space mining.

It could be profitable in the future, but there are many problems still ahead in that.

To get the metals down you either use something like space shutle to lower it or just drop it an collect what remains.
First you must break the asteroid into mits of course. That is also hard part in the proces.

Getting thins up is the problem.

[Anonymous No.2984892]

>>2984878
>namefag
>gay anime/cartoon pics with every post
>16

[Axel the Possum No.2984895]

>>2984846

I think you'll find they're trying to get that too. Seriously, can you imagine the amount of money that will be available to the pharmaceutical company that develops something that gives a 60 year old the body of a 30 year old? The things that lead to us decaying are slowly being discovered and made reversible.

Whether they'll find treatments and perfect them enough isn't much of a question; it's a case of when, not if (as long as people decrying them as evil and restricting their income doesn't drive them into the ground). What IS a question is how available it'll be, how practical it'll be, etc.

We all want to be our same youthful selves for a few centuries before we become mighty super-cyborg posthumans (sooner for some of us), but we may have to settle, at least for a while, for ending up as withered husks on life support with BCI internet to interact with the world.

>>2984860

Not going to happen... For a while, at least. Moore's Law continuing for a few more decades or centuries means that, eventually, cheap computers the size of a current desktop can realistically simulate a very, very high fidelity human being (cell for cell) that you can then simulate harm in at an accelerated speed and determine treatments with. That's what would be the best hope for an Open Source Medicine culture.

Not gonna happen for decades, though; fact is, it's too damn expensive to do anything serious on your own at present.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2984897]

>>2984892

Problem?

I'm really mature for my age and know HTML!

[Anonymous No.2984901]

>>2984878
>Furry
>Underage
>Emoticons
>Childish opinions on everything
When it rains, it pours.

[Anonymous No.2984905]

>>2984878
I like you somewhat, but this
>16
Was really big mistake
You haven't changed form the post before but how people see you has changed quite a bit.
>Inb4 underageban

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2984907]

>>2984905

>You haven't changed form the post before but how people see you has changed quite a bit.

But I thought you guys already knew? I have said it... Many times before. When Inurdaes confessed he was 17 over Minecraft I was like "ok bro".

And what was I going to do? Not reply?

[Anonymous No.2984915]

>>2984907
First time i have seen it, might have forgotten.
I'm a bit drunk today.

Inurdaes was 15 last time he gave his age?
>And what was I going to do? Not reply?
Good point
There are ways but still.

[Anonymous No.2984917]

>>2984907
>Not reply
This is what everyone wants.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2984926]

>>2984907
16
>>2984915
The site that the guy found said 15, but I posted on that site way back early last year.

Anyway guys, i'm off for now.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2984928]

>>2984917

Precisely. Might as well come clean in the first post like I don't give a fuck.

>>2984915

>drunk

Aerospace guy is that you?

[Anonymous No.2984929]

>>2984895
>The things that lead to us decaying are slowly being discovered and made reversible.

And I reiterate: how does the pharmaceutical industry benefit if there are no illnesses to cure? You might say they will expand their horizons and you may be correct. But corporations are terroritorial and protectionistic. Harken the paper industry forcing the illegality of marijuana, now propped up by the pharmaceutical and alcohol industries.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2984932]

>>2984895

How did I miss this post?

[Anonymous No.2984949]

>>2984928
Not aerospace
Anyway, techinally i don't really care how old you are but you should be carefull what you say.
There is 18+ limit here, no mods though
Not trolling=neutral or up in my standings

[Anonymous No.2984967]

>>2983951

[Axel the Possum No.2984970]

>>2984929

>how does the pharmaceutical industry benefit if there are no illnesses to cure?

You think there'll be no illnesses to cure? You think that the company that develops the gene treatments and enzyme injections and organ replacements that extend human lifespan aren't going to be producing a fuck-ton of products that people will be swallowing down constantly?

Human immortality will not (perhaps at first, at least) be a panacea that you take one dose of and, by magic, you are immortal. The first "immortal" humans will be covered in scars, injection marks, and take a lot of pills. Your immortality will not be easy or suffering-free.

[Anonymous No.2985015]

>>2984970
It also won't be for the plebs.

>wealthy futurists need only apply

[Anonymous No.2985024]

>>2984970
>Human immortality will not (perhaps at first, at least) be a panacea that you take one dose of and, by magic, you are immortal.

