[extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty

[Jeff Davis]

--- John B <discwuzit at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ick. Post-scarcity. I get all itchy whenever this
> comes up. *chuckle*
> 
> Assuming perfect post scarcity, there'll still be
> things to compete over. 
> 
> Land - "Location, location, location!" still applies
> -
> there's only so much Maui beachfront.

Yes and no.  

Seven-tenths of the earths surface is covered in
water.  Build a duplicate of Maui, Malibu, San
Francisco, Paris, etc, put it on a barge (a very large
barge to be sure), and voila!  Not only do you have
more prime real estate, but it has more valuable
waterfront than the original, and -- surprise,
surprise -- it can be anywhere in the world you want
it to be (like Santa Catalina is to L.A.), but
moveable if that proves useful, as no doubt it would.

> Mates, either sexual or whatever other form of
> mutual
> exchange you care for (tiddlywinks? Ideas? Crafts?
> Care?). Note that this also affects Land, as many
> such
> relationships presupposes a close physical
> proximity.
> 
> There are potential technical limits to
> 'post-scarcity' as well - we've "only" got one
> systems' matter to play with, for instance, and some
> significant portion of that will be used up if we
> try
> to do something significantly different than letting
> it stay in its current orbits. 

This is your example of the limited resources of our
system!!!???  By the time we approach a Kardeshev type
I civilization we'll be doin' the post-singularity
dance and this whole scarcity/abundance issue will be
a museum piece akin to stone tools.

> Another include the
> amount of heat that the Earth can handle without
> damage (which is potentially conquerable with the
> 'right' tech mix, I admit)

...potentially conquerable with the 'right' tech mix,
I agree.

> 
> The competition doesn't have to be economic. There
> will probably be economics maintained - as a scoring
> system, if for nothing else - for a good long while
> after it's no longer needed. 

> Power requires some form of keeping score, and power
sets the rules...

Which brings up the crucial question of power.  It
seems clear that power has always been correllated
with wealth.  However, we have seen in our time
examples of countries becoming substantially
wealthier.  As this takes place, the distribution of
wealth within these societies changes, middle-classes
(a group with professional, managerial, and
entreprenurial skills and substantially greater wealth
than serfs/lower classes) expand and, with their
greater wealth, begin to exercise greater political
power.  

So what are the historic trends regarding the changing
distribution of power?  And what does this imply for
the hypothetical future society with its hypothetical
abundance?  And lest we forget, this process is
unrelentingly dynamic, so we're likely dealing with a
continuously moving target.  A dynamic transition,
through stages, from the culture we have now to the
culture (pre-singularity) "of abundance" and beyond.

> - so there will continue to be 'tokens' of power, be
that currency or nanofac capacity or template
bandwidth or whatever the chits used are called.
> 
> All this is theory on my part,

And mine as well, (gulp!).

> and IMO dissembling -
> I don't think there can be such a thing as an
> 'economics of plenty'. That's not economics!
*chuckle*
> 
> Economics (to be a bit pedantic, sorry) is the study
> of choices made under limitation. If there are no
> limits, there is no economics. 
> 
> Dr Hanson, or other economic-savvy types out there -
> am I correct in that? 
> 
> -John B

Best, Jeff Davis

     "We are every one an "idiot and moron" 
           compared to what we seek to  become."  
                           Samantha Atkins 




		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com