Is a status-less society possible? - If so, what would it look like?

[frozenrunner]

You're a talking about the possibility of a totally post-scarcity society. Provided the means of production remains non-sentient, or at least is OK with being exploited by a feckless 'superior' culture, it could be the idyllic utopia you are hoping for, but it most likely won't be. People are arseholes, and no amount of free shit will ever change that. As a species, we're bald chimps with a God complex - we're not likely to ever get past that limitation without some serious neural re-wiring first.

Right. As Jordan Peterson points out, the dominance hierarchy is so deeply rooted in life on Earth it exists in lobsters. Without some form of social stratification, human beings will always create it by returning to the dominace hierarchy. Without exception. We can't be something we aren't no matter how much we want to.

People do not function well without struggle and sacrifice in their lives to give them goals and to give existence meaning. We aren't equipped to deal with bottomless prosperity. Look at trust fund kids and people who "make it" young for proof.

In a post-scarcity world like you described, most people would be profoundly depressed and listless, likely suicidal. A crushing sense of ennui would prevent people from enjoying anything. They would not be satisfied with the status quo no matter how great it was.

People would take out their frustrations by abusing and subjugating one another. They would eventually attempt to violently overthrow the new order so they could could go back to doing what we were programmed by millions of years of evolution to do. Or they would start getting sick and dying, like animals in zoos.

Like you said, we could try to change the human animal through genetic modification so people would be fine with a bland, hellish utopia. But even if we could do such a thing (which I doubt), those creations would be at the mercy of everyone else in the world who wasn't designed to be like that. And I'm not sure they would even be human beings anymore.

Society would become increasingly fractured as the shared purpose of survival would no longer bind us, and I think we'd see a lot of little cults pop up, each with their own ideas about how life is to be lived. Kind of like how NEETs on the internet are these days. Lots of little tribes, each with radically different ideas about how the world is, and should be. People would become increasingly disconnected, and subcultures would overtake society. I think we'd see a resurgence of religiousness, albeit with strange little pseudo-religious cults based around subcultures.
I don't know how long we could possibly survive after such a shift. Some people would probably still try to keep the world turning, but I think a lot would just descend into self involved madness.

I agree. I think a "post-scarcity" world would either be the end of humanity or would push us to leave Earth and find meaning in risky extraterrestrial exploration.

 

[Un Platano]

If someone was a genius in a post-scarcity society, that wouldn't prevent them from pursuing their own interests. Just because there's something that can already do what they want to much better than they can doesn't mean that they'll take that option. If I were a hobbyist carpenter, it would probably be much easier to go buy a dresser than to make one myself, but having a dresser isn't my entire goal and I would still get something out of making one. Likewise, if someone were actually smart (and not "smart but lazy") they'd be motivated enough to pursue their own intellectual interests at least some of the time.

That's assuming, of course, that certain things like schools are still around. Without that, people wouldn't even know how much there is to know in intellectual pursuits. If there's nothing to encourage education in the first place, then what you'd end up with is Brave New World to a T.

 

[Positron]

People are arseholes, and no amount of free shit will ever change that. As a species, we're bald chimps with a God complex - we're not likely to ever get past that limitation without some serious neural re-wiring first.

That's a pessimistic way of looking. The bright side is that people (or at least some of them) are also bald chimps who like to play angels. Some people have the drive to help people, to derive satisfaction by making others happy. Such charitable impulse will likely get frustrated in a post-scarcity society: if everyone is perfectly satisfied materially, what can you do to improve my life? How people will channel this charitable impulse is very hard to say.

 

[Sperglord Dante]

I think a status-less human society is possible, but not conceivable by our modern minds.

Like, try do this: imagine how'd you explain the internet to someone from the ancient world. Ignoring the technical aspects of how the Internet works, how'd you explain to someone that one day an almost endless amount of information, far greater than any library could hope to store, would be available to everyone and everywhere? How would you explain this magical thing that connects all humans and ignores all distances? And how would you explain Pepe the frog?

You simply could not explain all of that in a way a primitive person would understand. Likewise, for a time traveler from a utopic post-scarcity society explaining how his society works would be amusing, but ultimately futile.

 

[AnOminous]

I think a status-less human society is possible, but not conceivable by our modern minds.

If we edited our genome and/or mentality to the point it was possible to have a society like that, we wouldn't be recognizable as human any more. We would be more a sort of hyperintelligent insect than humans.

 

[frozenrunner]

If someone was a genius in a post-scarcity society, that wouldn't prevent them from pursuing their own interests. Just because there's something that can already do what they want to much better than they can doesn't mean that they'll take that option. If I were a hobbyist carpenter, it would probably be much easier to go buy a dresser than to make one myself, but having a dresser isn't my entire goal and I would still get something out of making one. Likewise, if someone were actually smart (and not "smart but lazy") they'd be motivated enough to pursue their own intellectual interests at least some of the time.

Geniuses are not the problem. There are a relatively small number of people who are driven to succeed by something internal. That's always been true, probably in every population. (The Pareto principle and all that.)

But that's not the majority of people. Most people are only really forced to make difficult changes by circumstance. And in the modern world of the welfare state, not only are people no longer motivated by the constant existential danger of starvation and death, of themselves and their loved ones (and we may think that's a good thing, but remember we evolved to be motivated by that), but less and less people even have to face the consequences of their own bad choices and behavior as we increasingly insulate them from their mistakes and fabricate excuses for their failures.