Then they are not doing it good enough.

[Axel the Possum No.2985073]

>>2985015

At first, probably not, but "at first" is an increasingly shortening time span, especially as tech improves. That's the fun thing about technology; it gets cheaper and better as time goes by. Cars, computers, planes, phones, artificial limbs, decent medical care, etc. have all dropped dramatically in cost with time.

Always remember when you see someone with an iPhone that you're looking at someone with a pocket computer more powerful than the entire NORAD system in the 1970s.

As technology improves, it cheapens. As it cheapens, more people buy it, putting more money into R&D to cheapen and improve it. That's how it goes.

>>2985024

You don't get to leapfrog to the "Easy Posthumanism" age. Just like the rest of us, you will have to see all the intermediary steps, for better or for worse.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2985077]

>>2985015

Yes, we are aware. Hopefully I will be able to attend some sort of US adult daycare known as "college", which might give me access to a "job", which will hopefully give me lots of "currency".

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985101]

Damn right we wont.

You might as well lament that you wont ever go to heaven.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985109]

>>2984841
Made me laugh, why does that picture exist?

[Anonymous No.2985111]

>>2985101
Look at me, my name is Resident Economist and I have to justify my job. I don't do science, but I do do pushing numbers around.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2985118]

>>2985109

I found it on /lit/ by accident. 'Ayn' is written there because the dog in Cowboy Bebop was named "Ein".

It's a play on words, just like Shakespeare!

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985119]

>>2985111

Justify my job?

Economics is based off the concept of scarcity. Its not that, people would be better off with scarcity, but the true is scarcity is part of reality and inevitable.

Im not more put out of a job than Dawkins is by the bible.

[Anonymous No.2985125]

>>2985119
>Economics is based off the concept of scarcity.
Yes, and economists are very careful to make sure everything continues to be scarce.

[Anonymous No.2985128]

Good.
Only an idiot would want that

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2985133]

>>2985125

Oh don't get mad at the guy. We'll get back to you once we have molecular assembly and physical scarcity is obsolete. Energy scarcity and "thinking scarcity" will still exist, although the former not so much unless you're running a megalopolis the size of Shanghai or some shit.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985145]

>>2985125

You figured me out, I got into economics because I want to rip people off and steal everyones money.

>>2985133

Thank you for acknowleding scarcity will still exist. While I think material scarcity cannot be plausibly avoided, I appreciate that you post-scarcity people can at least acknowledge that scarcity exists, in many forms.

[Anonymous No.2985146]

>your face when we figure out how to give people literally limitless intelligence
>your face when only the rich an afford it,
>your face when the gap between the rich and the poor subsequently gets even worse

[Anonymous No.2985148]

>>2985133
>Energy scarcity
Not when (if) we have scalable fusion power.

>"thinking scarcity"
This really needs a better name. Intellectual scarcity? Anyway, this is the real obstacle. This is what justifies e-books and music downloads costing money.

[Anonymous No.2985150]

>your face when we figure out how to give people literally limitless intelligence
>your face when only the rich can afford it
>your face when the gap between the rich and the poor subsequently gets even worse than it already is

[Anonymous No.2985154]

>>2985148
You PAY for music downloads?
Oh lawdy, what a retard. I bet you even use iTunes.
pathetic

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2985161]

Holy shit people, we've been through this.

There have been numerous, well qualified, knowledgeable people explaining why a resource-based economy wouldn't work. Yet you still cling on to this idiotic idea as if it's your only hope of achieving anything meaningful in life.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985166]

>>2985148

I dont think he meant like, your brain-smarts are scarce. I think he meant like, the effort, time, and capacity to think is scarce. Its like "planning scarcity" If I could sit and ponder each decsion for a year, I would be tremendously better at everything I do. The time it takes to plan is scarce.

But I in the inurdaes post-scarcity wet dream there would still be a conveinence scarcity. You cant have perfectly uniform access to the almighty robot delivery men. Some people will have better access and that is a resource.

But I also dont think Inurdaes as reconciled who owns the robot production. Like, I am imagining a hypothetical factory, that just has an output, and whatever you need comes out of the factory. Who's does it become? If its nobodies, whats stopping someone from just taking it, and charging others for access to it? This might sound corrupt and evil, but what if some people dont have access? In order to give access to everyone, you need a distribution system, and distribution is a scarce resource.

