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

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#41

Post by hacker_9 »

blakeyrat wrote: post #32
hacker_9 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What threshold is going to make prime real estate lots around Lake Washington not scarce? Asking seriously. Because I have a lot of imagination and I can't come up with anything. Except perhaps we all plug into VR 24/7 like The Matrix. But even in my fake Matrix VR house, I'd envy the guy with the real thing.

Like I replied to your other comment; portable housing that can move on demand. AI bots that rewire water pipes and electricity etc. It could be a regular event to re-landscape whole cities and towns.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#42

Post by [deleted] »

blakeyrat wrote: post #32
hacker_9 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What threshold is going to make prime real estate lots around Lake Washington not scarce? Asking seriously. Because I have a lot of imagination and I can't come up with anything. Except perhaps we all plug into VR 24/7 like The Matrix. But even in my fake Matrix VR house, I'd envy the guy with the real thing.

[deleted]

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#43

Post by golergka »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #31
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?

The truth is, we have the means now to provide food, medicine and power to the entire world easily. People actually need those things. People don't need widgets, and they've lived meaningful lives for millenia without them. It's only through the deceit of advertising that you think they are necessary. They're nice, but you adapt fairly quickly to life without them.

So, you're going to tell people what they actually need and what they don't? From each by his ability, to each by his needs?

This have already been tried you know. Didn't work. At all.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#44

Post by bkirkby »

blakeyrat wrote: post #32
hacker_9 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What threshold is going to make prime real estate lots around Lake Washington not scarce? Asking seriously. Because I have a lot of imagination and I can't come up with anything. Except perhaps we all plug into VR 24/7 like The Matrix. But even in my fake Matrix VR house, I'd envy the guy with the real thing.

you may envy the guy with the "real thing," but future generations likely won't. if you have fully immersive virtual reality environments, then it won't matter where you live.

as someone who has done a recent job search, i knew i couldn't afford to live in the bay area with my large family, but half og the companies i interviewed with were in the bay area allowing me to work remotely. the technology and kind of work we do (software engineering) is getting good enough to broaden the reach of "the office."

if we had just fully integrated audio and visual environments, for work collaboration, i could see many people choosing to live at the lakeside in montana and work in seattle rather than having to live on Lake Washington.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#45

Post by canadian_voter »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #23
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.

"When you positively leave a house and enter into another house your positive action ceases to be positive action at all because you have abandoned one power structure for another, which you will again have to leave. So this constant repetition, which appears to be a positive action, is really inaction. But if you reject the desire and the search for all inward security, then it is a total negation which is a most positive action. It is this action only which transforms man. If you reject hate and envy, in every form, you are rejecting the whole structure of what man has created in himself and outside himself. It is very simple. One problem is related to every other problem." -- Krishnamurti (from Freedom, Love and Action)

The main problems that STNG deals with are ethical, philosophical and spiritual, not technological or economical.

Just as there is "technobabble" about space-time continuums and positronic brains, there is also a bit of hand waving about the specifics of how the economy functions.

Just as it's silly to worry about whether they're calibrating the plasma manifolds correctly, it is missing the point to think that STNG is going to deliver actionable economic advice.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#46

Post by [deleted] »

blakeyrat wrote: post #32
hacker_9 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What threshold is going to make prime real estate lots around Lake Washington not scarce? Asking seriously. Because I have a lot of imagination and I can't come up with anything. Except perhaps we all plug into VR 24/7 like The Matrix. But even in my fake Matrix VR house, I'd envy the guy with the real thing.

[deleted]

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#47

Post by slifin »

blakeyrat wrote: post #32
hacker_9 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What threshold is going to make prime real estate lots around Lake Washington not scarce? Asking seriously. Because I have a lot of imagination and I can't come up with anything. Except perhaps we all plug into VR 24/7 like The Matrix. But even in my fake Matrix VR house, I'd envy the guy with the real thing.

  if $your_vr_house == $his_real_house
    & you are envious then you are the problem in the equation
Which is why "work to improve ourselves" is important

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#48

Post by js8 »

You see, in the future, we don't work to produce; machines can do that handily. We work to prove to other humans that we are worth enough to get a share of the product.

But isn't that pointless? You could instead just enjoy life doing whatever else you want to do, if the machines already produce everything you need.

Yes. But it is our collective decision, not a decision of any of us. The needs of the society take precedence over the needs of each of us. The only way to reverse the decision is -

- to collectively agree that every one of you wants something else?

Yes. There is an old economic theory predicting that the preferences of the society should eventually reflect individual preferences of its members, at least in the long run. There is still hope that this will happen in the future, but not before I will be long dead, I'm afraid.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#49

Post by aiNohY6g »

UK-AL wrote: post #39
aiNohY6g wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Money easily allows you trade-off various needs and desires, and focus on the ones you really want.

If you need money to prioritize your desires, money is just a workaround for your lack of judgment. If you go this way: the things you really want are the ones that probably a lot of people want too. Then enters the offer/demand relation, and the price you have to pay for it is consequently not connected anymore with its cost. In the end, you pay much more.

I do agree we we need to think at the individual level first. I means we have to think out of social/collective convention during this first step. Money is one of it. Desire is not. Let's start with desire, then figure out what we can do with money?

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#50

Post by Pica_soO »

blakeyrat wrote: post #29
canadian_voter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you want to keep capitalism in a post-scarcity society- all you need to do is counter the exponential production with exponential consumption- breed tribble-human hybrids.
Post reply on HN