Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Myth of Scarcity and Its Threats to Human Society [pdf] (2023)

kemendo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 164 posts

Re: The Myth of Scarcity and Its Threats to Human Society [pdf] (2023)

#81

Post by smokel »

kerkeslager wrote: post #60
defrost wrote: post #9

I prefer the Forward to the UNEP 2024 Global Resources Outlook (181 pages): Natural resources are the basis on which all economies and societies are built, making their sustainable management critical to ending poverty and reducing inequalities. They are also essential to drive the transition to net-zero. To stay below a 2°C temperature rise by 2050, we will need over three billion tonnes of energy transition mineral…

> but the full report does outline a path forward should sufficient numbers of people and companies take heed. Sure, but a path that depends on companies caring about anything other than profit is a dead end. Companies do not care about ethics, and exceptional (as in, exceptions to the rule) people like Yvonne Chouinard have had to go to great lengths to create atypical corporate structures that may not even work in…

In a way, companies are simply groups of humans working together. Who is to say that the rottenness emerges from the working together, or whether it is already present in the individual humans?

Pre-capitalist societies are known to be even more murder-driven than the current one. Consult the Old Testament for some tips on how to be moral assholes.

Re: The Myth of Scarcity and Its Threats to Human Society [pdf] (2023)

#82

Post by skeledrew »

Quite a bit of interesting history here. This resonates with my thoughts on the matter.

On the AI/automation point, my largest curiosity is what will happen when we get to 99+% of the automation of all value-providing labor. At that point, the concept of wage labor will be meaningless, and along with it the wherewithal of exchange which currently powers the world economy (money). If the vast majority of the population is unable to provide more value than machines can, what happens then?

It would seem the only logical course would be to return to de-facto cooperation, but humans aren't overall very logical IMO.

Re: The Myth of Scarcity and Its Threats to Human Society [pdf] (2023)

#83

Post by skywal_l »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #23

Excited to answer any questions and happily surprised to see it on the front page. Thank you. I noted elsewhere that this is undergoing major revisions ahead of submissions to IJPS[1]. Riane Eisler read it and asked that I submit. I started working with a co-author a few months ago and he is a published anthropologist so my hope is to have a version done just focusing on the core claims this year. [1] https://pubs.li…

I see in your profile: Iraq war veteran.

Why did you chose to fight in Iraq?

(asking the question because it might reveal a better understanding of your thought process).

Re: The Myth of Scarcity and Its Threats to Human Society [pdf] (2023)

#84

Post by keiferski »

smokel wrote: post #75
kerkeslager wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also worth thinking about in this context is the so-called “repugnant conclusion”: I disagree, elaborate ponderings in the absence of non-hypothetical evidence are not worth talking about. I mean, read the section, "Arriving at the Repugnant Conclusion" with any critical eye at all and it becomes clear that it's total nonsense. They're treating "postponing a pregnancy" (not even aborting an existing pregnancy to ha…

You might be interested in pragmatism.

No, people that write comments like that one tend to be into Ayn Rand and think her pseudo-intellectual philosophy is something worth building a worldview around. The keywords, belligerence, and lack of actual intellectual engagement ("this is all stupid nonsense not worth talking about" is a key tell) are all there.

Re: The Myth of Scarcity and Its Threats to Human Society [pdf] (2023)

#85

Post by watwut »

keiferski wrote: post #41
wsc981 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the right circumstances, birth control happens automatically. As people get more wealthy, there seems to be less incentive to have lots of children. Perhaps due to better healthcare (less deaths in childbirth) and more securities for old age (eg. pensions). Seems Africa is at the moment the only continent that still has population growth (and quite massive). https://www.statista.com/statistics/272789/world-populat…

I think this is more a consequence of consumerism and the media-nature of modern society and not directly from increased populations. It just seems that way because science allowing for larger food crops, less child mortality, etc. coincided with the rise of media technology.

The thing that lowers childbirths is education of women, in particular education about birth control. That plus economic opportunities for women.

Nothing to do with consumerist media, just letting women know how to prevent 5th child.

