Future Economy (2010) [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Future Economy (2010) [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilY4hRgfC2Q
64 comments
It's a nice theory but doesn't solve the problem of supply and demand. If there are 7 billion people on earth that all want a widget, how does this economic philosophy handle the fact that the manufacturing capability can only produce enough widgets for 1 billion people. Who decides which billion people get the widget?
Even if you optimize the supply/demand problem, you just can't rule a finite world with infinite desires. At some point, there are things you need to give up. The question is: which things, and when?
exactly. Money helps solve this problem.
This problem = boundless desires. Money is just some kind of palliative care, not a cure.
Money easily allows you trade-off various needs and desires, and focus on the ones you really want.
If you need money to prioritize your desires, money is just a workaround for your lack of judgment. If you go this way: the things you really want are the ones that probably a lot of people want too. Then enters the offer/demand relation, and the price you have to pay for it is consequently not connected anymore with its cost. In the end, you pay much more.
I do agree we we need to think at the individual level first. I means we have to think out of social/collective convention during this first step. Money is one of it. Desire is not. Let's start with desire, then figure out what we can do with money?
I do agree we we need to think at the individual level first. I means we have to think out of social/collective convention during this first step. Money is one of it. Desire is not. Let's start with desire, then figure out what we can do with money?
If you need money to prioritize your desires
No, one needs money to prioritize one's desires relative to the availability of resources. Two persons might have the same order of preferences (A > B > C), but one person might rather have (A) alone, while the other prefers to have (B, C). By having an universal credits system, the two can bid on stuff and come out with a good compromise.
No, one needs money to prioritize one's desires relative to the availability of resources. Two persons might have the same order of preferences (A > B > C), but one person might rather have (A) alone, while the other prefers to have (B, C). By having an universal credits system, the two can bid on stuff and come out with a good compromise.
[deleted]
Well, for a start, it's a post-scarcity society that has the capacity to produce 7 billion widgets if necessary. So that gets you around a lot of problems.
You'll notice that the crew quarters in the show are decorated in a minimalist style. The only objects people keep are the ones that are important to them. Tools, games, gifts can be conjured as needed and recycled when you're done with them.
Scarce resources do exist, however, especially on a starship: crew quarters are probably not all of the same size, for example. Some people might have to walk a little further to the turbolift (elevator). These sorts of resource allocation problems are likely solved by either a lottery method or based on need. For example, if the Captain gets bigger quarters, it's not because she's the captain, it's because she might need the space to host visiting delegates, etc.
Although I suppose there are still some material inequalities based on rank. For example, ensigns get a single rank pip, while a captain gets four.
You'll notice that the crew quarters in the show are decorated in a minimalist style. The only objects people keep are the ones that are important to them. Tools, games, gifts can be conjured as needed and recycled when you're done with them.
Scarce resources do exist, however, especially on a starship: crew quarters are probably not all of the same size, for example. Some people might have to walk a little further to the turbolift (elevator). These sorts of resource allocation problems are likely solved by either a lottery method or based on need. For example, if the Captain gets bigger quarters, it's not because she's the captain, it's because she might need the space to host visiting delegates, etc.
Although I suppose there are still some material inequalities based on rank. For example, ensigns get a single rank pip, while a captain gets four.
A post-scarcity economy is never going to be able to create more lake-front properties or more seats at the top pop star's front-row. (Although I suppose you could argue: VR. But I doubt people even 100 years from now will agree VR is just as good as the real thing.)
When you think about it, there's a lot of stuff that'll still be scarce even when we have magic robots that can build everything instantly.
When you think about it, there's a lot of stuff that'll still be scarce even when we have magic robots that can build everything instantly.
Not everyone can get what they want, but certainly everyone gets what they need. Everyone living in mansions? Nope. But is anybody homeless? Nope. It's a trade-off.
Many sought-after things are scarce. Starship commissions are scarce. They require hard work and are assigned based on merit. Not just anyone gets the opportunity to explore the edge of space; it takes dedication and sacrifice.
