[ExI] Abundance Economy

[Stuart LaForge]

On 2025-01-09 12:59, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat wrote:
> Long ago, in a galaxy... well, quite a while ago, anyway, spike said:
> 
>> The economy of abundance doesn't apply to some things, such as raw 
>> materials, energy and land.  Regardless of how easily we can 
>> manufacture anything we want, there are fixed quantities of some 
>> things.

> These things are limited in absolute terms, true, but does that mean an 
> abundance economy isn't possible?

The universe and its physical laws existed long before we showed up and 
tried to figure it out. Why would you assume absolute limits on 
anything? If the quantity "three" can be physically manifested as three 
objects, then why cannot infinity be manifest as an infinite number of 
objects or amount of a substance? For example, why would there be a 
finite amount of empty space? What could possibly be "outside" of empty 
space?

> Absolute limits and apparent (or practical) limits aren't the same 
> thing.

True, but I am suggesting that there might be no absolute limits, merely 
relative ones. Scarcity is an entirely local economic phenomenon of our 
causal reach. If infinity is physically manifest, for example in the 
singularity of black holes, or as a multiverse of fractally scaling 
Everett trees and branches as the infinite continuum of empty space, 
then there is an infinite amount of everything out there. The problem is 
that almost all of it is outside our light cone. Our abundance is 
limited due to the shape of space-time and not the actual amount of 
space time or "stuff" in the universe. Of course if Hugh Everett was 
right, there are an infinite number of copies of you out there and that 
they (you?) would have a combined infinite amount of stuff.

> I've remarked before that 'resources' aren't fixed in quantity, despite 
> what many sustainomaniacs would have us believe. People usually fail to 
> factor in the level of technology available. Technology and Resources 
> are intimately linked. The higher your level of technology, the more 
> resources are available to you. We're no longer limited by the amount 
> of coal we can mine, because we discovered oil. Now we are finding ways 
> to do without oil. When we learn to turn carbon, silicon, aluminium, 
> etc., into just about anything we want, people will laugh at the idea 
> of limited raw materials. We will never run out of those things as long 
> as we remain on the earth.

It is funny to me as a Yank, how your misspelling of aluminum is 
phonetically exactly how you Brits pronounce it. In any case, "never" is 
an absolute, and only a Sith deals in absolutes. For example, I could 
imagine the Earth eventually running out of helium, uranium 235, other 
radioactive or labile substances. Also arable land and fresh water, we 
might run out because, if there are enough of us, then somebody is going 
to have do without. Lebenstraum will always be scarce as long as we 
remain on Earth.

> 
> Energy is almost unlimited, given the right technology to harvest it.
> 
> Available land, in the distant past, was a tiny fraction of what it is 
> now (because we have more than just animal skins and wood fires to keep 
> us warm, etc.). When you consider that we could put every single person 
> on the planet on Madagascar, with room left over, you realise just how 
> much liveable space the earth has (without even considering the seas).

Yikes. Quality of life counts for something. Beyond a certain population 
density, you get all sorts of pathological and aberrant behavior, even 
if food, energy, and other resources are abundant. Check out John 
Calhoun's old Universe 25 experiment:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-old-experiment-with-mice-led-to-bleak-predictions-for-humanitys-future-180954423/

> 
> Obviously, we don't yet have the technology to realise an abundance 
> economy, but I don't think we're far off it. Robotics and AI are 
> advancing in leaps and bounds, Nanotech research is happening all over 
> the world, in the background. One day nanotech will be a big thing.

Don't forget fusion. It may surprise you, but Fusion has been 
progressing faster than Moore's Law. Check out Figure 1 in this paper.
https://fire.pppl.gov/nf_50th_4_Ikeda.pdf

The red line is Moore's Law. The blue line is progress in fusion 
technology. The green line is progress in particle accelerators. The 
steepr slope means that that fusion is progressing faster than Moore's 
Law.

> I think the biggest obstacle to an abundance economy will be human 
> psychology (mostly manifested as politics and resistance from big 
> business (which are just about the same thing, these days), as well as 
> authoritarian states that want to keep strict control of their 
> subjects), not land, energy or raw materials.

Human psychology and biology are both obstacles to an abundance economy. 
But I think abundance without Lebenstraum could easily become a 
nightmarish dystopia. Like the "first Matrix" that was discussed in one 
of the movies.

Stuart LaForge