# Is a Post-Scarcity Society Possible?



## Olhelm (Aug 10, 2017)

See thread title.

In my opinion, a P-SS is inevitable, especially considering the coming advent of certain technologies and sciences, such as CRISPR and the EM Drive. Once humanity takes to the stars, and can change their bodies to be effectively immortal, what would be the point of money anymore?


----------



## Coconut Gun (Aug 10, 2017)

Is it possible eventually? Sure, given enough time a lot of stuff is possible. Possible within 1000 years? Who knows.


----------



## Quack (Aug 10, 2017)

Calhoun's mice- the study made it to the level of metaphor.


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 10, 2017)

Only by growing wheat on the Moon.


----------



## Woodcutting bot (Aug 10, 2017)

Won't be possible without hard population limits



AnOminous said:


> Only by growing wheat on the Moon.



everyone knows only cheese grows on the moon


----------



## Positron (Aug 10, 2017)

People will be chasing status symbols once sustenance is no longer a problem.  There will still be cheats, bullies, oppressors, strife and wars -- and their reasons will look extremely silly in our eyes.


----------



## Audit (Aug 10, 2017)

A post-scarcity society is quite possible in much of the Western world as we speak. In the US alone, if the wealth of the nation were divided equally, each family would have roughly $600,000. The problem is that for most countries the resources are being accumulated by a small handful of people and thrown away on useless crap like the Iraq War (+ $2 trillion) or hidden in offshore bank accounts (+$21 trillion worldwide). 

The question isn't whether or not a welfare state is possible but rather if a universally educated society is possible. You can't have a post-scarcity society when the people fall for propaganda and work against their own interests. Only once the common man can be trusted not to allow tyrants to rise up and enslave the common will can we expect to see a society that allocates resources for the common good.


----------



## polonium (Aug 26, 2017)

If there is absolutely nothing that is scarce, then there's no reason to do anything. We'd vanish into our own bellybuttons in the singularity.


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 26, 2017)

As soon as the remotest possibility of such a society emerged, enraged assholes would converge on it and drop nukes on it and otherwise make sure we continue to be as miserable as we currently are, or even more miserable.

This is because humans are shit.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Aug 28, 2017)

Short Answer: lol no

Long Answer:

In Star Trek, and other fictional post-scarcity societies, there was usually a major event of some kind (alien invasion, post-apocolyptic war, etc.) which not only killed 75%+ of the planet population, but *ALL* of the dregs of society as well (Roddenberry explained, explicitly, multiple times in TOS, the TOS movies, and early TNG, that the utopian future exemplified by the federation was the society that rose from the ashes of a humanity that engaged in nuclear war and widespread eugenics and genocide and spent the entirety of the 21st century and a bunch of the 22nd living more or less in Mad Max conditions.).

 The only people who survived were the ones who were either ruthless enough to survive, or banded together with others and helped one another (as human tribes tend to do, really). Welfare Queens, Hobos, useless eaters, NEET's, Transgenderqueerkins? All dead as should be. Unless you find a way to deal with trash, you're gonna have nothing but a societal breakdown that will end up causing the Human species to stagnant and never move forward.

There's also the cycle in which civilized people get wiped out and get replaced by savages which has been documented and written about by sociologists since the Middle Ages starting with Ibn Khaldun. Can you imagine what a post-scarcity society of Salafists would look like?

And what do you think the Elite will do once the people they view as slaves, necessary parasites at worst, no longer benefit them? You think they will pool their resources in a post scarcity society that result in less power and resources for them, or will they just cull the beings they view as useless and maintain all the influence, power and resources with fewer people to question them?


Also we had an entire fucking series built around all the reasons why the ideal Star Trek society doesn't fucking work and isn't suited to handle all the tough problems of the galaxy... and it was the best series in the franchise.


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 28, 2017)

ICametoLurk said:


> The only people who survived were the ones who were either ruthless enough to survive, or banded together with others and helped one another (as human tribes tend to do, really). Welfare Queens, Hobos, useless eaters, NEET's, Transgenderqueerkins? All dead as should be. Unless you find a way to deal with trash, you're gonna have nothing but a societal breakdown that will end up causing the Human species to stagnant and never move forward.



The kind of people ruthless enough to survive in Mad Max society, though, are called something else in times of civilization.  They're called the "dregs of society" in civilization, and tend to end up ruling prison blocks.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Aug 28, 2017)

No.


----------



## Mysterious Capitalist (Aug 28, 2017)

It's not possible for the same reason that Communism is not possible: human greed will always prevent a fair distribution of resources.

Which I don't mind. I'd never want to be at the same level as the welfare scum that plagues civilized societies nowadays.


----------



## Elwood P. Dowd (Aug 28, 2017)

Olhelm said:


> See thread title.
> 
> In my opinion, a P-SS is inevitable, especially considering the coming advent of certain technologies and sciences, such as CRISPR and the EM Drive.  Once humanity takes to the stars, and can change their bodies to be effectively immortal, what would be the point of money anymore?