The show is certainly influence by the philosophy of Stoicism[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
Many sought-after things are scarce. Starship commissions are scarce. They require hard work and are assigned based on merit. Not just anyone gets the opportunity to explore the edge of space; it takes dedication and sacrifice.
The show is certainly influence by the philosophy of Stoicism[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
> A post-scarcity economy is never going to be able to create more lake-front properties or more seats at the top pop star's front-row.
By the definition of economic scarcity it will be required to in order to merit the name. However, that illustrates that a post-scarcity society will never exist (or at least is vastly farther off than some people imagine), which is the more critical point.
By the definition of economic scarcity it will be required to in order to merit the name. However, that illustrates that a post-scarcity society will never exist (or at least is vastly farther off than some people imagine), which is the more critical point.
If you want to keep capitalism in a post-scarcity society- all you need to do is counter the exponential production with exponential consumption- breed tribble-human hybrids.
That's actually not keeping capitalism in a post-scarcity society, since the proposal relies on having existing (and artificially enhancing the existing) scarcity.
If anything that anyone wants is limited such that enhancing one person's realized utility is a trade-off with someone else's realized utility, you don't have a post-scarcity situation.
Which is why post-scarcity isn't really something we are ever likely to need to worry about.
What we need to worry about is a scenario with scarcity where large masses of the public are (some in a static way, and some in a transitional way that, with optimal policy, could resolve given time), through arrangement of capital and the relative utility of automation vs. labor (including when it comes to producing additional automated production units) unable to contribute significantly to output, and thus have nothing to sell in the marketplace.
If anything that anyone wants is limited such that enhancing one person's realized utility is a trade-off with someone else's realized utility, you don't have a post-scarcity situation.
Which is why post-scarcity isn't really something we are ever likely to need to worry about.
What we need to worry about is a scenario with scarcity where large masses of the public are (some in a static way, and some in a transitional way that, with optimal policy, could resolve given time), through arrangement of capital and the relative utility of automation vs. labor (including when it comes to producing additional automated production units) unable to contribute significantly to output, and thus have nothing to sell in the marketplace.
Until we learn how to create something out of nothing, there will be no post-scarcity world.
I would think that in such a society, people would upload blueprints for how to create things, which you could then send to your local manufacturing plant to get built. Some sort of advanced 3d printer could even see these sorts of things widespread.
Additionally it would be 100% recyclable, with the idea that you would 'give back to the earth' when you were done with it (materialism would be a thing of the past).
Additionally it would be 100% recyclable, with the idea that you would 'give back to the earth' when you were done with it (materialism would be a thing of the past).
Ok I want lake-front property with a view of Mount Rainier. What address do I send my blueprint to?
Oh wait.
I'll never understand why people who promote this "magical robots solve everything" view ignore the simple examples that robots, no matter how sophisticated, cannot fix. For example, scarcity of prime real estate.
Oh wait.
I'll never understand why people who promote this "magical robots solve everything" view ignore the simple examples that robots, no matter how sophisticated, cannot fix. For example, scarcity of prime real estate.
One of the main problems with housing is it is stuck in place, which gives rise to lots of problems:
1. you have to build round existing structures
2. if the sea level rises, there is nothing you can do
3. small roads can't be widened to accommodate heavier traffic and so on.
In the future the concept of a fixed house would be bizarre, with everything being able to be made portable. It would be normal to have giant shifts in house placement and rewiring of pipes and electricity via AI bots, in order to accommodate change.
1. you have to build round existing structures
2. if the sea level rises, there is nothing you can do
3. small roads can't be widened to accommodate heavier traffic and so on.
In the future the concept of a fixed house would be bizarre, with everything being able to be made portable. It would be normal to have giant shifts in house placement and rewiring of pipes and electricity via AI bots, in order to accommodate change.
Ok so it's the future and the magical robots can easily move houses.
Why would the guy with the beautiful lake front property move his house? Why would he make his lot smaller to let other people live closer to him? What's his incentive?
Being able to easily move a house doesn't do anything to make lake front property less scarce.