I guess the answer is just "robots will do it" but how many robots can you make? The resources both material and immaterial to make such robots are immense. To costs to do such a thing will likely be more than the costs it would take to just buy and make whatever the robots would give you to begin with.

[Anonymous No.2985167]

>>2985161
Teenagers.
They don't listen to anybody because they KNOW they're always right and everybody else is wrong.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2985169]

>>2985148

>Not when (if) we have scalable fusion power.

Good sir, where are you going to get the Helium-3? Not the Moon, we know. Maybe the Energetic Neutral Atoms Zone near the Earth, where it piles up, but you're going to need something big and with lots of wattage to siphon that.

>inb4 Deuterium
>mfw 3 megaelectronvolts

>This really needs a better name. Intellectual scarcity? Anyway, this is the real obstacle. This is what justifies e-books and music downloads costing money.

Anybody can go and download those. Some people don't have motivation and others don't want to be the next Einsteins. Sometimes all people want is a wife and a good job. The rest, though, the free material that only the Internet can provide, along with Asimov's famous "one to one relationship with knowledge", would be invaluable help, but consider the following:

http://sifter.org/~simon/journal/20040723.html

And just releasing every book online for free won't help if all the children do is learn systematically from those and not apply anything, until, say, they get into X college or Y job for the sake of utility. Mistakes will just build up out of entropy unless they have a good guide, and guides are scarce, whether virtual machines or humans.

[Anonymous No.2985170]

>>2985148
"Intellectual scarcity"? lol no. Hardly even exists now, sure as hell won't exist in the future.

All that is needed for "thinking" is a single person with an idea. The higher your population -- and population will be higher in the future, of course -- the less "thinking scarcity", because all you need is that one person to originate the idea and then it is "supplied" to everyone. Unlike physical things where you need (for instance) one for every person, you only need one idea.

[Axel the Possum No.2985172]

>>2985150

By the time we figure that out, we'd have given it to an AI long before we'd give it to a human being. At that point, terms like rich and poor will become obsolete.

>>2985148

That intellectual scarcity is related to the number of free hours available and the overall cost. When material costs shrink and the amount of available knowledge workers grows, the cost shrinks in turn. The solution to intellectual scarcity is largely the same as the solution to material scarcity.

[Anonymous No.2985176]

[Anonymous No.2985178]

>>2985161
"Numerous, well qualified, knowledgeable people" are wrong all the fucking time. If they were never wrong, well, that'd mean that we've obtained all the information in the universe, wouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.2985182]

>>2985166
>I dont think he meant like, your brain-smarts are scarce. I think he meant like, the effort, time, and capacity to think is scarce. Its like "planning scarcity" If I could sit and ponder each decsion for a year, I would be tremendously better at everything I do. The time it takes to plan is scarce.
Yes I did get this point.

>I am imagining a hypothetical factory, that just has an output, and whatever you need comes out of the factory. Who's does it become? If its nobodies, whats stopping someone from just taking it
Moral obligation. In a post-scarcity world, everyone will adhere to Kantian philosophy, of course.

[Anonymous No.2985184]

>>2985176
Feels bad, man

[Anonymous No.2985198]

>>2985170
>"Intellectual scarcity"? lol no. Hardly even exists now, sure as hell won't exist in the future.

In a sense I can believe this. Sometimes, just when I think that there isn't any good music left I discover something new and awesome. I'm beginning to wonder if music I like is being produced faster than I can listen to it.

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2985204]

>>2985178
That in itself does not mean you should believe in ideas more suited in science fiction than in real life.

>>2985167
Sad, isn't it?

And no one thinks of the externalities associated with this idea.

[Axel the Possum No.2985211]

>>2985198

This is true for music, art, etc. because, and with no disrespect to musicians and artists, they are far easier disciplines to get results from than science and engineering. This isn't to say there's no discipline to them, no training needed, but it's far less than it takes to be, say, a biochemist, or a pharmacist, or even a lawyer.

Ideas can be propagated easily since the advent of the internet, it sure as fucking didn't make it so that we don't need research institutions.

[Anonymous No.2985221]

>>2985204
>more suited in science fiction than in real life.
lol, what? Check the entirety of human history, bro. Production efficiency has risen over time, why is it so "unrealistic" to think it will eventually increase to a level where scarcity is essentially a non-issue?

