Post scarcity motivations

[SciFrac]

Scarcity is not an economic system, it is the nature of our physical universe: Scarcity

There are limited resources to tackle unlimited human needs. There is a finite amount of dry land, oxygen, water, gold, a limited animals can be eaten before they go extinct.etc. Even the division of labor can only achieve so much -- a limited number of doctors are available at any given time.

Economics is study of how humanity can best use our limited resources to maximize its benefit. Even if you handed over all future work to robots, they will break down and require new parts or replacements. Who’s going to do all that work? More robots? The problem becomes regressive. Honestly, I don’t see how any civilization could possibly “end scarcity” without ending human existence.

 

[RX-79G]

Scarcity is not an economic system, it is the nature of our physical universe: Scarcity

However, "post-scarcity" is a theoretical economic model and term.

Economics is study of how humanity can best use our limited resources to maximize its benefit. Even if you handed over all future work to robots, they will break down, and require new parts or replacements. Who’s going to do all that work? More robots? The problem becomes regressive. Honestly, I don’t see how any civilization could possibly “end scarcity” without ending human existence.

Are you familiar with how nanotechnology would work, and reject that possibility?

 

[SciFrac]

Is it your belief that nanotechnology, once set into motion, would become self-sufficient and never require human intervention or guidance?

 

[RX-79G]

Is it your belief that nanotechnology, once set into motion, would become self-sufficient and never require human intervention or guidance?

Maybe. But it could be a technology that once set in motion takes so little human intervention that it really doesn't constitute "work".

Getting the phone and calling for pizza delivery involves "work", but not enough for anyone to call it such.


The thing is, once people have equipped themselves with the ability to easily control and operate something like nanotechnology, you really enter into a period where even the grossest population explosion would take enormous time periods to exhaust the solar system. Every person would have the power to create a self sufficient living space for themselves.

 

[SciFrac]

Every person would have the power to create a self sufficient living space for themselves.

In theory. Let's suppose we ignore the laws of thermodynamics and get really optimistic. Say only ten percent of people on earth are needed to sustain life for the other ninety percent. That ten percent is going to be extremely crucial and would take a much higher place in society, because after all, "We're keeping all you people alive!" This would drastically alter economics as we know it today, and I'm not sure it could sustain very long, but it would be an interesting time to read about.

 

[RX-79G]

In theory. Let's suppose we ignore the laws of thermodynamics and get really optimistic. Say only ten percent of people on earth are needed to sustain life for the other ninety percent. That ten percent is going to be extremely crucial and would take a much higher place in society, because after all, "We're keeping all you people alive!" This would drastically alter economics as we know it today, and I'm not sure it could sustain very long, but it would be an interesting time to read about.

I'm not sure what that 10% would be doing, or why we would need to ignore thermodynamics.

Our planet is covered in "molecular machinery". How much maintenance did a 500 year old oak tree require to keep producing acorns?

 

[SciFrac]

How much maintenance did a 500 year old oak tree require to keep producing acorns?

Probably more than you’re calculating.

Your scenario inverts the energy pyramid. For example, consider the food chain: only ten percent of stored energy is utilized by the consumer. This roughly means that 10,000 pounds of grass feeds 1,000 grasshoppers … Those 1,000 grasshoppers feed 100 birds … and those 100 birds feed 10 foxes … and those 10 foxes feed 1 cougar. (Something like that, I’m not a biologist.) Humans top the food chain in terms of energy needed to live comfortably in a first world country. By flipping this pyramid upside down, you’re ignoring the laws because of the scientific definition of “work.”

 

[BAYLOR]

I think human nature wouldn't allow a utopia to exist, nor would we be comfortable living in one. I'll side with Agent Smith on this one.

Utopia would bring about our eventual extinction. Every need met, no challenges or problems left would cause us to lose the desire and the will to survive. We seem to do our best work as a species when we are constantly under fire.

 

[BAYLOR]

Is it your belief that nanotechnology, once set into motion, would become self-sufficient and never require human intervention or guidance?

We'd better hope that never happens.

 

[RX-79G]

Probably more than you’re calculating.

It required zero maintenance.

Your scenario inverts the energy pyramid. For example, consider the food chain: only ten percent of stored energy is utilized by the consumer. This roughly means that 10,000 pounds of grass feeds 1,000 grasshoppers … Those 1,000 grasshoppers feed 100 birds … and those 100 birds feed 10 foxes … and those 10 foxes feed 1 cougar. (Something like that, I’m not a biologist.) Humans top the food chain in terms of energy needed to live comfortably in a first world country. By flipping this pyramid upside down, you’re ignoring the laws because of the scientific definition of “work.”

I don't think any of that is scientific. Human beings aren't at the top of the food chain - we don't eat alpha predators. A vegetarian would actually be rather low on the food chain. But I don't really see what that has to do with "energy pyramids". We only have something like a food chain of energy consumption because of the way technology so far has efficiently scaled. It isn't some sort of natural order. It is simply currently true that it takes less work (force over distance) to have mines, factories and power lines than for everyone to live on top of an oil well.

