Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmichulke | Hacker News Reader

In parent's defense, I believe that needs are endless and there is always a tiny motion that can be rationalized away or a shiny item that can be obtained before the others get it (think iphone a decade back).

Unless we reach the singularity, there will always be the need for something.

And if you think of needs as something as abstract as "power over the universe" (which is still a limited resource, even after the singularity), you cannot ever reach the state where machines produce everything we need.

Hence, the premise can be unreachable, or - in parent's words - "ridiculous"

View on HN

> a shiny item that can be obtained before the others get it

> machines produce everything we need

There's a difference between need and want. People want iPhones, but they don't need them, so they can decide themselves whether working more is worth it.

On the other hand, people need food. The only choice is work or die, which isn't really a choice. There is an infinitely large jump between extremely cheap food and free food (and energy/shelter). As food gets cheaper, wages decrease as well, so you still need to work about as long to survive. When/if food becomes free, people won't need to work any longer.

Yes, you're right and I would even add one case:

The things that people think they need. Be it plain consumerism or something cultural or social like honor, an iphone, a beautiful wife, a car for boys to impress girls or to go to work, a marriage before losing virginity.

In each of the above cases need in the survivalist sense and need in the subjective sense cannot be more different.

One will have a hard time arguing that those people don't need what we think they don't need.

There already exists a renewable surplus of food, water, and shelter but so much of it goes wasted every year. So poverty is not a problem of production but of distribution.

I disagree. The issue is that for production of food and energy, we still need labor. A lot of this labor is low-paid (supermarket workers, truck drivers, fruit pickers, butchers ...). If you make food free, you won't be able to motivate these low-paid workers any more, so noone will work on food production, so food production won't be free any more.

It used to be 90% of the population was working to produce food, now its around 1% and decreasing with increasing efficiency. So it is an increasingly negligible amount of labor needed to provide an already surplus amount of food.

It is cynical and ignorant to assume the dollar is the monotheistic deity of motivation for everyone. There are and have been countless cultures across the world who don't require monetary payment to produce the requisite food for the community.

I think you're right and as long as the discussion is about inequality rather than poverty there won't be a solution.

Inequality will always be with us because humans compete. If they don't compete directly economically they compete for social status.

Providing a base level of food, shelter, and medical assistance is achievable. I just don't think it will be enough when envy is factored in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com