[Anonymous No.2985236]

>>2984860
>"Open Nanotech Movement", "Open Biotech Movement", stuff like that

Oh boy. We have barely even gotten as far as open research journals.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2985239]

>>2985236

But there is already an Open Space Movement, even though Jason Marsh is too busy fixing the site, he has already recruited a horde of overly-enthusiastic like-minded nerds.

[Anonymous No.2985278]

>>2985221
Whats your measure of production and efficiency?

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2985284]

>>2985221
For one, markets are not perfectly mobile. You can't get all of the factors of production you want instantaneously. Two, you will have externalities all over the place, tragedy of the commons from people producing more than what is socially optimal because there is no price mechanism in place.
You would then have planning committees (how freeing!), which still aren't as efficient in allocating resources. The idea of a resource-based economy is as a result useless when post-scarcity is ever achieved.

[Anonymous No.2985295]

>>2985239
>Open Space Movement

Doesn't he think he's being... a bit too ambitious? Not that ambition is a bit thing, but there are more worthy causes that need the attention of the masses.

>mfw people with some cancers are still being placed on palliative chemotherapy, despite the existence of effective and cheap treatments which are effectively cures
>mfw people with terminal illnesses are still routinely being put on end-of-life care instead of experimental therapies

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985301]

>>2985167

Thats funny because Inurdaes is like 16 or something.

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2985314]

>>2985284
And I can't even think of a plausible scenario in which post-scarcity exists because it's so heavily dependent on speculation as to what production methods will be developed in the future as to make the limited raw materials we have limitless.

[Anonymous No.2985323]

>>2985314
lol, you really don't get it do you? Post-scarcity is an inevitability, not a "possibility". "limited raw materials" ... because other planets don't exist rite? hurrrrrrr

[Anonymous No.2985324]

>>2985301
You have not read the thread, have you?

[Anonymous No.2985336]

>>2985323
>Magic wands are inevitable, why don't you understand?
>Semantics are easy, why don't you get it?

[Anonymous No.2985339]

>>2985323
Raw materials will always be limited in some fashion, unless a method is found to provide infinite energy, and shape that energy into specific elements and compounds. Post-scarcity is a matter of degree.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985345]

You know whats funny?

I was about to post a long statement about how everything about business and engineering is incredibly different. In my time studying economics, and in my time building stuff in my garage, I can say, its truly amazing that we can construct and distribute the items we use today. Do not take for granted the immense difficulty it takes to have the economy we do. To make everything about that economy, and automate it, is nearly impossible.

Whats funny, is, I was going to write that when my landlord showed up. I never see him, but I am moving out soon and he wanted to show the property to some other people. Those people were late and we made small talk. He told me he was into manufacturing, and supply chain, which are exactly the subject I am interested as an economics major. Not only that, but basically when I was going to write about how difficult everything is to produce, it takes someone with the career background such as my landlord to appreciate that.

I asked him about his work. Its amazing how sometimes, something, such as a landlord who specializes in manufacturing, just drops in to confirm everything I was trying to say.

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2985356]

>>2985323
Well, have fun reading science fiction and daydreaming about colonizing Mars for the obviously abundant natural resources it has. And killing off a large portion of the population because there's no way production methods improve in time with population growth.

[Anonymous No.2985358]

>>2985336
>tries to insult me
>doesn't even know the meaning of the word "semantics"
ahahahaha

[Anonymous No.2985361]

>>2985339
>Star Trek
>Transporter
>Holodeck
>Replicator

These three inventions are required for this. Please, someone wave a magic wand and tell me how they'll appear

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2985365]

Fuck you Inurdaes

Just fuck you

I hope you grow up one day

[Anonymous No.2985367]

>>2985345
>just drops in to confirm everything I was trying to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Anonymous No.2985370]

>>2985345
wow, you make things in your garage?

Do you like, petition permits from the EPA? Do you have to ask the government if it's ok?

You really know engineering.

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2985390]

>>2985370
I think he makes musical equipment and plays the drums. resident /sci/ economist is a pretty cool dude.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2985392]

>>2984901
He is also from a third world country

and he is trying to get into the USA

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985397]

>>2985370

... You are making fun of me...

