Is Post-Scarcity desirable?

[Aranfan]

Sure, there's the material wealth and prosperity, but there would also be no motivation to improve. No motivation to reach for the stars, to make things better, because that would be too much work.


I'm not sure post-scarcity is truely a desirable state, I only see it resulting in stagnation, checked only by the realities of maintainence.

What does SD.net think?

[Starglider]

What does SD.net think?

That you're a moron.

Sure, there's the material wealth and prosperity, but there would also be no motivation to improve.

Improve what? If everyone has everything they want, then what exactly is missing? Or if something is missing, then why would people suddenly stop trying to get the things they want?

No motivation to reach for the stars, to make things better, because that would be too much work.

Merely having stuff does not make people lazy. Aside from the fact that in any remotely practical society plenty of things will still be limited (e.g. land), a large portion of human motivations are not tied to simple acquisition of goods. The classic formalisation of this is Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I'm not sure post-scarcity is truely a desirable state, I only see it resulting in stagnation, checked only by the realities of maintainence.

So if you won say $20M in a lottery you would just laze around doing nothing for the rest of your life, surrounded by piles of consumer goods? Sucks to be you.

[Junghalli]

On the other hand postscarcity might make reaching the stars much easier. Imagine a world where you or I could build an interstellar probe in their spare time as a hobby, with relative ease as machines handle most of the grunt work, and thanks to being biologically immortal we can still be around when it gets to its destination and reports back in 3000 years. You'd probably have thousands of such craft being launched, by that civilization's equivalent of space enthusiast geeks.

While a postscarcity society would probably have tons of horrendously lazy underachievers, I don't think everyone would just veg out all day. Plenty of people today persue creative hobbies in their spare time, even when they have serious competing demands on their time (like "real jobs"). If nothing else, being a human vegetable is probably going to get boring after a while.

[B5B7]

This idea is expressed often - it is a brainbug.
Subsistence societies can last virtually unchanging for thousands of years - that's stagnation. Prosperity is necessary to advance; the more of your time and resources dedicated to simply surviving, the less available for improvement.
The great composers and artists of the past were able to do what they did due to having patrons who commissioned their work (there may be some exceptions) - with not having to worry about daily survival, they on a personal level, were able to dedicate their efforts to their genius.

Who's more likely to be able to go to Mars - 1980s Earth or 2030s Earth? The latter will almost certainly be more prosperous [unless something really bad happens].

Motivation to achieve great things does not come from poverty and struggle to survive, it comes when one has the leisure to do things - due to prosperity.
An analogy between a scarcity and a post-scarcity society would be the following situation:
imagine if there were no electronic (or even mechanical) computers - all mathematical calculations had to be done by hand - then massive numbers of computers (in the 19th century sense of a person who does calculations) would be required for a task one person with a computer could achieve.

[Aranfan]

What does SD.net think?

That you're a moron.

Sure, there's the material wealth and prosperity, but there would also be no motivation to improve.

Improve what? If everyone has everything they want, then what exactly is missing? Or if something is missing, then why would people suddenly stop trying to get the things they want?

No motivation to reach for the stars, to make things better, because that would be too much work.

Merely having stuff does not make people lazy. Aside from the fact that in any remotely practical society plenty of things will still be limited (e.g. land), a large portion of human motivations are not tied to simple acquisition of goods. The classic formalisation of this is Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I'm not sure post-scarcity is truely a desirable state, I only see it resulting in stagnation, checked only by the realities of maintainence.

So if you won say $20M in a lottery you would just laze around doing nothing for the rest of your life, surrounded by piles of consumer goods? Sucks to be you.

Please stop the attacks, I only asked because I wanted to correct a potential deficiet in my thinking.

And to answer your question, I would use the money to see travel, see the world. How much does it cost to go into space? I'd also probably donate some to charity and such.

This idea is expressed often - it is a brainbug.
Subsistence societies can last virtually unchanging for thousands of years - that's stagnation. Prosperity is necessary to advance; the more of your time and resources dedicated to simply surviving, the less available for improvement.
The great composers and artists of the past were able to do what they did due to having patrons who commissioned their work (there may be some exceptions) - with not having to worry about daily survival, they on a personal level, were able to dedicate their efforts to their genius.

Who's more likely to be able to go to Mars - 1980s Earth or 2030s Earth? The latter will almost certainly be more prosperous [unless something really bad happens].

Motivation to achieve great things does not come from poverty and struggle to survive, it comes when one has the leisure to do things - due to prosperity.
An analogy between a scarcity and a post-scarcity society would be the following situation:
imagine if there were no electronic (or even mechanical) computers - all mathematical calculations had to be done by hand - then massive numbers of computers (in the 19th century sense of a person who does calculations) would be required for a task one person with a computer could achieve.

