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

Future Economy (2010) [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#21

Post by blakeyrat »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #10
blakeyrat wrote: post #6

Ok; I want to improve myself by moving into a big house on the shore of Lake Washington. Oh. It takes money to do that? Well shoot. EDIT: to actually respond to the video clip, it's kind of surprising how interesting Star Trek got when they threw out some of Roddenberry's ideas during the Deep Space 9 era. The Starfleet people co-existed with the Ferengi and Bajorans who didn't have post-scarcity economies. The Bajor…

How does moving to a big house improve you?

It would certainly give me a much quieter environment to work in, with a far better view. Also would do a ton to help me attract a girlfriend.

But you're right, it's not all the way there yet: I also need to hire someone to do the basic maintenance and cleaning. Or perhaps a robot. But either option takes money.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#22

Post by flareback »

aiNohY6g wrote: post #12
flareback wrote: post #4

It's a nice theory but doesn't solve the problem of supply and demand. If there are 7 billion people on earth that all want a widget, how does this economic philosophy handle the fact that the manufacturing capability can only produce enough widgets for 1 billion people. Who decides which billion people get the widget?

Even if you optimize the supply/demand problem, you just can't rule a finite world with infinite desires. At some point, there are things you need to give up. The question is: which things, and when?

exactly. Money helps solve this problem.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#23

Post by CuriouslyC »

blakeyrat wrote: post #6

Ok; I want to improve myself by moving into a big house on the shore of Lake Washington. Oh. It takes money to do that? Well shoot. EDIT: to actually respond to the video clip, it's kind of surprising how interesting Star Trek got when they threw out some of Roddenberry's ideas during the Deep Space 9 era. The Starfleet people co-existed with the Ferengi and Bajorans who didn't have post-scarcity economies. The Bajor…

The surprise twist to that story, is that after living in a nice house for a while you no longer notice it. If you have to sacrifice something else you do notice for the money to live in a nice place, you're caught in the trap.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#24

Post by aiNohY6g »

rublev wrote: post #16
ZenoArrow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does moving to a big house improve you?

How doesn't it? I'm living in an apartment right now bordering a psycho neighbour and it's mentally ruining me. I can only dream of having my own quiet space again. Simply having the mental freedom to think about what you want, not 'juggling' thoughts about managing your lifestyle around other peoples lives. If you are well slept and content, then arguably everything you undertake will be the 'improved' version.

What's the "self" in improving yourself? You as a human being (humanity)? Or your human condition (comfort)?

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#25

Post by flareback »

canadian_voter wrote: post #20
flareback wrote: post #4

It's a nice theory but doesn't solve the problem of supply and demand. If there are 7 billion people on earth that all want a widget, how does this economic philosophy handle the fact that the manufacturing capability can only produce enough widgets for 1 billion people. Who decides which billion people get the widget?

Well, for a start, it's a post-scarcity society that has the capacity to produce 7 billion widgets if necessary. So that gets you around a lot of problems. You'll notice that the crew quarters in the show are decorated in a minimalist style. The only objects people keep are the ones that are important to them. Tools, games, gifts can be conjured as needed and recycled when you're done with them. Scarce resources do e…

Until we learn how to create something out of nothing, there will be no post-scarcity world.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#26

Post by aiNohY6g »

flareback wrote: post #22
aiNohY6g wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you optimize the supply/demand problem, you just can't rule a finite world with infinite desires. At some point, there are things you need to give up. The question is: which things, and when?

exactly. Money helps solve this problem.

This problem = boundless desires. Money is just some kind of palliative care, not a cure.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#27

Post by hacker_9 »

flareback wrote: post #18
hacker_9 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think that in such a society, people would upload blueprints for how to create things, which you could then send to your local manufacturing plant to get built. Some sort of advanced 3d printer could even see these sorts of things widespread. Additionally it would be 100% recyclable, with the idea that you would 'give back to the earth' when you were done with it (materialism would be a thing of the past).

It doesn't matter how it gets created if there is only the manufacturing capability to produce x amount yet more than x number of people want it? Maybe there isn't the raw materials to produce it, perhaps it takes too long to produce. Maybe it's that we all want our own spaceship and don't want to be under the command of Captain Picard. Maybe it's something even more limited like a house exactly on the north pole. Wi…

Perhaps with a VR setup like The Matrix, we could all have what we want all the time. Within the society of the world though, there are rules and hard limits so we can all live together peacefully. Besides everyone having their own stuff is what caused many of our problems in the first place, but this is a very hard mindset to get out of (survival instinct being the root cause of it, meaning it's biologically hardcoded behaviour).

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#28

Post by hacker_9 »

blakeyrat wrote: post #6

Ok; I want to improve myself by moving into a big house on the shore of Lake Washington. Oh. It takes money to do that? Well shoot. EDIT: to actually respond to the video clip, it's kind of surprising how interesting Star Trek got when they threw out some of Roddenberry's ideas during the Deep Space 9 era. The Starfleet people co-existed with the Ferengi and Bajorans who didn't have post-scarcity economies. The Bajor…

I don't think anyone is saying you suddenly don't need money, because in our current society you absolutely do. But it is possible to imagine one without it, once we get over a certain threshold of technology.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#29

Post by blakeyrat »

canadian_voter wrote: post #20
flareback wrote: post #4

It's a nice theory but doesn't solve the problem of supply and demand. If there are 7 billion people on earth that all want a widget, how does this economic philosophy handle the fact that the manufacturing capability can only produce enough widgets for 1 billion people. Who decides which billion people get the widget?

Well, for a start, it's a post-scarcity society that has the capacity to produce 7 billion widgets if necessary. So that gets you around a lot of problems. You'll notice that the crew quarters in the show are decorated in a minimalist style. The only objects people keep are the ones that are important to them. Tools, games, gifts can be conjured as needed and recycled when you're done with them. Scarce resources do e…

A post-scarcity economy is never going to be able to create more lake-front properties or more seats at the top pop star's front-row. (Although I suppose you could argue: VR. But I doubt people even 100 years from now will agree VR is just as good as the real thing.)

When you think about it, there's a lot of stuff that'll still be scarce even when we have magic robots that can build everything instantly.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#30

Post by blakeyrat »

hacker_9 wrote: post #9
flareback wrote: post #4

It's a nice theory but doesn't solve the problem of supply and demand. If there are 7 billion people on earth that all want a widget, how does this economic philosophy handle the fact that the manufacturing capability can only produce enough widgets for 1 billion people. Who decides which billion people get the widget?

I would think that in such a society, people would upload blueprints for how to create things, which you could then send to your local manufacturing plant to get built. Some sort of advanced 3d printer could even see these sorts of things widespread. Additionally it would be 100% recyclable, with the idea that you would 'give back to the earth' when you were done with it (materialism would be a thing of the past).

Ok I want lake-front property with a view of Mount Rainier. What address do I send my blueprint to?

Oh wait.

I'll never understand why people who promote this "magical robots solve everything" view ignore the simple examples that robots, no matter how sophisticated, cannot fix. For example, scarcity of prime real estate.

Post reply on HN