If your answer is: "the government would force him", then that sounds more like a dystopia than a utopia.
Why would the guy with the beautiful lake front property move his house? Why would he make his lot smaller to let other people live closer to him? What's his incentive?
Being able to easily move a house doesn't do anything to make lake front property less scarce.
If your answer is: "the government would force him", then that sounds more like a dystopia than a utopia.
> In the future the concept of a fixed house would be bizarre, with everything being able to be made portable.
People have been predicting this for some 200 years. It's older than flying cars.
People have been predicting this for some 200 years. It's older than flying cars.
It doesn't matter how it gets created if there is only the manufacturing capability to produce x amount yet more than x number of people want it? Maybe there isn't the raw materials to produce it, perhaps it takes too long to produce. Maybe it's that we all want our own spaceship and don't want to be under the command of Captain Picard. Maybe it's something even more limited like a house exactly on the north pole. Without money, who decides who gets to live exactly on the north pole?
Perhaps with a VR setup like The Matrix, we could all have what we want all the time. Within the society of the world though, there are rules and hard limits so we can all live together peacefully. Besides everyone having their own stuff is what caused many of our problems in the first place, but this is a very hard mindset to get out of (survival instinct being the root cause of it, meaning it's biologically hardcoded behaviour).
Do they have to own said widget, or do they merely require use of said widget?
irrelevant. Only 1 billion people can have it and 7 billion want it.
It is relevant. Imagine everyone wants to use a car. Is everyone going to be using a car at every point during the day? No.
Shared ownership allows you to drastically reduce the number of items that need to be produced. Look around you at the things in your house. How many of those things do you use on a regular basis, and how many things are under utilised for most of the time. Shared ownership means you get access to a much wider range of items whilst reducing the cost of ownership.
Shared ownership allows you to drastically reduce the number of items that need to be produced. Look around you at the things in your house. How many of those things do you use on a regular basis, and how many things are under utilised for most of the time. Shared ownership means you get access to a much wider range of items whilst reducing the cost of ownership.
The truth is, we have the means now to provide food, medicine and power to the entire world easily. People actually need those things. People don't need widgets, and they've lived meaningful lives for millenia without them. It's only through the deceit of advertising that you think they are necessary. They're nice, but you adapt fairly quickly to life without them.
Here's the thing, we could live like this now, we don't need any new technological advancements to make this possible, yet we haven't and don't.
So if you're waiting for the future to make this altruistic lifestyle mainstream, ask yourself what's holding it back now. It's certainly not a lack of material wealth, we've had that for centuries.
So if you're waiting for the future to make this altruistic lifestyle mainstream, ask yourself what's holding it back now. It's certainly not a lack of material wealth, we've had that for centuries.
You see, in the future, we don't work to produce; machines can do that handily. We work to prove to other humans that we are worth enough to get a share of the product.
But isn't that pointless? You could instead just enjoy life doing whatever else you want to do, if the machines already produce everything you need.
Yes. But it is our collective decision, not a decision of any of us. The needs of the society take precedence over the needs of each of us. The only way to reverse the decision is -
- to collectively agree that every one of you wants something else?
Yes. There is an old economic theory predicting that the preferences of the society should eventually reflect individual preferences of its members, at least in the long run. There is still hope that this will happen in the future, but not before I will be long dead, I'm afraid.
But isn't that pointless? You could instead just enjoy life doing whatever else you want to do, if the machines already produce everything you need.
Yes. But it is our collective decision, not a decision of any of us. The needs of the society take precedence over the needs of each of us. The only way to reverse the decision is -
- to collectively agree that every one of you wants something else?
Yes. There is an old economic theory predicting that the preferences of the society should eventually reflect individual preferences of its members, at least in the long run. There is still hope that this will happen in the future, but not before I will be long dead, I'm afraid.
In the future there will exist people who are equally capable as they are today. These people will also possess the same needs and desires that people today possess.
It used to be that each person was responsible for performing tasks that would ensure their survival and the survival of those important to them.