Thank you, that does put things into perspective.

[Samuel]

And to answer your question, I would use the money to see travel, see the world. How much does it cost to go into space?

Currently? 20 million. Cheaper if it became routine- even cheaper if they followed Sikons method.

I'd also probably donate some to charity and such.

Post-scarcity, who would need charity?

Thank you, that does put things into perspective.

It was the major obstacle for a large amount of scientific research. Astronomers had to search the plates by hand, filing cards had to be checked to see if the topic had already been covered, people had to be used as human calculators, etc. We have it easy now.

[Aranfan]

And to answer your question, I would use the money to see travel, see the world. How much does it cost to go into space?

Currently? 20 million. Cheaper if it became routine- even cheaper if they followed Sikons method.

Ah, then I would spend my lottery money on the space trip. It would so be worth it.

I'd also probably donate some to charity and such.

Post-scarcity, who would need charity?

I was talking about what I would do with 20 Million in lotto winnings.

Thank you, that does put things into perspective.

It was the major obstacle for a large amount of scientific research. Astronomers had to search the plates by hand, filing cards had to be checked to see if the topic had already been covered, people had to be used as human calculators, etc. We have it easy now.

As I said, it definately puts things into perspective. I now understand that I had a critical flaw in my thinking and should reconsider the thought process that brought me to my innital conclusion. I am glad that I posted this topic.

[K. A. Pital]

To be frank, anyone who considers scarcity necessary for imporvement should ask himself how much he would improve as a human if he would be deprived of basic necessities, a passport, house and job, and thrown out in the streets...

... and whether he'd not end in prison for stealing, violence or even killing some unspecified time later.

All hitherto existing trends have shown only one thing: if a nation falls into poverty, it becomes less capable of improvement, advancement and achievements in such critical fields as science and industrial technology. Therefore, not only is the elimination of scarcity desireable, it's necessary for humanity to do it if it wants to improve it's society and move to a new social formation where freedom of abilities is infinitely greater for a human being than it is today.

[Garlak]

I've wondered about this too. Granted, it was on the level of:

When I read works of fiction, in the genres that touch on perfect societies, utopias and heaven, they're always subversions... Why? Why the hell do the authors always show us that perfection is boring, that any utopia is flawed and--when we think on it--actually terrifying or disturbing in concept? JUST READ THE FUCKING DEFINITION OF WHAT 'PERFECTION' AND 'UTOPIA' MEANS!

Is it me? I know I think differently than other people, but... When I see the words "utopia" or "heaven" or "paradise" I automatically think (insert naively shy and childish voice here) "bad things can't happen there. By definition." Are they trying to prove that, in a "place where bad things can't happen", bad things WILL happen because it is a place where things can't go wrong??

It.. disturbs me. The "flawed utopia" seems like it is a subversion of a cliche... but the problem is, I can never find the original example; one where a utopia actually is a utopia. So all I'm left is seeing examples of people saying "this won't work" without ever seeing what they're denying and subverting. And that scares me, because it just takes some optimistic thing deep within me, and casually says "*snicker* Pssh! Heh. Hah. Dude, no. Stupid noob."

Is it because the original utopia is something we can all so easily identify because it's something so many of us share in our dreams and perceptions? That the original is there, kind of like there's an original story of "people dreaming"; there wasn't any author that made "people can sleep!" into a popular cliche. We're people; we all sleep and dream. But what does it say about such works that they all take our deepest dreams and desires and subvert and twist them?



I think the problem is a conceptual one. Read a story about.. nothing. About peace. Total, complete happiness and serenity. It might make you warm and fuzzy. But it's not the Illead, or Beowulf, or Oedipus, or Romeo and Juliet, or The Lord of the Rings, or Stranger in a Strange Land, or Harry Potter, or The Bible... We're people. We want exciting, emotional things.

In my mind, I call it the "non-pure-constructive, emotional, dramatic and action-filled" desire... Why do any of our "serious"/important/influential works of fiction have ANYthing bad happen in it? Why does something bad, why do people have to be hurt, in order for us to enjoy a story? Why are there so many stories about past glories, about ancient knowledge and lost technology, magic, civilizations...

Because a "constructive/positive" work of "literature" would be a mathbook. Or a cookbook. Or an engineering textbook. Or a jokebook... but after reading some of Aasimov's work (and reading Stranger In A Strange Land and the protagonist's eventual view of 'humor' and laughter) I have to wonder why the hell we laugh at horrible things happening to other people...