>>2985367

I dont mean to, say I am right about anything. And I certainly dont feel more right afterwards. Its just cool to meet someone, or see something in direct connection to what I am talking about. But if he was into manufacturing and said "Oh yeah, its so easy, a monkey can do this, we just sat around and smoked cigars all day" I would feel different.

[Anonymous No.2985398]

>>2985361
Actually, only the transporter or the replicator would be required, at least for the materials creation aspect. Some type of power production would still be needed, but, assuming the energy requirements of the transporter/replicator were low enough, fusion (in the form of artificial reactors or stars) could sustain the technology for billions of years. Unfortunately, this would not be the greatest degree of post-scarcity, because energy is still not in infinite supply.

Future development in this area is all a matter of speculation, of course.

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2985399]

>>2985392
I am too. Please to tell me how I become Amerikkan.

[Anonymous No.2985401]

We like to talk about the shortage of energy. But in billions of years, supposing that we find a good source of energy, we will have a new enemy. A shortage of momentum.

Just how the fuck are we going to change our linear velocity?

[Anonymous No.2985410]

>>2985392
>wanting to get into the USA

Inurdaes is dead to me, now.

[Anonymous No.2985414]

>>2985410
Scia was referring to Colonel Coffee Mug.

[Axel the Possum No.2985415]

Personally, I don't think post-scarcity as people like to think it will exist will ever entirely be. Some day, humanity will have merged with its technology sufficiently that every being alive will be a mighty, utterly self-sufficient posthuman being that could make the gods of Olympus look like petty children.

Until that day, though, far in the future, we shall have to deal with each other. Even if we all had desktop nano-fabbers, we still need raw ingredients and blueprints, and people will not make those for free, nor will they produce our news and entertainment, or power our homes, or develop new tech for free.

I'm optimistic for humanity's future, I figure it's going to come at us faster and faster as time goes by, but we're still not going to get there overnight and not without transition periods.

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2985420]

>>2985410
He was talking about the other guy, but it's still better than Australia.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2985443]

>>2985399
Well I have family that goes back to the revolution and family that were close friends of Washington.

So im about as american as you can get.

But what you need is a graduate degree

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2985448]

>>2985410
America is awesome

[Anonymous No.2985452]

>>2985398
>Dilithium crystals...

>CRAP resource =[

[Anonymous No.2985454]

>>2985414
Which provine does CCM hail from?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985458]

>>2985415

I agree comrade

>>2985448
>>2985443

I remember in high school the teacher asked us how many people are at least 5th generation Americans. I realized I was the only one. It was a big realization for me

"Oh my God Im so damn America, who are all these foreigners. What the hell are they doing stealing all my jobs"

[Anonymous No.2985461]

>>2985415
What if we plaster the solar system with light collectors and plug everyone into the matrix

Where would the scarcity be then?

[Anonymous No.2985463]

>>2984878
Man, I wondered why this board was as shitty as itd be if a bunch of 16 year olds were shitting it up.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985474]

>>2985461

There would be a scarcity of light, and a scarcity of the means in which that electricity is moved around the universe.

Also within the matrix there would be a scarcity of goods. Assuming we arent all Neo.

[Axel the Possum No.2985513]

>>2985461

Even assuming everyone inside this VR can create things at whim, some people will create better things than others. Even if others can take them and copy them, they will not necessarily create just because others demand it. Imagine a world where the rulers are essentially the best at making cool stuff. If you want awesome things, and you don't want everyone to fuck with your shit and disown you, you have to obey them.

There will also be scarcity in the form of power, power distribution, and maintenance (both of the system and the bodies). If you get rid of the bodies, the system still needs maintenance.

There's also scarcity of advancement and, inevitably, the resources that power it (I.E. The Sun) will run out, though the latter is a problem. If you want new tech, better intelligence, better creativity, etc., then someone will have to invent it.

There's also the fact that time will be scarce. Creating things means you have to put time and focus into it, which you could be spending doing something else. Inevitably, people who make better things will command the labours of others to make bigger and better things, which they can use to command more labour.

So, yeah, scarcity exists, even in fantasy land. It is a natural feature of the Universe.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985520]

>>2985513

Put better than I could say it Comrade.

Also, WHERE IS INURDAES? I want to seem him weep.

[Anonymous No.2985523]

>>2985474
But if we're in the matrix, we can approximate the living shit out of everything, so there'd be no electrical scarcity.