Some people call this system compassionate. I believe it's at the root of a lot of social dysfunction in the West.

But anyway, it's interesting that in the West we're so prosperous (thanks to capitalism) that we're kind of already dealing with a version of the situation you mentioned. Ikea makes attractive, affordable, perfectly functional furniture already. But independent carpenters still hand make more expensive furniture, and people buy it! I imagine that's what a lot of the marketplace would look like in a post-scarcity world. At least while it, or we, lasted.

 

[Ruminous]

In your scenario people would likely still form social cliques and access to them would still hold value. Go on any forum or social game and you can see people doing this despite little to no material inequality.

As to the title question, yes, it is possible. You could isolate every single person and not let them interact with one another, thus making the concept of "status" non-existent.

 

[Jerry_ smith56]

A status less society while impractical is possible but I don't think it would work out in the long run.

 

[Tennis Monkey]

And how would you explain Pepe the frog?

I'd rather have to explain Pepe to someone from the ancient world than the internet. He's a character that lots of people like to see in pictures (usually telling some kind of story). Characters like that have existed since the dawn of civilisation - think of ancient myths. It's the medium he's usually on that would be hard to explain.

They might mistake him for a kind of god, but then there are people now who seem to think that, so...

 

[Positron]

And how would you explain Pepe the frog?

Exactly as I would explain The Emperor's New Clothes. Once upon a time some "wise" and politically powerful person declared that all wise and worthwhile people will see something evil when they see the drawing of a frog. Her subordinates, anxious to show themselves as wise and worthwhile, followed suit even when they secretly questioned her sanity.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Like I said over in the commie thread, a classless society is possible -- but only if technology is advanced enough to be "post-scarcity."

Like living in a virtual reality like situation.

 

[Slowboat to China]

I don't think it's possible to achieve a society without some form of stratification. Even if we achieve a post-scarcity situation, it's not even so much about material goods; it's about being noticed, appreciated, rewarded, acknowledged as superior in one way or another. It feels good, so we keep chasing it. I think it's a condition that's simply knit up with being mortal--we know intellectually that we're one of millions, but we're all still the star of our own stories, and we want the world to acknowledge and treat us as such. Nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks "I sure am glad to be one of the faceless crowd that makes society function!"

As for the aforementioned post-scarcity society ... This is gonna sound autistic as fuck, but the idea kinda gives me the willies. We already see what happens when people don't have to be accountable to anyone or anything else; how many of our lolcows and horrorcows are on welfare? Take millions and millions of people and give them an eternal supply of food, water, entertainment, whatever they want. How many will choose to engage in meaningful activities (like creating art), and how many will simply sink into disaffected boredom or alienation? How many Chrises would be created?

 

[neverendingmidi]

But anyway, it's interesting that in the West we're so prosperous (thanks to capitalism) that we're kind of already dealing with a version of the situation you mentioned. Ikea makes attractive, affordable, perfectly functional furniture already. But independent carpenters still hand make more expensive furniture, and people buy it! I imagine that's what a lot of the marketplace would look like in a post-scarcity world. At least while it, or we, lasted.

Yeah. If everything is made by machines, and there is no scarcity, then handmade items would be the status symbols. You'd be able to sell stuff as "one-of-a-kind".

Think of the weird shit any local craft show has and realize that terribly crocheted tea cozy could be seen as valuable because it was made by a person, who spent their time on it. Since in a post-scarcity society the only thing people would have to spend is their own time.

Also, how post scarcity are we talking? Are we going to have genetic modifications as part of the normal society so everybody looks like a supermodel? Would having a freckle that wasn't placed on your face by science be seen as a horrible defect? Will everyone be perfect singers/artists/athletes? In order to have no status whatsoever for any reason are you willing to go full Harrison Bergeron?

 

[Pickle Inspector]

What you are talking about seems similar to the The Culture sci-fi series (An alternative run down) where AI runs a utopian society that runs on socialist, libertarian and anarchist principles.

Although it's probally more futuristic than you were meaning since it has spaceships and sentient AI but anyway there the most driven voluntarily take up careers like diplomat or whatever, I guess it'd be similar in real life too, people would still seek status from either being in politics or being famous in the creative industries.

 

[HG 400]

It sure is a cool fantasy, but that's just the backdrop of my question, which is: if everyone can have what we consider "wealth", what will "status-seeking" people do? Yacht, Ferrari, Armani, Rolex, etc... all exist so that wealthy people can show to everyone else that they are, indeed, better than them (or so they believe, anyway). When it will be no longer possible to have more stuff based on merit, how will people that naturally seek wealth and status live/react? Since they also tend to be the kind of people that make the world go round, how would it affect society?

Reproductive rights. Without some seriously unlikely science-magic, there's going to be a limit on just how many people earth can actually sustain, so enforced population controls are a prerequisite to the type of post-scarcity utopia you're describing. If the basic income of the unemployed majority is set at grotesquely decedent, it will be reproductive rights that incentivise the employed.

 

[WW 635]

Everything would work out fine as long as it was maintained Logan's Run style.