Star Trek post-scarcity economy when??

https://rickwebb.medium.com/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab...

irjustin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What Star Trek doesn't show is how they got there. I promise you it's going to be extremely painful, but once we're on the other side it'll be worth it.

I argue - there's nothing we can do to stop it; humanity, I mean. We will either achieve Star Trek or get wiped out as a species.

As a Kardashev Type 3, we will have achieved full automation. I'll leave the door open for Elysium problems, but hopefully Mr. Damon will save us then too.

	▲	jfengel 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Star Trek predicted riots around now because of vast numbers of unemployed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_Tense_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Sp... A couple of years ago, in fact. We're running late.
	▲	tredre3 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Star Trek might not show exactly how we got there, but they did put a lot of emphasis that humanity had to almost destroy itself before getting there. WWIII lasted 25 years and it took another 100 years to rebuild after that. WWIII in universe is also scheduled for 2026 I believe.

▲

bluegatty 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

we are very well past post-scarcity.

we definitely choose consumption over free time for the most part.

people generally choose nicer home, starbucks, vacay, neflix over work hours or retirement.

so this is a cultural issue

▲

tredre3 2 hours ago | parent [-]

We are very well past the point where technology could allow post-scarcity.

Post-scarcity is no longer technological problem, it's a political one. But it's still very much a problem, so no, we are not anywhere near post-scarcity.

I also don't understand the point you're making about people wanting to spend $15 on netflix or $12 on a coffee. Would everybody cutting netflix and lattes allow us to live in that utopia more quickly?

	▲	bluegatty an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, dropping consumption would immediately allow us to work 2-3 days a week. It's far more a cultural problem than political. We starting hitting post-scarcity at the start of the 19th century, towards the end of the industrial revolution [1] We were growing enough food, housing is actually not that expensive, we were 'starting to not need that much more'. This is when we started marketing consumption to the population - it was the only way to grow the economy. We have far, far more than we need for basic satiety. It's not quite so simple though - many innovations that we 'truly want', like medicines and health tech - come out of the economy as a whole and would not be possible were that the only hugely important sector. We work 5 days on 2 days off because that's the very strongly entrenched social contract, it's the 'labour equilibrium'. No amount of tech or AI will change that - unless we collectively agree to change the rules. The social contract is slightly different in different countries, and nobody seems to have figured out how to work on 2-3 days, I believe that we mostly prefer the way it is. Maybe 4 day weeks would be more amenable. But the marginal income from the 4th day ... I think people would prefer to work it rather than not. [1] https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/a-brief-history-of-consum...

▲

Henchman21 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not until aliens land and show us the way. I firmly believe we aren’t presently capable of allowing a post-scarcity economy to exist — too much stuff is based on scarcity. So much so that we create scarcity instead of giving away excess. I’m thinking of food specifically.

▲

marcus_holmes 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If "stuff" === power over other people, then agree 100%.

There are people out there who would rather other people starve than they have one iota less prestige, power, influence or luxury. And, unfortunately, they are the people who wield most of the power in our society.

We have to solve that before we can solve the economics, which is the easy part.

	▲	Henchman21 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We agree.