...and that's how I've thought of these things. Sorry. It's very stream-of-consciousness ish.. But if I'm going to say something important, I'm going to say it all, dammit!

[PeZook]

It.. disturbs me. The "flawed utopia" seems like it is a subversion of a cliche... but the problem is, I can never find the original example; one where a utopia actually is a utopia.

How about reading this book, hmm...wait, I forgot the title...I think it was called...um, something like...

UTOPIA



Written by Thomas Moore. I think the problem most writers have is that it was a pretty silly vision, all things considered, where things worked by author's fiat.

As for "elliminating scarcity", it's kind of a brain bug: you just can't do that. You can try to alleviate scarcity as perceived by individuals, but for a society at large, land, resources and energy will always be scarce. So there will always be pressure to expand and find new input sources, if not an individual scale, then certainly for society.

[K. A. Pital]

I think the problem most writers have is that it was a pretty silly vision

You mean where Utopians were a very peaceful and cool slavocratic nation kinda like Norsemans Astaria

As for "elliminating scarcity", it's kind of a brain bug: you just can't do that.

Yeah. You can eliminate scarcity of basic needs, and the only thing that will remain would be massive industrial projects (best managed by large social constructs like corporations and governments) and luxury items (not necessary but why not?), but you can't eliminate the scarcity for the collective.

Even astonishigly powerful Kardashev III civilizations depicted in works like "Culture" do have a finite consumption of energy and spend time thinking about resource allocation through collective judgement; they are simply so much more productive than us and much more collectivist, but that's the only difference. Scarcity for them is not in basic items but in insane amounts of energy they operate; they hardly can grasp the "modern scarcity" kinda like we hardly grasp what kind of conditions of food scarcity the primeval societies had.

[Ford Prefect]

It.. disturbs me. The "flawed utopia" seems like it is a subversion of a cliche... but the problem is, I can never find the original example; one where a utopia actually is a utopia.

How about reading this book, hmm...wait, I forgot the title...I think it was called...um, something like...

UTOPIA

Though ironically, Utopia was presented in Utopia as being fundamentally flawed. There has, to my knowledge, never been a utopia which was actually a utopia. Utopia.

[K. A. Pital]

There has, to my knowledge, never been a utopia which was actually a utopia.

No, the author of Utopia did not consider Utopia having flaws- didn't he envsion it as a perfect society? Also, there's plenty sci-fi utopias out there which do not construct their utopia as "flawed" or "terrible" - internal or external threats to society do not mean the social order of the utopia is wrong.

[Gandalf]

As I recall, it is thought by some that More wrote Utopia with a somewhat satirical tone.

I should be able to find the articles arguing it when I get home in a few days.

[Aranfan]

As I recall, it is thought by some that More wrote Utopia with a somewhat satirical tone.

I should be able to find the articles arguing it when I get home in a few days.

How about that Utopia means "No Place" in greek? "Good Place" would be Eutopia. I hope I don't have to point out the pun.

[Junghalli]

When I read works of fiction, in the genres that touch on perfect societies, utopias and heaven, they're always subversions... Why? Why the hell do the authors always show us that perfection is boring, that any utopia is flawed and--when we think on it--actually terrifying or disturbing in concept? JUST READ THE FUCKING DEFINITION OF WHAT 'PERFECTION' AND 'UTOPIA' MEANS!

Is it me? I know I think differently than other people, but... When I see the words "utopia" or "heaven" or "paradise" I automatically think (insert naively shy and childish voice here) "bad things can't happen there. By definition." Are they trying to prove that, in a "place where bad things can't happen", bad things WILL happen because it is a place where things can't go wrong??

It.. disturbs me. The "flawed utopia" seems like it is a subversion of a cliche... but the problem is, I can never find the original example; one where a utopia actually is a utopia. So all I'm left is seeing examples of people saying "this won't work" without ever seeing what they're denying and subverting. And that scares me, because it just takes some optimistic thing deep within me, and casually says "*snicker* Pssh! Heh. Hah. Dude, no. Stupid noob."

1) As you yourself pointed out, a true Utopia is dramatically boring. Conflict, suspense, and tragedy are the things stories pretty much need to run. A story about people who don't have any real problems would be very dull. Of course, you could write about the Utopia threatened by an outside force, or people from the Utopia interacting with other types of society, but it would take more skill to keep that fresh.

2) When you do see true Utopias in fiction, they tend to be absurd and preachy. I submit for evidence The Probability Broach, Freehold, the utopianist visionary of Star Trek TNG, or the original article (Thomas Moore's Utopia). Utopias are pretty much by definition an implicit criticism of present society (as they suggest things could be done better), and get people to write about what they think their perfect society is and it tends to pretty quickly devolve into "things would be so much better if only we ran things the way I want them run! Everything would be perfect if the stupid and evil people who disagree with me would get out of the way!" It takes a lot of skill to resist that impulse and write a non-preachy Utopia, skill most writers don't seem to have, which goes a long way toward explaining why so many writers are soured on the whole concept of Utopia.