I think it is far from being inevitable in the next century. Please note that I'm not saying it won't happen, just that where we stand in 2017 is seemingly a long way away from it. But my sense that if something does happen to trigger such a thing that "something" is going to come from so far out of left field no credible source would have or perhaps even could have predicted it.

And I can even see people being hurt by predictions of this sort. Houses in the 1950s and I believe into the 1960s were built with electric heat because at the time there was a wide-spread belief that electricity would ultimately become so cheap you'd pay for it on a flat fee/unmetered basis. And then the 1970s oil shocks hit. 

I'm not even opposed it, I'm just skeptical. If it happens I'll cheerfully admit I was wrong then head to the beach and drink margaritas, I guess.


----------



## Sergeant Politeness (Aug 28, 2017)

I can't see society being driven by much else. Scarcity is the big motivator; if you don't have everything you need or want, you'll go make it happen. If you do, why bother doing much else? Businesses and individuals need scarcity, it's a necessary evil.

Until someone can find me an equivalent motivator, I'm gonna say no.


----------



## WW 635 (Aug 28, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> The kind of people ruthless enough to survive in Mad Max society, though, are called something else in times of civilization.  They're called the "dregs of society" in civilization, and tend to end up ruling prison blocks.


Or mods on Kiwifarms


----------



## Organic Fapcup (Aug 28, 2017)

No.


----------



## Guardian G.I. (Aug 28, 2017)

In my opinion, arguments about "human nature" and whatever it makes possible or not are rather silly, because the notion of "human nature" is very subjective and heavily depends on the person's culture and traditions. A person in an individualist society like the US and a person in a collectivist society like China would differ a lot.

Anyway, achieving a true post-scarcity society would require an enormous technological jump - after all, the goal is to provide the maximum of all needed goods for all members of the society, _without running out of resources_. That would require either a colossal jump in manufacturing technologies (and something like the universal constructor), or thinning out the population to make the resource load bearable*. In an especially bad scenario, both things at once.

The former variant is not something that can be achieved even in the next century, and the latter... I'm not sure anyone would like to see that coming.

---
*That's what many nutty Russian leftists/nationalists/etc think — the Western elites are planning to purge most of the world's population in order to secure a comfortable existence for themselves. Obviously those Rotschilds, Rockefellers and Soroses want to see the Russian people wiped out with extreme prejudice. Only the renewed Cold War and mass executions of liberal traitors would save the Motherland, of course, because it worked so well the last time!


----------



## Secret Asshole (Aug 28, 2017)

The problem is that even in a post-scarcity world (Trek), there are still avenues of power. Look at the Federation. Sure, they didn't have any money, but they had power. Plenty of Starfleet members were corrupted by it; either to implement their version of law, science or morality. To be the prevailing opinion gave you power and influence on how to govern. TNG has a ton of this. Picard squares off against Starfleet plenty of times.

There will always be those that chase power. There will always be sociopaths. Not even the elimination of money or competition will eliminate this. There will always be something to chase.



ICametoLurk said:


> Short Answer: lol no
> 
> Long Answer:
> 
> ...



Yeah, pretty much. Elites will never let post-scarcity happen either. That would mean giving up their wealth and influence. And there are plenty of lazy elites, most wealth nowadays isn't created, its inherited. Post-Scarcity means they have to sacrifice that. And no fucking way they do that without a culling. 

As @ICametoLurk said, post-scarcity does not happen without some sort of catastrophe. There has to be something to basically destroy the existing social structure and replace it with cooperation. That means a lot of blood and death, if humanity could even survive such an event. You'd have to have people band together rather than seize power for themselves. And even then, there's no guarantee it would work out well. 

I guess some sort of AI revolt ala Skynet or the Reapers would band humanity together. But even that is so far off who knows.


----------



## Ruminous (Sep 2, 2017)

In my eyes a 'post-scarcity' society not possible. This is because there's always people that are willing to push the bar higher, or simply do the ridiculous for it's own sake. Humans survive fine on three meals a day. Maybe the utopian 'post-scarcity' society can support millions of meals per person. Yet if some moron demands to have 10^200 cheeseburgers built into a pyramid, and the society cannot fulfill this wish, then a point of 'scarcity' still remains.

To actually fulfill the definition of "post-scarcity", every fantasy must be able to be indulged. Every member of the post-scarcity society must be able to be masters of their own universe if they so choose, to have subjects that are indistinguishable from other humans, to have their subjects be able to have their own universes. And so on and so forth. Failing that, power and resources must in some way be divided, else the entire society collapses as the infinite cheeseburger pyramid is attempted.

Once you involve transhuman fantasies the entire project of "post-scarcity" is self-evidently impossible, as people could simply add desires to themselves.