But revolutionary technology can easily upset that paradigm without being contrary to any scientific principle at all.

I really don't think the things you're bringing up are actually the application of science at all, but just loose ecological or economic descriptions of interconnected systems. There is no inviolable absolute to any of the things you're bringing up. You're just describing the way the world is now as proof that it can't be a different way. People did that in the middle ages, industrial revolution, etc and have always been proved wrong.

 

[RX-79G]

Utopia would bring about our eventual extinction. Every need met, no challenges or problems left would cause us to lose the desire and the will to survive. We seem to do our best work as a species when we are constantly under fire.

What "will to survive"? Are you saying having an easy life causes biological death or a cessation of breeding? Do you have any basis for this?

 

[SciFrac]

I don't think any of that is scientific.

Well okay, but I watched my colleagues teach that same type of example in their biology classes this year.

It required zero maintenance.

It required adequate sunlight, nutrients, and water. All living things require energy to grow and reproduce. Homeostasis is nature's "maintenance."

Of course technology makes work easier, and higher order goods require more and more energy to produce. At today's standard of living, humans consume far more resources than any other species. We're on top of the energy pyramid by a mile. How will humans extract all the necessary resources to maintain their lifestyle, construct buildings, manufacture vehicles, design clothing, install communications, etc? How will nanobots be replaced as they fail? Who will perform innovative research? If your answer to all these questions is "nanotechnology" then be careful, because at this point your scenario sounds too simplistic to suspend my disbelief. But I'm just one opinion.

 

[RX-79G]

Well okay, but I watched my colleagues teach that same type of example in their biology classes this year.

Those are models to explain how certain things in the world work, but they aren't laws that must be obeyed.

It required adequate sunlight, nutrients, and water. All living things require energy to grow and reproduce. Homeostasis is nature's "maintenance."

A car requires fuel and tires. Maintenance is something additional that is external to a car, but not external to self repairing systems. No one said that nanotechnology would have to function without energy or raw materials, just that it is possible for molecular machinery to emulate the same repair and replace functions as life for its own homeostasis.

How will nanobots be replaced as they fail?

They'll replace themselves either through a process like an immune system or by a recycling of dead components.

Of course technology makes work easier, and at today's standard of living, humans consume far more resources than any other species. We're on top of the energy pyramid by a mile. How will humans acquire all the resources to maintain their lifestyle, construct buildings, manufacture vehicles, design clothing or communications, etc?

And we would still be on top, but there is no reason that people would continue to use the same amount of energy and resources as they do in top down distribution systems as when they can gather energy directly and recycle everything. You want a new car? Turn your old one into a new one - every atom of your old car is useful to make a new one - with quite a bit left over.

Who will perform innovative research?

Anyone who wants to: Everyone will have time, power, materials and the ability to copy any device or principle that already exists. If people want to innovate, they will. People with special shared interests will pool their individual resources to keep something like academia going.

However, they absolutely do not have to. Hunter gatherers failed to innovate for tens of thousands of years. Humans could take one enormous technological leap and just 'coast' on everything the technology makes possible for millennia. Just exploring everything that becomes possible when you can make machinery that reproduces itself and can make materials from the atom up is such a paradigm shift it is like going from stone age to the 20th century overnight. If everyone wants to keep things simple and just live in their houses that never wear out and tend their gardens, they can do that indefinitely. Innovation is not a necessity. Sometimes, it isn't even desirable.

So a post scarcity society could be pretty sedate and static. But that doesn't mean it isn't possible or something to be avoided. It is just another kind of homeostasis.


I'd recommend reading K. Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation for a non-fiction overview.

 

[SciFrac]

they aren't laws that must be obeyed.

Yes, they absolutely are. We don't have methods to circumvent the laws of thermodynamics. Energy sources are fundamental to all living things.

No one said that nanotechnology would have to function without energy or raw materials

Okay, but now you're talking about scarce resources, and that contradicts your post scarcity scenario.

They'll replace themselves either through a process like an immune system or by a recycling of dead components.

Does any theorist believe that the billions of nanobots needed to extract raw minerals from the earth could complete this task millions of times over without incident? Accidents, mistakes, and unpredictable events will happen. I just think human work will be required on some level, so that's why I gave the 10% example earlier.

every atom of your old car is useful to make a new one

Not true. Matter which is converted to heat during each process will reduce the material available next time. This is partly why your body can only utilize ten percent of the energy stored in food. Entropy is a legitimate problem to address.

If everyone wants to keep things simple and just live in their houses that never wear out and tend their gardens, they can do that indefinitely.

Agreed, and if people want to live in mud huts for centuries, they are welcome to do that too. However, you don't need nanotechnology for such a low cost lifestyle. Look, I'm willing to see this situation possible for a time (and certainly over the life of a novel), but it's not something I believe could continue indefinitely.

 

[RX-79G]

Not true. Matter which is converted to heat during each process will reduce the material available next time.

I say this with full respect - everyone has different knowledge and aptitudes:

Matter is not converted to heat in chemical processes, and is never reduced.