[Neko_Oni]

The Culture seems like a true utopia. The only thing is that no Culture books take place within the Culture society itself. Hence they always deal with the edges of that society, Special Circumstances and Contact.

[Axiomatic]

Look to Windward is a sort of a ride through regular Culture society, although from the viewpoint of an outsider.

[NoXion]

The Culture seems like a true utopia. The only thing is that no Culture books take place within the Culture society itself. Hence they always deal with the edges of that society, Special Circumstances and Contact.

I think this is probably the best way one can represent utopias in fiction. Of course, there might be other good ways of representing utopias, but I haven't personally come across them.

What probably doesn't help is that a lot of "utopias", seriously presented or otherwise, are astoundingly monochrome (at least in my experience) - I expect a truly utopian society would would be amazingly colourful and varied, as people are free to explore and experiment with a huge variety of ways to live and express themselves. There would be titanically potentate godlike beings such as posthumans, AI, hiveminds/collective intelligences etc at one end of the scale, and baseline humans living a mindboggling array of lifestyles at the other end, and everything in between.

I reckon the reason why utopias can come across as "preachy" is because the author is guilty of ignoring the maxim of "show, don't tell". Also, making comparisons between utopias and societies like our own (which I believe Star Trek is guilty of in at least one episode) generally seems like a bad idea in literary terms, as opposed to showing people living in a utopian society and not giving it any more thought than we do in our own society with regards to the relative superabundance of food in comparison to subsistence societies.

[Broomstick]

A few of my thoughts:

First, I don't see where a post-scarcity society will automatically become a utopia. Certainly, certain bad things will be eliminated, but there are plenty of other nasties to contend with that don't involve scarcity, such as illness, interpersonal conflicts (even up to war), environmental hazards, accidents, and so forth.

Second, there is a segment of society that, by some modern measures, will become "less productive". So what? Why is struggle considered inherently better than not struggling? There may be less drive to excell, but also less suffering.

Third, another segment of society will become MORE productive as they will no longer have to pour their time and effort into mere survival. In the end, 2 and 3 balance out.

[Jaevric]

Absolutely, post-scarcity is desirable.

Some people are, believe it or not, self-motivated. They do what they do not just because it pays the bills but because they enjoy doing it. A lot of artists, writers, and others fall under this heading. How many 'famous authors' only became famous after they were safely deceased -- and were penniless when they died?

And if some people do become worthlessly lazy, so what? A lot of people who work to earn a living are still pretty worthless and lazy, the only difference would be that the rest of us didn't have to put up with it as much.

If someone in a post-scarcity society wants to spend his entire life sitting in front of the computer playing Final Fantasy 529, then that's his option and I could care less because he's safely out of my hair.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Absolutely, post-scarcity is desirable.

Some people are, believe it or not, self-motivated. They do what they do not just because it pays the bills but because they enjoy doing it. A lot of artists, writers, and others fall under this heading. How many 'famous authors' only became famous after they were safely deceased -- and were penniless when they died?

And if some people do become worthlessly lazy, so what? A lot of people who work to earn a living are still pretty worthless and lazy, the only difference would be that the rest of us didn't have to put up with it as much.

If someone in a post-scarcity society wants to spend his entire life sitting in front of the computer playing Final Fantasy 529, then that's his option and I could care less because he's safely out of my hair.

You "couldn't care less", but yes, good points all. The idea that we must be limited to some of the rather tedious and dull utopias in fiction is rife. I expect many see it like Heaven, where you're doing good wholesome things in the eyes of God, and the rest of the time is spent kissing his arse. Course, you live for eternity doing that, and eternity is an awful long time to do anything.

I have always viewed the Culture as the best utopia vision we can achieve. Something truly abundant in resources, cosmopolitan and liberal with the space and means to allow entities of all persuasions to go about their lives as they see fit with only the minimum of protective measures within the society, given Contact and SC deal with the major threats from without (not that, as we see in LtW, there aren't those hostile to this civilisation within).

Typically, though, a great many utopias cannot be realised as the authors may expect. The Probability Broach, for instance, goes on about an ideal society run by individuals, not governments, but neglects the human nature issue which makes such things as perfect socialism or libertarianism hard, if not impossible, to realise without far more advances in a post-singularity era where many old ways of thinking today are extinct i.e. religious intolerance or class warfare.