Hacker News Reader

Comment by agent008t | Hacker News Reader

But are we really post-scarcity on nearly every measure?

Take nice housing in a nice town in a nice location (good climate, pleasant nature, far from the industrial complexes churning out the post-scarcity goods, good culture which takes time to build). Who gets to live there and why? Who gets to travel there to spend a few weeks of their year? These are not all identical - some are more desired by more people to make them more scarce. So you naturally have scarcity.

Furthermore, the current production levels and resource management depend on productivity. And productivity depends on incentives. Take away the incentives (in an absolute 'sharing economy' you speak of), and suddenly you will have an increase of scarcity in places where you thought scarcity to have been solved.

View on HN

No, it's impossible to have an abundance of everything that could be wanted - however we have abundance of what are called "necessary goods"

This is one of the criticisms I'm trying to address because the concept that we can't share because we can't maximize everyone's personal desire I think is a phantom fear. Specifically, Humans (despite what Agent Smith said) have shown repeatedly that they can find local balance with their environments provided they do not overconsume, which is possible to not do.

At the root of this debate is the silly question about whether humans are fundamentally selfish or cooperative which is a false dilemma. Every piece of behavioral research indicates that we're "helpful" to each other and cooperate as the predominant behavioral feature (based on infant/toddler studies). Even if it didn't though, the idea that there's a fundamental flaw in humanity is literally just induced fear, there is no scientific basis for it.

Ok, but so to start with one necessary good - how is housing to be allocated? Who gets to live in the house that is overall most desired, and who gets to live in the one that is overall least desired in a given community?

I have no idea, but I know compelling or forcing people to do it won't work. Nor will it work to have some arbiter or hierarchical group decide.

I think the answer is to convince and then trust whomever owns it to allocate the excess equitably

The only way we get to whatever the next thing is can only be done through voluntary demonstration of good will and non-violence, by individuals or the state. It's going to take a lot of people taking risks and being vulnerable that normally wouldn't be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com