Timeline for Could inequality and class warfare still exist in a post-scarcity society?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2017 at 14:34 | comment | added | Enigma Maitreya | Reading the answers and comments, it seems that most of the reply's are qualified to the container "The Puritan Work Ethic". Your question is probably really more about the validity of "The Puritan Work Ethic" than anythings else but that would drag it into the "Real World" and put you off topic. But then most of these answers and questions are off-topic anyway as their answers and comments are anchored in "The Real World" | |
| Mar 12, 2017 at 14:20 | answer | added | Wryways | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 11, 2017 at 5:45 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Steve Jessop: All I can say is that if you go through the Forbes 500 list, you'll find a lot more of those people made their own money than inherited it. Sure, great wealth tends to require great luck, but that's just statistics. Reasonable effort, intelligently directed, usually does produce a significant return. | |
| Mar 10, 2017 at 16:25 | answer | added | DrBob | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 10, 2017 at 16:19 | comment | added | ebhh2001 | Money cannot exist in a post-scarcity society. Money enables hoarding of resources by few people. This hoarding by few inevitably leads to scarcity for many. So the question arises: how do you allocate resources in a post-scarcity society. At a high level, it is straightforward. You take the Earth's available resources, and you divide them up by the number of people. See the Venus Project for one possible way of how this could work. | |
| Mar 10, 2017 at 10:55 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @FixedPoint "...but clearly some people are wealthier than others." Did Neil Stephenson say in "The Diamond Age" in what aspects or extents some people are wealthier than others? The most interesting question is probably: will it still matter, if someone is wealthier, if the wealth level is incredibly high anyway? | |
| Mar 10, 2017 at 1:05 | comment | added | Beta | From "Enemy at the Gates": "Even in a Soviet world, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love..." | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 22:06 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | @jamesqf: sure, but you're still not as rich as some heir who inherits a few million (or some number more than what you'll ever earn) and puts forth no effort. For any given individual, more effort (provided it's not woefully misdirected) results in modestly more wealth, at least up to the point of exhaustion. Across society the correlation is far less strong. If only certain "necessities" are post-scarce, then normal economic factors that lead to class conflict, including the inheritance of wealth/privilege, will still apply to everything else, won't they? | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 19:58 | answer | added | emanresu | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 19:57 | comment | added | Fixed Point | Neil Stephenson discusses this in detail in his "The Diamond Age" where a nanotechnology revolution resulted in everyone's basic needs being met by matter compilers...but clearly some people are wealthier than others. | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 15:52 | answer | added | N2ition | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 14:21 | answer | added | Neal | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 13:43 | comment | added | user13483 | @Benjamin: If I went to the Unlimited Supply Food Center and got 10 steaks while you were too lazy to walk to the Unlimited Supply Food Center to get any steaks, then I would indeed, be more wealthy than you - at least in steaks. In fact, in this imaginary world, where only effort is needed to obtain resources, the main difference between people would EXACTLY be the amount of work they put into obtaining said unlimited resources - and what they do with those resources. The post-scarcity society highlights the importance of work/effort as a key variable in wealth inequality. | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 12:33 | answer | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 12:08 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "...rich to oppress and exploit the poor..." If everyone is equally rich or poor then obviously this cannot happen in a direct sense. The only way would probably be group dynamics. | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 6:46 | answer | added | talrnu | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 5:21 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Benjamin: That really depends on whether that greater effort is directed intelligently. As for instance you can put in a lot of effort as a migrant farm worker, but if you spend all your money partying after work, you'll probably stay one. But if you save some of that money, and use it as a springboard to get a degree in some in-demand field - say computer science - then in a few years you could find yourself making a lot more money. Worked for me, anyway :-) | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 5:08 | answer | added | JJS | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 4:14 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | Your post-scarcity world just covers basic needs, right? People with more money can still have mansions, luxury cars, all the latest gadgets, and so on, but average people wouldn't have those without making extra effort. Is that correct? | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 3:46 | answer | added | holyknight | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 3:22 | answer | added | Nathan | timeline score: 12 | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 2:08 | comment | added | Benjamin | @Prinz I don't want to get into politics, but studies show that more effort does not lead to greater wealth. | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 23:08 | comment | added | user13483 | Of course it will. You overlook work. Just because everything is free and in unlimited quantity does not mean everyone will put forth equal effort to obtain said free stuff. Those that put forth more effort will end up with more. | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 21:51 | comment | added | user45623 | @kingledion The question says "unlimited access" to basic needs "regardless of income or employment". That is not true in the United States; there are some welfare services but they don't provide unlimited free food, housing, and internet to every single person in the entire country... | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 20:38 | answer | added | user20762 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 19:27 | comment | added | M i ech | Short answer: Yes. Because those in power will do everything to impose some form of scarcity. Example: capacity to copy information is pretty much unlimited, so of course, the rich do somersaults to force artificial scarcity through DRM and absurd IP/patent legislation. | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 19:25 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | An interesting question might be what does "inequality" actually mean in a post-scarcity environment. Many terms which are simple to define in a scarcity environment become frustratingly slippery when scarcity is removed from the equation. | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 19:14 | answer | added | ShadoCat | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 19:02 | comment | added | Clangorous Chimera | Scarcity will always be there (by the economic definition) because there are always limits to all resources. | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 18:56 | answer | added | o.m. | timeline score: 12 | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 18:52 | answer | added | T.E.D. | timeline score: 22 | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 18:42 | answer | added | user25818 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 18:25 | answer | added | thegreatemu | timeline score: 47 | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 18:24 | comment | added | MozerShmozer | I have a suspicion the answer to this question will be heavily rooted in the answer another question: from where do these unlimited resources come from? If it's magic, then the magic wielders will be the ones in power. If it's technology, then someone will probably be needed to maintain/operate the technology. If it's an omnipotent being, then maybe the members of its cult/church are the ones in power. | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 18:06 | comment | added | kingledion | Aren't you describing the United States? Anyone can get food, housing, and those other things if they work at it. But many don't. Then they are a poor, and then people who aren't poor sympathize with them and ergo class warfare. I think you need a better description of post-scarcity. | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 17:56 | history | asked | Z.Schroeder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |