Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mechalus t1_irssb72 wrote

Reply to comment by purple_hamster66 in Introducing the Basic Post-scarcity Map by lorepieri

> the last 100 years and how it’s only affected 10% of the populace

Every nation on earth has been drastically impacted by the last 100 years of technological growth. A quick Google search indicates approximately 63% of people in the world have access to the internet. That means 63% of the world can learn anything, at any time. How many people could research a topic on Wikipedia, learn a skill from a Youtube video, have a conversation with an AI, or stream Netflix 100 years ago?

100 years ago most people didn't own a book, only about 20% could even read, and they had likely never spoken to anyone outside of their home town. Now 63% have access to the accumulated knowledge of the human race, and can have real-time conversations with people on the opposite side of the planet.

So no, it's not just the evil greedy rich people that benefit.

That said, yeah, there will always be people who have more. But post-scarcity as a concept doesn't necessarily contradict that. The idea is that the baseline for everyone is raised. Not everyone will be able to own a mega-yacht. But everyone will be able to eat and have their basic needs met. That's the goal.

2

purple_hamster66 t1_irstien wrote

Only 4% of rural China has a computer in the house. 40% of India citizens lack a computer, too. 1B people have no hope of sharing in the improvements of tech, let alone the improvements you’re hoping for the rest of the world.

The impact of tech on these people has been negative! The main concerns in their lives are finding enough clean drinking water — because the local Pepsi plant is using it — and not dying from diseases brought by tourists. When the nearest healthcare is a day away, and almost no one has a motor vehicle, you don’t really care about Wikipedia.

1

Mechalus t1_irsuvph wrote

Yes. The world still sucks for some people.

And I'm not saying that all of the world is perfect for everyone today. Nobody has said that, or is even attempting that argument. But compared to 100 years ago, it is far better for most. And all historic trends indicate that it will get better for more people over time. Technology and the capabilities it offers is spreading, not receding.

> 1B people have no hope of sharing in the improvements of tech, let alone the improvements you’re hoping for the rest of the world.

But around 7 billion do, and that number grows every day. Do you really believe it's just going to stop?

2

purple_hamster66 t1_irtddbm wrote

I think that people will continue the current trend of descending into poverty. There are already a considerable percentage of people in the US who have to decide whether to take meds or to eat, because they can’t pay for both, and those folks, who have gotten the benefits of, say modern household heating, are suffering to the point where they don’t care if Wikipedia exists or not.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it. I’m saying that it won’t solve most of our societal issues.

0

Mechalus t1_irudslw wrote

> I think that people will continue the current trend of descending into poverty.

On average, the number of people living in poverty, throughout the world, has diminished every year since at least the 1820’s.

And yes, you can find some county in some state that got worse within the last year or some other specific window of time. And yes, you can point to people in undeveloped nations, or even in the US, who still live in absolutely horrific conditions. I’m not blind to that. It just has nothing to do with my point. Because the number of people suffering is shrinking, not growing.

We’re talking about a global trend that started thousands of years ago, continued in a very specific direction, never stopped, gets faster every year, and ends with post-scarcity.

It’s not going to happen tomorrow. And it’s not going to be easy. It most likely won’t be an entirely pleasant transition. And not everyone is going to experience it at the same time. But nothing has ever stopped it. And I see no reason to believe that a shrinking number of poor people in China or the latest round of rich douchbags is going to suddenly reverse the momentum of technological advancement and proliferation across the world. Nothing ever has. Nothing can. It’s human nature. We, as a species, are never willing to stop looking for ways to make our lives easier and happier.

There are a few regressives out there. And there are certainly a lot of apathetic naysayers and doomsayers. But they never really amount to anything at the end of the day. On their best day they are a minor speed bump for the people who want to get shit done.

An asteroid impact, super-virus, or extinction-level global nuclear war might set the trend of advancement back. But that’d be about it.

Consider this. The last few years in the US saw the rise of a regressive President and outspokenly regressive political party, the worst pandemic since the Spanish Flu, the rise of the mega-billionaires, and the collapse of the global supply chain.

And at the same time, we saw the largest surge in technological innovation we’ve seen in our lifetimes, more frequent and more serious talks about UBI, and serious consideration for how we get work done in general.

Yes, some people in some places are worse off today than three years ago. But on average, across the world, we progressed. That trend continues.

2

purple_hamster66 t1_irw01m0 wrote

You make a convincing argument, overall, with 2 exceptions:

  1. housing is a basic need that’s neither scalable nor sustainable. Sure, we can bring costs down a little by 3D printing a house but we’re still going to pave over some forrest to make new land. We’re out of land in most major cities.

  2. One big fly in the ointment is the mega-billionaires, who accumulate assets needed for the shift. The shrinking middle class has been trending towards indentured slavery in the last decade, worldwide. As the saying goes: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The powerful Uber-rich have to be convinced to change this trend, as they make money by keeping scarcity at the forefront. And they have not changed in 100 years so why change now?

Even China, who has centralized control over their business processes, allows mega-billionaires to accumulate wealth and power. People gladly sign up for 100-year leases on apartments in Shanghai, and call that progress because their salaries increased 4x in the last decade. They’re just production slaves, who have to cheat, steal, lie and work 70 hours/week to a maintain their places in the world, not equal partners with the billionaires, and that’s in a country that claims that everyone is equal.

1

Mechalus t1_irw6qrd wrote

> 1) housing is a basic need that’s neither scalable nor sustainable. Sure, we can bring costs down a little by 3D printing a house but we’re still going to pave over some forrest to make new land.

Population growth has slowed, and has begun to reverse in some places. In addition, pretty much every study done on the subject has indicated that access to technology, education, and a general better quality of life, results in a reduced birthrate.

Point being, population is not an issue. And in places where it is, better tech allows for more vertical expansion.

> We’re out of land in most major cities.

But we have plenty of land to make new cities, which is made easier and cheaper with better tech. Tech makes it easier to build in places that were once impractical.

>The shrinking middle class

Again, post-scarcity does not automatically mean equality. The goal isn't for the poorest person and the richest to have the same income. The goal is for the poorest to be able to live a better life. I don't care if Elon Musk can fly to Mars or buy another yacht. What's important is that the poor and sick get food, shelter and healthcare. And it'd be real nice if people didn't have to live in fear of a medical bill that would financially destroy them.

Also, I think you overestimate the impact and worth of the mega-billionaires. Out of curiosity, I did a quick search of the top 10 riches people on the planet, and their estimated worth. It totals to roughly $1.2 trillion. Another search indicates that humanity as a whole has around $40 trillion, with assets estimated at around $1.3 quadrillion.

Now, I'm sure all of those numbers took a lot of fuzzy math to work out. But the point is, the mega-billionaires really aren't all that important. They just seem important because everything they do becomes a feature of the 24 hour news cycle. If Amazon or Tesla goes bankrupt, we'll survive.

> apartments in Shanghai

Again, you are back to pointing out specific examples and when we're talking about a global trend.

> They’re just production slaves, who have to cheat, steal, lie and work 70 hours/week to a maintain their places in the world

And yet, it's better than it was 100 years ago. Most countries no longer allow children in factories. And as far as I know, the concept of the "company store" is dead.

Even though it still sucks, it is far better to be poor today than it was 100 years ago. And it will be better in 10 years.

2