Specialization and division of labor allowed certain people to do productive activities that didn't directly connect to their own survival.
Some people built houses and thatched roofs. Some people became blacksmiths and made tools. Others farmed large plots of land.
Markets in equilibrium allow producers and consumers to exchange goods and services for money and the system as a whole can be said to be more productive.
As some point in time though, machines will advanced such that nearly any productive output a human can undertake would be performed more efficiently by a machine instead. The value of human labor output will be driven to nearly zero.
Where people go wrong is that they ask the question, "If humans make no money how will they buy anything, won't everyone just starve to death?"
The purpose of an economy seems to be to create information in the form of prevailing wages which signal to members what tasks the system values. Once machines are the supermajority of the productive value output and humans are a mere tax on output, we take on a role similar to the ones pets have right now.
If the machines are sentient, then they simply outcompete us and we lose unless they support us with generosity. If the machines are owned and directed, then either the majority of people will decide to ensure some component of the machines output will always be directed to the sustaining of humanity. If a minority owns the machines and resist the taxing of their wealth, then there will be revolution and violence.
It used to be that each person was responsible for performing tasks that would ensure their survival and the survival of those important to them.
Specialization and division of labor allowed certain people to do productive activities that didn't directly connect to their own survival.
Some people built houses and thatched roofs. Some people became blacksmiths and made tools. Others farmed large plots of land.
Markets in equilibrium allow producers and consumers to exchange goods and services for money and the system as a whole can be said to be more productive.
As some point in time though, machines will advanced such that nearly any productive output a human can undertake would be performed more efficiently by a machine instead. The value of human labor output will be driven to nearly zero.
Where people go wrong is that they ask the question, "If humans make no money how will they buy anything, won't everyone just starve to death?"
The purpose of an economy seems to be to create information in the form of prevailing wages which signal to members what tasks the system values. Once machines are the supermajority of the productive value output and humans are a mere tax on output, we take on a role similar to the ones pets have right now.
If the machines are sentient, then they simply outcompete us and we lose unless they support us with generosity. If the machines are owned and directed, then either the majority of people will decide to ensure some component of the machines output will always be directed to the sustaining of humanity. If a minority owns the machines and resist the taxing of their wealth, then there will be revolution and violence.
I wish. The truth is the whole world is run on money, meaning the millionaires and billionaires are the ones in charge. It absolutely doesn't have to be this way; we already produce so much food no one need starve. But greed runs deep within humanity, preventing this sort of change from ever happening.
You can make this change happen in your own life. Perhaps not completely, but probably significantly enough to make a big difference. Truth is: the whole world is run on money.... because we're all looking for money. Change your mind, use all the margin you have, promote humanity, and your world starts to change.
(haven't watched it yet) Why should we wait for the future to improve ourselves and humanity? IMHO we should start right now. We should even have started a long time ago.
Mainly because the ones in power want to stay in power, and actively stop change. We are safer than ever, yet according to the media we are super lucky to not be killed by a terrorist every second of the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitu...
The essay argues that any tyrant remains in power until his subjects grant him that, therefore delegitimizing every form of power. The original freedom of men would be indeed abandoned by society which, once corrupted by the habit, would have preferred the servitude of the courtier to the freedom of the free man, who refuses to be submissive and to obey.
The essay argues that any tyrant remains in power until his subjects grant him that, therefore delegitimizing every form of power. The original freedom of men would be indeed abandoned by society which, once corrupted by the habit, would have preferred the servitude of the courtier to the freedom of the free man, who refuses to be submissive and to obey.
Well at least we have Swedish furniture. Take the wall-alcove Borg for example. Visit the next Ikea-Kubus near you.
Transhumanism had a Backdoor.
Transhumanism had a Backdoor.
The money is just tool to achieve your goals.
You don't need to get rid of it to acheive your personal goals.
You don't need to get rid of it to acheive your personal goals.
Money isn't a tool. Tool have uses and multiply productivity of their users. Money is, among other things, a representative of value.
