<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/01/2025 02:16, Stuart LaForge
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.2.1736475363.412.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<pre>It is funny to me as a Yank, how your misspelling of aluminum...</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm not going to rise to that, we all know where it leads. I think
we should just accept that there's English and there's American, and
leave it at that.<br>
<br>
I can't see lebensraum being a problem. I wasn't suggesting that we
all live as tightly packed as we would be if we all lived on
Madagascar! That was just an illustration of how much area on earth
there is, compared to how many people there currently are. I'm not
going to try to do the maths, but it's not difficult to see that we
could probably 10x the number of humans and still have plenty of
room, given the right level of technology.<br>
<br>
Anyway, that's not really relevant to the concept of an abundance
economy, we won't have 10x the current population for a while, if
ever, and I suspect by that time, technology will make the world
(and people) unrecognisable from our current perspective.<br>
<br>
I don't see that biology is an obstacle to an abundance economy.
Global population seems to be declining at the moment, and better
living conditions fuel that trend, as far as we can see. Abundance
economy means amazingly good living conditions, by definition, so
what other factor is relevant to biology being an obstacle? I can't
think of any.<br>
<br>
The earth can support 8 billion people, it's doing so now, so
there's no problem with the chemical resources that our bodies need,
so that leaves the other things that we want, rather than need, so
we can all live happy lives.<br>
<br>
Basically, it comes down to money, doesn't it. Money, and freedom. I
wouldn't suggest doing away with money, that probably would never
work, but a certain amount of free money given to every person, to
spend how they like, would probably be a good idea. Enough to cover
basic needs - food, shelter, transport, access to medical treatment,
education, entertainment, communication (including internet access,
or whatever equivalent emerges), and probably a couple of other
things I haven't thought of. Gainful employment (as in working for
money) would then be an option rather than a necessity, and people
who want to, could take up non-money-making occupations without any
downside.<br>
<br>
Where would all this money come from? The same place it comes from
now, except instead of humans toiling to produce the goods, robots
and other automatic systems would. Specialised AIs would control the
robots.<br>
<br>
Transition to an abundance economy would probably be gradual, via a
modest Universal Basic Income first. The issue of 'who do the fruits
of the labour of the robots belong to?' would have to be sorted out
in a way that benefits the general population, not just a small
group of people that own the robots. Perhaps some way of creating
'ownerless' robots could emerge. AI would probably help with this.
If corporations can be legal persons, AIs could too, and they would
be in charge of some of the robotic systems, and ensure that the
money generated doesn't just enrich a few already rich people, but
goes to the general populace instead, as an 'automation dividend'.
As the benefits of this system become more widely understood and
appreciated, it would probably spread, and gradually ramp up the
amount of money available to distribute to everyone.<br>
<br>
<br>
The 'Freedom' aspect is a different kettle of fish. Even those of us
in the 'free west' are constantly confronted with restrictions on
our freedom, and it only gets worse as time goes on.<br>
Some of the restrictions are driven by ideology, religious or
otherwise. Many of them are driven by money. Rich people want to be
richer, often to the detriment of others, and oppose any move to
prevent that. This has resulted in ridiculous copyright laws,
hostility to free distribution of culture and open access to
research, etc. This is a thorny issue, and I'm not sure how it can
be tackled. Supporting things like the Freedom to Tinker movement,
open-source things and the EFF are ok, but that's only nibbling at
the edges of a huge problem. This might be a swamp that we're not
capable of getting ourselves out of, and need the help of more
intelligent beings for.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Ben</pre>
</body>
</html>