Say authoritarian controls are placed upon the social body to preserve them in a current human state or otherwise restricted state and benevolent AGI is created singularity-style. Only such an invention could manage to outpace the desires and imaginations of the public, but even then it doesn't stop points of scarcity from remaining. A world without war, famine, or disease is much, much simpler a proposition than one with absolutely no resource scarcity.

Perhaps you could create a world under these conditions where the AI ignores the explicit requests of the society but fulfills the illusion that these requests are fulfilled, and simulates a world surrounding their senses where anything and everything is possible. Where there is not actually an infinite number of cheeseburgers in the pyramid, but as far as the eye can see and however far the user travels they can see and touch cheeseburgers. You would still need to ban or restrict addition of new members to the 'post-scarcity' society, but under these conditions you could simulate the experience of living in a 'post-scarcity' society.


----------



## Black Waltz (Sep 2, 2017)

no


----------



## polonium (Sep 2, 2017)

The thing is, even Star Trek, where they could make stuff appear out of thin air using cheap/free power wasn't "post scarcity" completely. Scarcity means having to economise on something, and until we live forever in the singularity, there's one thing that will always be scarce: Time (and specifically, human use of time - labour) What the real world version of a Star Trek society would end up valuing is anything that relies on human labour. If you can have a suit of clothes appear out of a hole in the wall, that's one thing but to have a genuine hand-tailored suit made just for you would be something to covet. Generic IKEA-grade ornaments and prints of famours paintings around the house, or one-off hand made art that actually took someone effort to produce?

You can somewhat see this in history. Following the industrial Revolution there was some pushback against mass produced objects, and things like the Arts & Crafts movements were all about the value of human craftmanship


----------



## WW 635 (Sep 2, 2017)

Dink Smallwood said:


> no


Ok


----------



## SwanDive (Sep 3, 2017)

The only way I could see post-scarcity ever being achieved would be through uploading human consciousness into some sort of VR, and leaving robots to cover the maintanence Matrix style.


----------



## Un Platano (Sep 12, 2017)

For economic scarcity to completely go away there would have to be infinite everything to do it- infinite food, infinite raw resources, infinite labor, and so on, and that's obviously not possible, so in the most basic sense of the word it's impossible to elminate scarcity (except for air and seawater, those really are the only two resources where inifinite market availability is possible.)
In a less inclusive definition of scarcity it is possible for a certain sect of a population at a certain time to not experience scarcity to the effect that everyone has access to whatever they need within reasonable limits. This is the current state of the western world. This however requires either continuous expansion of production, which is unfeasible in the long run, or a constant input from other places, for example by taking coltan from third worlders who aren't using it themselves.
However, it's not sustainable in the long term for the entire world to eliminate scarcity forever for the sole issue of population growth. Food is adundant in the US because the technology behind food production and the area physically used to poduce it has been able to expand at a rate that outpaces the growth of the population. Technology may be able to advance indefinitely (which is probably a derp thoughts thread in its own right), but the fact of thr matter is that space is limited.
Even if algae culture was used to grow food across the entire surface of the Earth and the moon was used too, that doesn't do anything mord than increase the carrying capacity of Earth by a static number. Given how populations increase exponentially, the issue would only become more apparent as the population increases and inevitably outpaces the growth of development in food production, the only possible way for it to expand once all the space has been taken up.


----------



## Caesare (Sep 12, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> The kind of people ruthless enough to survive in Mad Max society, though, are called something else in times of civilization.  They're called the "dregs of society" in civilization, and tend to end up ruling prison blocks.



That's not true. The dregs are just as worthless in prison as they are in civilized society. The people that thrive in prison are those who know how to adapt. Basically, if you are worthless and can't make it in regular civilized society, you will have an absolutely horrible time in prison. It's not all about being ruthless, you still need brains and what they call "the gift of gab" to back it up.


----------



## Vex Overmind (Sep 13, 2017)

ICametoLurk said:


> Short Answer: lol no
> 
> Long Answer:
> 
> ...


Wasn't the reason why Stark Trek's Federation of Planets came to be was because of Humans in that verse engaged in genetic modification and started elevating themselves to some kind of god-hood and began conducting ruthless genocide against normal Humans? Khan I believe is one of them. Damn I should really get into Star Trek and I am getting off topic, so anyways.


In order for a Post-Scarcity Society would have to work is so that people are productive and have to work for something that is mutually beneficial for everyone in civilization. I don't imagine any of our supposed alien neighbors who have this system in place are just going to let members of their species sit on their fat-asses all day jerking it to porn along with playing video games and reading comics and manga all day. That would create a tremendous divide between the lazy and the workers and is one of the countless reasons why we Humans tend to have a penchant towards wiping out millions of our fellow species.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Sep 13, 2017)

Vex Overmind said:


> Wasn't the reason why Stark Trek's Federation of Planets came to be was because of Humans in that verse engaged in genetic modification and started elevating themselves to some kind of god-hood and began conducting ruthless genocide against normal Humans? Khan I believe is one of them. Damn I should really get into Star Trek and I am getting off topic, so anyways.
> 
> 
> In order for a Post-Scarcity Society would have to work is so that people are productive and have to work for something that is mutually beneficial for everyone in civilization. I don't imagine any of our supposed alien neighbors who have this system in place are just going to let members of their species sit on their fat-asses all day jerking it to porn along with playing video games and reading comics and manga all day. That would create a tremendous divide between the lazy and the workers and is one of the countless reasons why we Humans tend to have a penchant towards wiping out millions of our fellow species.