Re: The Myth of Scarcity and Its Threats to Human Society [pdf] (2023)

#86

Post by skywal_l »

Basically, an epicurian proposition:

"Epicurus asserted that philosophy's purpose is to attain as well as to help others attain happy (eudaimonic), tranquil lives characterized by ataraxia (peace and freedom from fear) and aponia (the absence of pain). He advocated that people were best able to pursue philosophy by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends." [0]

"Epicurus distinguishes between three types of desires: natural and necessary, natural but unnecessary, and vain and empty. Natural and necessary desires include the desires for food and shelter. These are easy to satisfy, difficult to eliminate, bring pleasure when satisfied, and are naturally limited. Going beyond these limits produces unnecessary desires, such as the desire for luxury foods. Although food is necessary, luxury food is not necessary. Correspondingly, Epicurus advocates a life of hedonistic moderation by reducing desire, thus eliminating the unhappiness caused by unfulfilled desires. Vain desires include desires for power, wealth, and fame. These are difficult to satisfy because no matter how much one gets, one can always want more. These desires are inculcated by society and by false beliefs about what we need. They are not natural and are to be shunned" [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

Re: The Myth of Scarcity and Its Threats to Human Society [pdf] (2023)

#87

Post by jraedisch »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #18
jraedisch wrote: post #12

So when I think “every important thing in my life is scarce”, that is just incorrect imagination? 11 billion people can live on a lake with perfect child and health care?

Living on a lake is a prestige goal, not a requirement for existence. There is no meaningful scarcity at tier 1 of Maslow's hierarchy.

I love swimming and direct access to "nature". You left out child and health care, too. I do not see how any of these are prestige goals.

Re: The Myth of Scarcity and Its Threats to Human Society [pdf] (2023)

#88

Post by MichaelRo »

oezi wrote: post #73
MichaelRo wrote: post #48

>> The purest example of scarcity creating existential terror is declining birth rates. 50% of the world population is now below the replacement birth rate and younger generations are delaying reproduction or choosing to go childless altogether. While this is generally correlated with one-time increases in standards of living, inverted population age pyramids have historically spelled doom for societies. I think this…

We have already adapted. Birthrates have fallen globally. There are some holdouts, but a new equilibrium is not far away. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

Interesting. Another thing that popped through my mind along with a bit of wild extrapolation.

I have one (and only one) kid and my wife chose to give birth by C-section. Apparently it's fairly low risk to have two kids delivered this way, though we probably won't have another one.

But ... another issue with human species was the problem of "big brains", with an upper limit of cranial size at birth and the (unique to humans, I think) problem of labor pain. C-sections solve this problem and allow for selection of even larger brains inside bigger heads.

So now the SciFi what if ... what if selection goes so far that at some point we lose the capacity to give birth naturally? Sure, average IQ could be 200 but we're entirely dependent on technology to reproduce. And if some global catastrophe prevents that technology to work, we're out of the scene as a species in the blink of an eye.

Re: The Myth of Scarcity and Its Threats to Human Society [pdf] (2023)

#89

Post by noitpmeder »

jraedisch wrote: post #87
forgetfreeman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living on a lake is a prestige goal, not a requirement for existence. There is no meaningful scarcity at tier 1 of Maslow's hierarchy.

I love swimming and direct access to "nature". You left out child and health care, too. I do not see how any of these are prestige goals.

Both of those desires can be fulfilled in a myriad of ways more accessible to the average person than "living on a lake".

Re: The Myth of Scarcity and Its Threats to Human Society [pdf] (2023)

#90

Post by AlexandrB »

kerkeslager wrote: post #69
keiferski wrote: post #28

Also worth thinking about in this context is the so-called “repugnant conclusion”: In Derek Parfit’s original formulation the Repugnant Conclusion is stated as follows: “For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that…

> Also worth thinking about in this context is the so-called “repugnant conclusion”: I disagree, elaborate ponderings in the absence of non-hypothetical evidence are not worth talking about. I mean, read the section, "Arriving at the Repugnant Conclusion" with any critical eye at all and it becomes clear that it's total nonsense. They're treating "postponing a pregnancy" (not even aborting an existing pregnancy to ha…

Maybe I'm missing something, but it also seems innumerate. It's possible that the resources needed for each additional person reduces the quality of life for all other people enough to more than entirely cancel out their own contribution to the "sum". The resulting sequence would approach a sum of 0 as the population increases instead of always increasing with population.
Post reply on HN