Hacker News Reader

Comment by p-e-w | Hacker News Reader

> Nearly all post-scarcity fictions depict societies in which all are given equal opportunity to realize their personal ambitions.

Which, as GP pointed out, is a social dead end.

If your opportunities don't depend on your parents' achievements, then your children's opportunities don't depend on your achievements. Even in a positive sense.

Which means that probably the most important motivation to achieve anything is gone.

Such a society would crumble to dust really quickly.

And, of course, equal "opportunity" just means discrimination based on factors such as innate ability, rather than inherited wealth. Which means that talent takes the place that wealth has in our society, but the basic mechanisms of power (and the resulting inequalities) remain the same.

View on HN

Why is everyone so nihilistic, but only in the short-term? To think success requires winning a zero-sum game, but forgetting that the winner is still a puny human in a meaningless universe.

Of course there are still achievements to strive towards. There are personal goals. There is the appreciation of your peers. There is social capital to convince others.

I think the countless grassroots movements stand as tribute to this. And not just open-source software, but countless online forums and communities dedicated to making the world a better place.

If your children have the best (as discussed above) opportunities thrust upon them, why must you spit in the face of good fortune, claiming your children would be better off if other children had fewer opportunities?

In such a theoretical and hopefully future society, I think power itself becomes much less consequential. What's the point of power if you have everything you want.

Or do you think if everyone's happy, they'll gladly follow some mad power-hungry lunatic into genocide just for shits and giggles?

> What's the point of power if you have everything you want.

To those that seek power, it is an end, not a means.

And there is no limit to what people want. Indeed, it expands faster than real possibilities do. By the standards of a thousand years ago, even today's "poor" people live like kings. But that doesn't mean anything.

A "post-scarcity" society would resemble the society of today far more closely than most people realize.

> To those that seek power, it is an end, not a means.

Perhaps that's just a psychological condition inculcated by modern society.

> today's "poor" people live like kings.

The actual standard of living doesn't matter as relatively poor people continue to make poor short-term economic decisions even after escaping poverty. That's why it's often called a disease.

This is an extremely reductionist take, to infer that all human progress is motivated by a better life for your children. Certainly some people are motivated by that, but human motivations are way, way more complex than this ridiculously simplified (and aggressively conservative) worldview suggests.

The assumption that society would "quickly crumble to dust" if children's opportunities were entirely independent of their parents' efforts and successes is quite possibly the most absurd take I have heard on this website in the 10 years I have been here.

> The assumption that society would "quickly crumble to dust" if we gave more children more opportunities

Another strawman. I wrote that society would crumble if children's opportunities were entirely independent of their parents' efforts and successes, in line with the comment I replied to. That's distinct from what you are claiming.

My reply remains the same with your clarification added, I have edited my comment accordingly. This is absurd.

For 1 Einstein that doesn't care to continue his bloodline the society requires millions who do. You can sure try and fight human instincts, many have tried and failed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com