Khan and his followers (known as Augments) were the product of Eugenics experiments. They developed into perfect humans in every way, and soon began to resent lesser humanity. This was the catalyst for the Eugenics War. During the war, the Augments nearly erased humanity as all of them (except Kahn) did massacres of everyone including their own people. Their regime started at what they believed to be the bottom of the gene pool, and eradicated mankind of everything that was lesser than them. The logic behind this was to eventually face a population worthy of of opposition, which they did. They were outsmarted and captured, then exiled from Earth on the Botany Bay for eternity.

After the first episode of TNG says that the World desperately tried to stop Races from killing each other by saying that you can't judge a person based upon what members of their race has done, telling someone to check their privilege was considered illegal. This did nothing as they had no authority. This had nothing to do with the Augments as the Augments were of every Race and Color and to boot their leader was a Poo in the Loo shitskin. These Race Wars ended up being full on World Wars. During these conflicts the troops were hooked on drugs and if they were disloyal they wouldn't get any drugs and suffer withdraws, this was done to maintain loyalty in an environment where all cities were nuked out of existence and a Dark Age appeared which  consisted of everyone living Mad Max style which had Humanity reach a level all lawyers and attorneys were killed and anyone brought before a court was deemed guilty just by being there.

The most advanced place on Earth during this Dark Age, which caused the creation of the Warp engine, wasn't Area 51 or anything like that. It was a Militia compound in Montana and even then it was  North Korean tier. This was made only possible when the World Wars ended as during the war  Humanity reached such a low point during the World Wars that Militia compounds were considered viable military targets by a military alliances like that of the East Asians.

And after all this all the people who suffered Nuclear Illness or lived where there was Radiation was Holocausted out of existence by a Colonel Green. So all the Humans who lived in Star Trek had no mutations caused by radiation and were the fittest and best that Humanity had to offer.

Star Trek was made possible by everyone being Genocidal Manics who make Hitler look like a fucking Anarchist.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 13, 2017)

Vex Overmind said:


> Wasn't the reason why Stark Trek's Federation of Planets came to be was because of Humans in that verse engaged in genetic modification and started elevating themselves to some kind of god-hood and began conducting ruthless genocide against normal Humans? Khan I believe is one of them. Damn I should really get into Star Trek and I am getting off topic, so anyways.



Khan was actually considered one of the more reasonable of that lot.


----------



## Kiwi Jeff (Oct 29, 2017)

I found this thread because it was tagged chompsky honk


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Oct 30, 2017)

Get rid of democracy and bring back inherited monarchy.

When every living human has all the creature comforts they could want, eats whatever and plays in his personal holodeck all day, but only a certain class of the populace is trusted to govern, it might have a chance.

Think about it: if you don't have to fight for money or food or shelter or entertainment, what's left? The power to impose your will on other people. If democracy survives into that world it will only last until one guy is brutal enough to put chains on everyone else. (Just like communism today.) If rulers are treated like a different caste but unable to alter a core body of rights guaranteed to the citizenry - and if imposing your will on others is simply an unattainable goal to the average person - it might be stable.



Secret Asshole said:


> To be the prevailing opinion gave you power and influence on how to govern.


And isn't this exactly what SJWs are banking on?


----------



## Bassomatic (Oct 30, 2017)

Oh boy a thread I can econ sperg. Doing what I do every day, for money but I can use the word nigger here a lot more freely than my office.

Pure post scarcity is just not feasible, @Ruminous did a very good job spelling out why. On a macro scale, now on things like mirco scales yes. If I had my own personal nuclear power plant I am post scarcity I can run the heater and a/c  in a death battle non stop and never see a .00000000001% use . If indeed my home was not to grow in needs, if indeed I was the only one able to use the power in this situation. 

But then we get back into setting limits of what the model is, rules for use etc. If I had my own power plant, I would want to share it with my friends. So now we grow the load. If I had a lot of friends I may start seeing the limits of one power plant.

I do think we may see things become, past what we consider 1st world coming to the 2nd and 3rd world. Now the tech isn't right around the corner as many like to sell, but in 200 years maybe how you or I get a glass of tap water, not thinking of effort, cost, safety quality etc could be true for the poorest of the poor in bumfuck land.