Money does have multiple uses and multiplies productivity if correctly used
Ok; I want to improve myself by moving into a big house on the shore of Lake Washington.
Oh. It takes money to do that? Well shoot.
EDIT: to actually respond to the video clip, it's kind of surprising how interesting Star Trek got when they threw out some of Roddenberry's ideas during the Deep Space 9 era. The Starfleet people co-existed with the Ferengi and Bajorans who didn't have post-scarcity economies. The Bajorans were also highly religious. Starfleet had a shadowy spy organization willing to assassinate foreign leaders. A Starfleet Captain becomes a traitor to Earth-- twice!
And yet despite that, Deep Space 9 is one of the most beloved Star Trek series.
Related to the clip above:
(Quark is selling an auction of a 1950s baseball card Jake wants. Jake's convincing Nog, a Ferengi, to help him.)
Nog: "It's my money, Jake! If you want to bid at the auction, use your own money."
Jake: "I'm Human, I don't have any money."
Nog: "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement."
Jake: "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity."
Nog: "What does that mean exactly?"
Jake: "It means... it means we don't need money!"
Nog: "Well, if you don't need money, then you certainly don't need mine!"
Oh. It takes money to do that? Well shoot.
EDIT: to actually respond to the video clip, it's kind of surprising how interesting Star Trek got when they threw out some of Roddenberry's ideas during the Deep Space 9 era. The Starfleet people co-existed with the Ferengi and Bajorans who didn't have post-scarcity economies. The Bajorans were also highly religious. Starfleet had a shadowy spy organization willing to assassinate foreign leaders. A Starfleet Captain becomes a traitor to Earth-- twice!
And yet despite that, Deep Space 9 is one of the most beloved Star Trek series.
Related to the clip above:
(Quark is selling an auction of a 1950s baseball card Jake wants. Jake's convincing Nog, a Ferengi, to help him.)
Nog: "It's my money, Jake! If you want to bid at the auction, use your own money."
Jake: "I'm Human, I don't have any money."
Nog: "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement."
Jake: "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity."
Nog: "What does that mean exactly?"
Jake: "It means... it means we don't need money!"
Nog: "Well, if you don't need money, then you certainly don't need mine!"
The surprise twist to that story, is that after living in a nice house for a while you no longer notice it. If you have to sacrifice something else you do notice for the money to live in a nice place, you're caught in the trap.
"When you positively leave a house and enter into another house your positive action ceases to be positive action at all because you have abandoned one power structure for another, which you will again have to leave. So this constant repetition, which appears to be a positive action, is really inaction. But if you reject the desire and the search for all inward security, then it is a total negation which is a most positive action. It is this action only which transforms man. If you reject hate and envy, in every form, you are rejecting the whole structure of what man has created in himself and outside himself. It is very simple. One problem is related to every other problem." -- Krishnamurti (from Freedom, Love and Action)
The main problems that STNG deals with are ethical, philosophical and spiritual, not technological or economical.
Just as there is "technobabble" about space-time continuums and positronic brains, there is also a bit of hand waving about the specifics of how the economy functions.
Just as it's silly to worry about whether they're calibrating the plasma manifolds correctly, it is missing the point to think that STNG is going to deliver actionable economic advice.
The main problems that STNG deals with are ethical, philosophical and spiritual, not technological or economical.
Just as there is "technobabble" about space-time continuums and positronic brains, there is also a bit of hand waving about the specifics of how the economy functions.
Just as it's silly to worry about whether they're calibrating the plasma manifolds correctly, it is missing the point to think that STNG is going to deliver actionable economic advice.
I don't think anyone is saying you suddenly don't need money, because in our current society you absolutely do. But it is possible to imagine one without it, once we get over a certain threshold of technology.
What threshold is going to make prime real estate lots around Lake Washington not scarce?
Asking seriously. Because I have a lot of imagination and I can't come up with anything. Except perhaps we all plug into VR 24/7 like The Matrix. But even in my fake Matrix VR house, I'd envy the guy with the real thing.