We can't have a conversation about science if you are going to base your points on gross misunderstandings of scientific principles. I'm not going to debate and instruct you at the same time. I don't think there is much to be gained by arguing about things that are so far outside of your knowledge base.

 

[tinkerdan]

If we want to include economics in the discussion then I would supposed that we'd want to call this post economic efficiency. Which by definition includes scarcity from which I conclude that most likely post scarcity would be a condition that does away with economics.

Post Scarcity to me implies(or maybe I just infer) that nothing is scarce. Also everything is at zero-cost. And the logistics of manufacture,distribution and availability have been taken care of. There is really no demand for anything because everyone can or/and does have.

As to those who think that we have now things that are not scarce. Everything has a cost--even the air we breath. The free stuff can kill you or make you sick.

Now as to the nanotechnologies and understanding scientific principles. I have to confess to a lack of understanding. But I think it boils down to the exchange of energy in a system(perhaps I should say Universe which has systems and its surroundings)that is entropic in nature. So if we are talking about spontaneous chemical reactions then those tend to release energy and increase entropy over time; whereas non-spontaneous may require application of energy to begin and sometimes sustain the process and more energy is expended than can be returned from the process and there is even a theoretical notion they could introduce negative entropy. Many of our consumer goods tend to be ones that require more energy than they return and perhaps a suggestion that matter converted or lost or reduced comes from the misinterpretation of the energy transfer.

Self sustaining Nanotechnology that would produce consumer goods would have to somehow capture and store energy released in order to produce the energy necessary to build those things or processes that need energy to start--mostly because the resources to obtain methods to produce the energy presently require materials that are finite. The energy it stores would have to come from energy that is released to and floating out there in the area surrounding the system.

All that said:
There will still be many things that humans can do and contribute that won't be addressed by this system and if everyone begins to grow fat and lazy then getting hold of a good book or artwork or music would create it's own level of scarcity that would require some viable economic means of transfer.
Though there might be a glut of things that are average to not so good in this area which would likely fall into the post scarcity paradigm.

Once again my science is not strong here so there is likely an easy way to punch so many holes in it that it looks like Swiss cheese.

 

[RX-79G]

"Post-scarcity is a hypothetical economy in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely.[1][2] Post-scarcity is not generally taken to mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all consumer goods and services; instead, it is often taken to mean that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met along with some significant proportion of their desires for goods and services,[3] with writers on the topic often emphasizing that certain commodities are likely to remain scarce in a post-scarcity society.[4][5][6][7]"
Post-scarcity economy - Wikipedia

So it is not supposed to imply that everything will stop being unique and therefore desirable, nor does it mean that everything that is produced is made without use of energy or materials.

But certain technologies (like nanotech) would be able to run on the same energies that have fueled our ecosystems for several billion years, and a very, very large amount of raw material needs would easily be met by converting worn, discarded or obsolete goods into new ones. With improved technologies and easy upgrades, the total mass of consumer goods necessary or even attractive to own will drop significantly per person, because people will recycle things that no longer have a cost associated with them: The old waffle iron will no longer be worth the trouble of keeping when a new one could be had at any time for free.

Would such a system be stable forever? No; it could be pushed to where the enormous amounts of available materials eventually get tied up in a population explosion or materialism. But the period between the release of the technology and some future bottleneck would be centuries - and those centuries would certainly qualify as 'post scarcity' economies.

So there isn't anything about this concept that is impossible or absolute. The point is that is could happen with technologies that scientists believe are possible using just available ambient energy and the materials we've already processed out of the earth. And even a relatively short reprieve from scarcity would be a radical change in the direction of humanity.

 

[Mirannan]

I think it's worth mentioning that there has been a working nanotechnological large-scale system running on Earth, powered by solar energy (with minor inputs from geothermal) for approximately 4 billion years now. How's that for an existence proof?

 

[BAYLOR]

What "will to survive"? Are you saying having an easy life causes biological death or a cessation of breeding? Do you have any basis for this?

None that i can think of at the moment but ILL come up with something.

 

[Coast]

How do different people deal with this?

+ 1 for the chaos theory.
I think the hunt for the almighty dollar is the major unifying (and controlling) factor of our lives. Take that away and let everybody chase their own dreams and desires, and I think you'll have everybody shooting off in a million directions. A lot of behavior (both good and bad) that is dampened by the need to conform to a world that uses money as both punishment and reward will be allowed free reign. People will still butt heads over how they think the world should operate. So I think it would lead to a very vibrant and creative world, but also a more chaotic and dangerous one. One of the more interesting aspects is how we would govern such a society - would it lead to a more or a less controlling government?

As far as a group of people using it as an opportunity to lounge around all day - I wonder if that is something we see in our present day as a reaction to having to work? If there was no such thing as work, would there be an 'opposite' of lounging around. I suspect there would be some people who would enjoy doing nothing, but most would find something they enjoyed doing, especially if there was no 'cost' preventing them from doing it.

It's definitely an interesting concept, I'm interested to see what you do with it Locrian.