Another problem, you can artificially build scarcity, it's a very common thing, hell people love scarcity, limited edition collectors ... slap those terms on a product you want to sell, feel free to jack the price up. So I think let's pretend hypothetically, there's a magic water machine that does the above situation. The engineers running it are scarce, and if they say fuck it, we want to charge or just want X to have it etc, we regrow a scarcity. So even in situations where we magic up a free lunch like star trek, if georgi leforge said, fuck you it's my day off your shit is broken. You are back to driving your own ass and buying Micky D's .

Now in the concept of controlled post scarcity, you'll have black markets quickly. Let's say we get 3 meals a day of what ever we want. But that's it. The AI over lords super government etc, ruled this. What fail safes do we have for the hustle? I'll skip lunch to sell to a fatty. Someone with an eating disorder getting a steak dinner selling to a weight lifter who wants to pack on... etc. This honestly, could be shown how fast it comes in from jails. Watch one of those documentaries those people gamble sell buy and make all sorts of shit. If you don't want to use the jail as it's the "character of those people" this stuff just as quickly and efficiently happens in a barracks. So it's a lot of nature of people.

With some tech that allows a good or service to be "worthless" we  also have to assume, it would be a bubble of time, till the needs out grew the supply. For example, if I have 4 cell phones I cant use them all, is that post scarcity? It's probably a better analogy to use a perishable, like a hamburger. I can't eat all 4 but I will need to eat again at some point.

If we had the tech to feed every one on the planet now, it's very safe to assume two things one deaths drop and population increases. So when we hit 10 billion people are we 100% sure we will make a tech that allows us to feed that population vs current? So even using sci fi magic, we still aren't going to be post scarce we would just be a bubble of it.

I personally think more than you and I getting a holodeck, the closest will get to post scarcity is the poorest of the poor having just as little care of things the first world expects. 

I tried to not get into the morality too much as I feel that's subjective, but if anyone likes I guess I can try to apply some more thought into that.


----------



## Clownfish (Nov 18, 2017)

I don't think we re moving to a post scarcity future but a post human one.


----------



## MaxKekkles (Nov 22, 2017)

Positron said:


> People will be chasing status symbols once sustenance is no longer a problem.  There will still be cheats, bullies, oppressors, strife and wars -- and their reasons will look extremely silly in our eyes.



Bingo.  There are so many corporate ladder climbers out there who have more than enough.  In a certain way it's funny to see them trip over their own dicks chasing things they absolutely don't need because they'll never be satisfied.  On the other hand, it's infuriating because these are the same cultureless degenerates that shaped the current materialistic state of Western culture that is devoid of any spirituality whatsoever


----------



## Dooly Tilly (Dec 9, 2017)

I would argue we're currently capable of post scarcity, ie technology exceeds the economic system.
For example vertical farming which could feed 30 trillion plus etc. 

You can learn more about this by dling the free PDF called the Zeitgeist movement defined, and also check out the Venus project.

TZM dispenses with work, war, money, politicians, poverty and starvation.


----------



## Bassomatic (Dec 10, 2017)

Dooly Tilly said:


> I would argue we're currently capable of post scarcity, ie technology exceeds the economic system.
> For example vertical farming which could feed 30 trillion plus etc.
> 
> You can learn more about this by dling the free PDF called the Zeitgeist movement defined, and also check out the Venus project.
> ...


No offense, but it's poor form in debate to say oh I have a point of view but you go read it. It's great you cited a thing to look at but what you should do is put your 2 cents in on it, then list the cite.

I touched on food,  now ok vertical farming doesn't work with something I expanded on, water is a serious issue for that. Now let's pretend you have your water and food set where do we put 30 trillion people? If your reply is "well the same magic that let us feed and...."  then we might as well talk about if every pebble on the ground was a diamond and some how were not effected by the supply.

This also places a lack of post scarcity not on simple economics, or human condition but a boogey man that's not really a fair thing to point a finger at since, there's no hard proof. Now this also makes the huge leap that all cultures want or could make this. Let's be real we live in a time where it's over all damned cheap to go to outerspace and there are people who get 1000s in aid and still do nothing but spread diseases and hack each other up with sharp things. I don't think people who can't figure how to plant seeds given to them and taught how to farm really care or think about uptoia.


----------



## Dooly Tilly (Dec 10, 2017)

Bassomatic said:


> No offense, but it's poor form in debate to say oh I have a point of view but you go read it. It's great you cited a thing to look at but what you should do is put your 2 cents in on it, then list the cite.
> 
> I touched on food,  now ok vertical farming doesn't work with something I expanded on, water is a serious issue for that. Now let's pretend you have your water and food set where do we put 30 trillion people? If your reply is "well the same magic that let us feed and...."  then we might as well talk about if every pebble on the ground was a diamond and some how were not effected by the supply.
> 
> This also places a lack of post scarcity not on simple economics, or human condition but a boogey man that's not really a fair thing to point a finger at since, there's no hard proof. Now this also makes the huge leap that all cultures want or could make this. Let's be real we live in a time where it's over all damned cheap to go to outerspace and there are people who get 1000s in aid and still do nothing but spread diseases and hack each other up with sharp things. I don't think people who can't figure how to plant seeds given to them and taught how to farm really care or think about uptoia.