Asking seriously. Because I have a lot of imagination and I can't come up with anything. Except perhaps we all plug into VR 24/7 like The Matrix. But even in my fake Matrix VR house, I'd envy the guy with the real thing.
[deleted]
you may envy the guy with the "real thing," but future generations likely won't. if you have fully immersive virtual reality environments, then it won't matter where you live.
as someone who has done a recent job search, i knew i couldn't afford to live in the bay area with my large family, but half og the companies i interviewed with were in the bay area allowing me to work remotely. the technology and kind of work we do (software engineering) is getting good enough to broaden the reach of "the office."
if we had just fully integrated audio and visual environments, for work collaboration, i could see many people choosing to live at the lakeside in montana and work in seattle rather than having to live on Lake Washington.
as someone who has done a recent job search, i knew i couldn't afford to live in the bay area with my large family, but half og the companies i interviewed with were in the bay area allowing me to work remotely. the technology and kind of work we do (software engineering) is getting good enough to broaden the reach of "the office."
if we had just fully integrated audio and visual environments, for work collaboration, i could see many people choosing to live at the lakeside in montana and work in seattle rather than having to live on Lake Washington.
> What threshold is going to make prime real estate lots around Lake Washington not scarce?
Warp drive? A thousand habitable planets that make Earth look like dusty, irradiated backwater? An vast frontier to explore, filled with endless new challenges and experiences?
Warp drive? A thousand habitable planets that make Earth look like dusty, irradiated backwater? An vast frontier to explore, filled with endless new challenges and experiences?
Like I replied to your other comment; portable housing that can move on demand. AI bots that rewire water pipes and electricity etc. It could be a regular event to re-landscape whole cities and towns.
if $your_vr_house == $his_real_house
& you are envious then you are the problem in the equation
[deleted]
Off-topic: @hacker_9 just saw one of your recent comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13267106) and you seem to be thinking along similar lines to me and akkartik (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=akkartik). You can read more about our work here (http://akkartik.name/about). Would love to hear any thoughts you have!
Looks interesting, good luck with it. I don't have anything much concrete to add to what I last said, but I do think visual programming is still an unexplored space. I feel like the flowchart stuff is maybe thinking about the problem the wrong way round, putting code in nicely coloured boxes seems a bit redundant.
How does moving to a big house improve you?
How doesn't it? I'm living in an apartment right now bordering a psycho neighbour and it's mentally ruining me. I can only dream of having my own quiet space again. Simply having the mental freedom to think about what you want, not 'juggling' thoughts about managing your lifestyle around other peoples lives.
If you are well slept and content, then arguably everything you undertake will be the 'improved' version.
If you are well slept and content, then arguably everything you undertake will be the 'improved' version.
Let's put this another way. I agree that having to deal with negative people is draining. However, does fixing that require a big house? From what I know you don't need a lot of money (by Western standards) to find somewhere else you prefer to live. What's holding you back from living somewhere new (whether that's a new country or somewhere with fewer problems in your current country)?
What's the "self" in improving yourself? You as a human being (humanity)? Or your human condition (comfort)?
It would certainly give me a much quieter environment to work in, with a far better view. Also would do a ton to help me attract a girlfriend.
But you're right, it's not all the way there yet: I also need to hire someone to do the basic maintenance and cleaning. Or perhaps a robot. But either option takes money.
But you're right, it's not all the way there yet: I also need to hire someone to do the basic maintenance and cleaning. Or perhaps a robot. But either option takes money.
Money is a sedative. It improves life to a certain point, but past that point it's less effective. There's also the effects that chasing wealth has on your psyche, where accumulation of wealth requires fiscal discipline, and the more money you get the more reluctant you become to spend it, and you're driven towards the accumulation of even more wealth.
Perhaps you don't believe me. If so, how do you think the cultural meme of the unhappy rich person came about? What is it about the lifestyles of the rich that would get in the way of living life to the full?
Perhaps you don't believe me. If so, how do you think the cultural meme of the unhappy rich person came about? What is it about the lifestyles of the rich that would get in the way of living life to the full?