For practical matter, you could harness all concievable energy in the solar system.

And of course everyone is neo in the matrix. Why not?

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2985543]

>>2985520
He probably closed the thread and went to smoke pot and watch Cosmos again.

[Anonymous No.2985548]

>>2985523
Even if you were able to harness all the energy available in the solar system to run your simulation, it would still run out, after a very, very long time. There is still scarcity outside the simulation.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985550]

>>2985523

>we can approximate the living shit out of everything, so there'd be no electrical scarcity

I dont understand what you mean. As long as there is finite energy, then there is scarcity of that energy.

>For practical matter, you could harness all concievable energy in the solar system.

Which is still scarce. And relies on finite resources to produce and maintain, which are also scarce.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985560]

>>2985543

Lawl, probably.

Diminishing returns do not apply to how many times Inurdaes watches cosmos.

[Anonymous No.2985564]

Fuuuuuuck

[Anonymous No.2985576]

>>2985513
but that posits everyones in the same universe

>EvP
>PvP
>Solo

Wheres scarcity?

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2985600]

>>2985560
You could graph a nice set of isoquants for that.

[Anonymous No.2985602]

>>2985550
Nope.

Everytime some limit of resolution is reached, reduce the exactness of reality by approximation.

Anyways, you're assuming that in the matrix, you'll still have growth of minds/people/whatever

But you're in the matrix, you no longer need to have growth.

The matrix itself can be resourced balanced.

[Axel the Possum No.2985615]

>>2985576

Even if you're in a digital world, that digital world has a physical form in the shape of what it's running on. I.E. The server. The energy supply, preservation, maintenance, and upgrading of this server are all finite commodities. The same goes for the services/creativity produced within it.

If none of us are in the same simulation, we'll go in-fucking-sane because we're social animals.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.2985650]

>>2985602

I just dont understand.

Outside of the matrix, there is scarcity. For those of us who are not in the matrix, we have to find a way to get all that electricity and we must suffer the costs.

IN the matrix. I dont know. Mostly because a matrix is a fictional thing and the limits of such a thing arent well defined.

[Anonymous No.2985671]

>>2985615
At the technology level required for a matrix simulation, simulations of other human beings are likely to be available. Theoretically, you could spend your entire "life" in the matrix without interacting with anyone actually human, and never know.

[Anonymous No.2985673]

>>2985615
No, we'll just divide into groups the same way we do these days.

You're doing a pretty good job coming up with scarcity on every level.

The only problem is you're using infinite time to determine the existence of scarcity. This may or may not be logical

>dunno, but I believe man will find the matrix before he finds space.

[Anonymous No.2985683]

>>2985650
ultimately you're equating scarcity with entropy

[Axel the Possum No.2985703]

>>2985602

It doesn't fucking matter if, in this Matrix, you can create a palace of gold filled with angels who give you blowjobs, you're still going to need someone to design the palace, make sure it looks good, and either turn themselves into these beautiful angels or create AIs to fulfill such a function. Either that, or you must spend many hours working on painstakingly designing gold filigree and, unless you're a kickass artist with a huge amount of concentration, it will look like shit.

You will also want to hear news on other people in this matrix, see new entertainment, visit new places, and guess what? Someone has to gather the info and report it, create that entertainment, and design those places.

All the fucking sim-tech in the world down to the most detailed degree won't get you one fucking man-hour.

That is, unless you create a super-smart AI to do it all for you, in which case you'll need to convince people what is worth the processing power because there will be limits to the energy/material available to you.

Like the speed of light, scarcity is a rule of the Universe. You do not get to escape it.

[Axel the Possum No.2985723]

>>2985683

One is largely responsible for the other.

>>2985671

Simulations of human beings that can emulate the whole range of human behaviour, for all intents and purposes, are human beings.

>>2985673

... Wait, what did I do?

[Anonymous No.2985736]

>>2985723
>Simulations of human beings that can emulate the whole range of human behaviour, for all intents and purposes, are human beings.

No, they're not. Because a human is not defined solely by behavior. An android perfectly designed to resemble a man and act exactly as he does, to the point that the two are indistinguishable, is not a human. A look at its insides would make that fact obvious.

[Anonymous No.2985740]

>>2985736
So, if we put organs in the robot, it'd be human?