I gave vertical farming as an example of how we could have post scarcity for food, as for water, we can use desalination, however, if people are living in the wrong part of the planet, the logical solution would be to move to parts more productive.

I never suggested something relating to future population, only that we're beyond scarcity for food and quite frankly everything else given 7-10 billion.

The Venus project has blueprints for off the grid ecological cities on land and sea, TZM explains how we can accomodate these populations using ecologically friendly peak science/engineering.

You can certainly ask me more, but given this system is the only one that can provide mankind with everything it needs and most of what it wants, it might be a good idea to peruse the PDF.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 10, 2017)

Dooly Tilly said:


> I gave vertical farming as an example of how we could have post scarcity for food, as for water, we can use desalination, however, if people are living in the wrong part of the planet, the logical solution would be to move to parts more productive.
> 
> I never suggested something relating to future population, only that we're beyond scarcity for food and quite frankly everything else given 7-10 billion.
> 
> ...



I bet you're a fat son of a bitch and that's why you want enough food to feed trillions of people.


----------



## Dooly Tilly (Dec 10, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> I bet you're a fat son of a bitch and that's why you want enough food to feed trillions of people.


Is this a joke?


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 10, 2017)

Dooly Tilly said:


> Is this a joke?



Confirmed for fat.

I never joke.  Ever.


----------



## Dooly Tilly (Dec 10, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Confirmed for fat.
> 
> I never joke.  Ever.


It looks like my potent truths have destroyed you. 
It also sounds like you're a typical American sociopath, hyper national war monger. 

I know I'm right.

TZM proposes a new economic system that not only supports the productive, but also ensures everyone has what they need and most of what they want, of course if we both "have" and everything is free, there's no need for theft.

Given there's no money, we open our borders on resources and allow all countries to be friendly, ie,  no more war. 

In many instances technology exists but both individuals and governments can"t afford it, but with no money, no problemo.


----------



## Bassomatic (Dec 11, 2017)

Dooly Tilly said:


> I gave vertical farming as an example of how we could have post scarcity for food, as for water, we can use desalination, however, if people are living in the wrong part of the planet, the logical solution would be to move to parts more productive.
> 
> I never suggested something relating to future population, only that we're beyond scarcity for food and quite frankly everything else given 7-10 billion.
> 
> ...


So you're entire claim is, if if if if if. That's not really helpful. If I was immortal.  Now, where will these people in the wrong parts move to? There are two problems, room and cost. 70+% of earth is water, and we really haven't made living on the ocean full time possible yet, and of the amount of land we have, a shit ton sucks to live on. So what do we do when we already don't have room? It ain't utopia or post scarcity, if we are all locked into apartments the size of a prison cell.

That's fair you didn't include population increase, but history and economics prove when there is a boom amount of food, population increases, so really it's something you should and have to factor in. Also, we currently have people starving to death. So you saying you have a plan to make 70 billion eat when we can't/won't/don't feed 7... is quite the claim.

I'll take a peek at this when I get a free min, but let me again, restate what I mentioned earlier, it's fine to cite things but again you say, here read this and you get it when in debate you have to both put your own spin on and honestly represent a pov.




Dooly Tilly said:


> TZM proposes a new economic system that not only supports the productive, but also ensures everyone has what they need and most of what they want, of course if we both "have" and everything is free, there's no need for theft.
> 
> Given there's no money, we open our borders on resources and allow all countries to be friendly, ie,  no more war.
> 
> In many instances technology exists but both individuals and governments can"t afford it, but with no money, no problemo.


Does this cover opting out? What if, say bill gates wants out, there will always be humans drive. Let me list something that's commonly mentioned on the website, incels. They feel they are owed a partner, as much as some feel they are owed food and water. To do that would require slavery. Something in the developed and Western World that's both detested and outlawed.

What if someone's dream is a plot of land to farm by hand? Sure they may be able to Star Trek up a lunch but they aren't fulfilled as a human. 

What's our drive to do this if not profit? Even if to do for the good of it, should these people not  be rewarded? It's going to be a lot easier for a Rocket Scientist to sell books, than a book sales person to build rocket ships. How are we going to make up for "greed" with out the force of a gun?

If you include well we just gulag people who don't play along you just pretty much are saying USSR 2.0 and don't expect a year of 4 pests result 

You say these things we can't afford. What are they, and lets pretend you remove cash/money/currency from the reason we can't afford, there's also limitations of materials and power. Interesting fact, My dad was into engineering in college GM was a big company, the biggest name in the game. As a wet behind the ears engineer making things better with out thinking about the rest of the supply chain was still on his head.

So he thought, hey GM makes the most motors in the world at the time, why are they using iron? alum blocks are better. The reason he was told? There is not enough alum in the world. Tech has changed a lot since then and now a lot of GM uses alum as it's easier to make it's still a finite amount.  It wasn't money.

I'm trying to be respectful here, but so far you've said "money is bullshit and if we had magic powers we'd all be rich" I'm really trying to give you a leg to stand on and hear your thoughts but it's getting less persuasive the more you post and coming off as some pseudo technobabble commie crap. Lots of the USSR commies thought things would be perfect because tractors.


----------



## Dooly Tilly (Dec 11, 2017)

Bass. 
I'm a technological anarchist, TZM is also anarchy.
I'm simply pointing out that if we run into trouble thanks to the problems with the monetary system, the environment and automation, we have a way out. 

Remember that this is a new mode of thinking relative to the state of the current system, ie, as the system worsens, it'll be silly for billionaires to speak about their wants whilst we all suffer needlessly.


----------



## Bassomatic (Dec 11, 2017)

Dooly Tilly said:


> Bass.
> I'm a technological anarchist, TZM is also anarchy.
> I'm simply pointing out that if we run into trouble thanks to the problems with the monetary system, the environment and automation, we have a way out.
> 
> Remember that this is a new mode of thinking relative to the state of the current system, ie, as the system worsens, it'll be silly for billionaires to speak about their wants whilst we all suffer needlessly.


Ok, that's quite alright you have your hopes/beliefs. I tend to not shit on anyone here unless they poke a bear and you've been nothing but respectful in debate so I'm happy to talk with you on it.

As you know, we do not live in an anarchist society. So, let's say we manage to make some tech that is post scarcity, like a corn crop that doesn't need water and matures in 2 days for example. How do we prevent it from being monopolized, banned, controlled? Or are you suggesting, we need that society before our breakthroughs come out? Then again, the problem seems to lie, if we have no force of money we still have other things that are scarce and people's loyalties. 

I will say, I dig and respect you say your thoughts are for a more  advanced time/society. Let's be real here, it can be a cop out, but history also backs this. Humans always wanted to fly, and until past 100 years it was laughable to say we will.

Many of the richest of the rich in free society, have donated most if not all their wealth and there still is a ton of suffering. If I came up with free power for the world I'd be happy to know I did something good, but I sure as fuck want my ferrari for it. I don't know if you are trying to imply that people whom are wealthy are greedy or a restraint on growth of humanity.

Really another thing with this is what do we consider scare now, might not be. Hell Caesar himself never could get ice cubes like you or i do. Not only that our drinking water is safe as hell  in the developed world. You or I don't have anywhere the riches of him. We are going back to social issues though, if you and I both get what we want and enough for dinner, the human will strive for more. Sure we both got a nice steak, but god damnit I only had a ribeye, I wanted porterhouse. I don't see how we can remove this factor from humanity.


----------



## Dooly Tilly (Dec 12, 2017)

I'm saying that within a 5yr period we could convert all western economies to full automation, and once that happens we no longer need to work or have money as the robots build it for free. 

However, that's the engineering side of the equation, we must first gain widespread support for the truth that automation is ready once peak science/engineering is applied.

ATM, industry builds based on inherent obsolesence and planned obsolescence, plus they also build to a budget.... These are strangleholds on progress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOfGEiaG5Ws


----------



## Bassomatic (Dec 12, 2017)

Dooly Tilly said:


> I'm saying that within a 5yr period we could convert all western economies to full automation, and once that happens we no longer need to work or have money as the robots build it for free.
> 
> However, that's the engineering side of the equation, we must first gain widespread support for the truth that automation is ready once peak science/engineering is applied.
> 
> ATM, industry builds based on inherent obsolesence and planned obsolescence, plus they also build to a budget.... These are strangleholds on progress.


Ok, I'm saying this nicely, but prove it. I don't at all buy this on a dozen reasons.

Also, people will be needed for the robots and it's industry. People swore the cotton gin was going to end the work force. 

The sheer concept  of peak in regards to science or engineering is a joke, iron is a great metal, isn't it? We still use it. I think we are a wee bit more advanced than the iron age. We have robotics doing many tasks and we still chose hand labor for the best and more complex works. Humans want to grow and be better so we keep growing. Unless you think as a technocrat yourself, the fact we are using the internet now is stupid, you'd have to agree tech advances and grows non stop. It's in us humans.

Not all things factor planned, obsolescence, and budgets are a real issue, you can't fault them as things are finite. Now I'll jump on your side and say, we waste a ton making shit, on avg, per consumer reports 1/3 a new car you buy is ad cost. That sucks. Now regulation is another thing, lets say you buy a car that also has an optional convertible top, how much of your dollar buying your car is spent, on that option that doesn't apply? I don't want an air bag, but laws say I gotta have one, so how much of the budget is spend on that? These pass on to consumer. So let's pretend BMW says we are going to give a blank check for the new car, how much will it cost? After that how damn much will you or I have to pay? It'll be unfathomable. 

I don't disagree with you, that robotics will change the work force, but as always it just shifts us, it doesn't replace us. If anything, look at the blessings we have now, today the poor who are replaced by robots will get a bail out, serfs and freed slaves? They were left to rot if not rounded up and sent out on a war for the lulz and get rid of the underclass.


Dooly Tilly said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOfGEiaG5Ws


Jesus Christ Nigger... apparently I have been trolled.


----------



## Dooly Tilly (Dec 13, 2017)

Bass. 
It's time for you to make the effort to dl the free PDF called the Zeitgeist movement defined.
As I said before this is both a psychological and physical replacement for our now antiquated economics and mentality

Ahhh you gotta love the children playing with their buttons and downvotting my fucken formidable TRUTHS.

Are there any genuinely intelligent people at this forum?... Capable of proper critical thinking...


----------



## Male Idiot (Dec 13, 2017)

No, this is not possible.

First, because of science. Neither matter nor energy is unlimited in our current understanding.
Second, human nature. Humans are just not motivated to be this sharing, it goes against human nature. Greed is the inherent motivator bred into us so that we hoarded that sweet, sweet mammoth bacon and got through the winter.

Now, a post basic needs like civilisation would be somewhat possible, as in a simple society where all basic needs are met. This means housing, electricity, food and such as free gibsmuh.

However such a society would need a motivation for people to work or it would fall apart.  This could either be a cultural, deeply ingrained psychic motive like Federation's goody goodness or the Mechanicus's "We must know more!" motive, or a collective sort of nationalism and heavy, heavy birth control.

It is not impossible but very impropable.


----------



## Bassomatic (Dec 13, 2017)

Dooly Tilly said:


> Bass.
> It's time for you to make the effort to dl the free PDF called the Zeitgeist movement defined.
> As I said before this is both a psychological and physical replacement for our now antiquated economics and mentality


 I said I'd look at it when I have some time to kill, and remember when I mentioned it's great to cite but debate is your pov, not someone else's so you really should be doing the leg work on this not me.

Also, yea dude our economic model is so dumb, that's why we have the internet that we are typing on, hell did you know my power comes from atoms? Yup nuclear power here. Clearly we aren't much above banging rocks together.



Dooly Tilly said:


> Ahhh you gotta love the children playing with their buttons and downvotting my fucken formidable TRUTHS.


Pro tip: don't get mad at down votes, people now know a place to  poke on you. Also, this brings nothing to the debate, and you are being openly hostile. Pretty much, signing out of the debate.


Dooly Tilly said:


> Are there any genuinely intelligent people at this forum?... Capable of proper critical thinking...


Yes, but since you have sunk to saying do my work for me on a debate, insulting and just saying "ur wrong" it's pretty clear you choose not to be.


----------



## Dooly Tilly (Dec 13, 2017)

Bass. 
You're just another lazy facebook generation type, although you could prove me wrong by informing yourself instead of expecting me constantly correct your errors.



Male Idiot said:


> No, this is not possible.
> 
> First, because of science. Neither matter nor energy is unlimited in our current understanding.
> Second, human nature. Humans are just not motivated to be this sharing, it goes against human nature. Greed is the inherent motivator bred into us so that we hoarded that sweet, sweet mammoth bacon and got through the winter.
> ...


As for science, please leave it alone or improve your understanding cause ATM, we have the technology to easily power the entire global economy.

Also, you're making all sorts of assumptions regarding human nature, however, our nature's are malleable as proven by history and secured by logic and common sense.

Hahahaha the facebook generation of lazy know nothing's make utter fools of themselves by downvotting my truths and reasonable advice/request.

Why start this topic if you're too lazy or stupid to learn?


----------



## Bassomatic (Dec 13, 2017)

Dooly Tilly said:


> Bass.
> You're just another lazy facebook generation type, although you could prove me wrong by informing yourself instead of expecting me constantly correct your errors.


You are on the attack because you don't have a point to stand on, you've pushed the work on to me and not pointed out a single error I've made.

This is a neat topic and I hope it's kept open but you should seriously poke away from this as you have sunk from bringing poor debate to just being disrespectful. It's not helping anyone.



Dooly Tilly said:


> As for science, please leave it alone or improve your understanding cause ATM, we have the technology to easily power the entire global economy.
> 
> Also, you're making all sorts of assumptions regarding human nature, however, our nature's are malleable as proven by history and secured by logic and common sense.


Prove it. No seriously, you keep making claims and not backing them up. I can show you very clearly people whom do not have power, and people whom choose not to have power. You say we can power the  world, so where are these dozens of plasma reactors I don't know about?

People are able to grow and change, but history also shows us some things stay the same, many people desire to acquire more, be off the grid, etc. Also history keeps showing us, there's more stuff we want than stuff we can have.

Edit: Triple posting is really poor form chill.


----------



## GS 281 (Dec 13, 2017)

The sped was threadbanned. 

Please don't argue with obvious speds it derails threads.


----------

