Talk:Post-scarcity

added reference

To energy accounting, and article by Fezer. [http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate An article on Energy Accounting. This post scarcity concept is drawn out in this essay.

Why were External Links removed? I found them of use

External links:

• The (Needed) New Economics of Abundance
• The Economics of Abundance
• The Venus Project
• The Tragically Neglected Economics of Abundance
• The Energy Distribution Card, a Technocracy Technate suggestion for a post scarcity economy
• A Place To Live In. Wilton Ivie Technocracy Digest Nov.1955.
• The Economics of Science Fiction
• The Post-Scarcity / Culture of Abundance Reading List v2.2
• The Gift Economy. Writings and videos of Genevieve Vaughan and associated scholars.
• Infinity Is Your Friend in Economics - contains links to a series of Techdirt articles on economics when scarcity is removed
• Nanofactory Regulation - ideas on managing post-scarcity through extensive DRM-like legal restrictions on nanofactories
• Imagining Futures, Dramatizing Fears - classic science fiction stories about highly automated societies, most of them pessimistic
• Automating Feminism - Paragraphs 20-28 (and footnotes 12-20) discuss interest in post-scarcity amongst the New Left in the 1960s/1970s
• Post-Scarcity Princeton - Post Scarcity perambulations by Paul Fernhout
• AdCiv.org - Post Scarcity through Open Design and Advanced Automation
• Sharewiki collects theoretical and practical information on how to bring about post scarcity and live in abundance through (universal) sharing
• The Postscarcity Institute
• The Zeitgeist Movement
• Reddit Post-Scarcity Community

Requested move 8 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to Post-scarcity. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Post-scarcity economy → Post-scarcity – Post-scarcity is shorter and better describes the broad concept discussed here, which is not limited to economy (even the lead bolds just post-scarcity, does not even mention the phrase post-scarcity economy at all, and instead uses the synonym post-scarcity society a bit later). This also would be analogical to scarcity. Finally, post-scarcity society is another equally relevant term, the article uses all three terms interchangingly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 04:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to post-scarcity society. Google Ngrams shows it being the more WP:COMMONNAME. Oppose simply "post-scarcity" as it can mean many things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Post-scarcity, its pretty clear about what is it. Its one hypothetical situacion in economics what maybe/if one day can create post scarcity society. 178.223.13.166 (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support move to Post-scarcity. It's clear and precise enough to describe the subject. WPscatter ^t/_c 17:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@CapnJackSp: Good, but the article wasn't moved yet? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus see WP:RMTR, it needs to be done by an admin. Should be done in a while. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp Ah, I see, thank you. I should've checked there first. Maybe in the future if you close such moves you can say that you are going to fill in a RMTR to avoid confusion? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is Post Scarcity classed as Utopia

Is there not enough evidence that less and less human labour is required to produce all the useful wealth society needs? Janosabel (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I answered this here but it was deleted. Post-scarcity is utopian because the system is designed to impose scarcity in a world of abundance to benefit a few over the many. Viriditas (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the classification is a matter of definition: a project or proposal that can not happen because the prevailing power structure prevents it, or the Wikipedia definition "...an imaginary community or society that possesses highly desirable or near-perfect qualities for its members..."

According to this, post-scarcity is misclassified as utopia (pie in the sky).

I have seen your earlier comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-scarcity&oldid=1184518032#Really_utopian

"...over-production of food is not an example of post-scarcity...", "... when... things are cheap, there is usually a huge government subsidy behind it...", "...We are nowhere near post-scarcity..." and have to disagree. We can achieve impossible feats with science and technology (Mars Ingenuity helicopter, JWST, etc.,), but not the simplest of social problems—eliminating abject poverty?

When things are cheap, profits are at minimum and the "production for profit" dynamics resists and militates against it. See Thorstein Weblen; and Social credit#Economic sabotage.

-------------------------------

A response in good faith, Janosabel (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstood my comments, as I’m in agreement with you. The system will not allow post-scarcity, and we do have the technology. Poverty only exists because people make huge amounts of money from people being poor. I’m sure you are aware of this. In the US, our laws are written by the wealthy and the powerful, for the wealthy, and do not benefit the majority of society. It is probably like this in most of the world. One of my favorite examples in the US is the tax system. Unlike most countries, the U.S. tax system was captured by wealthy corporations. Instead of sending us a bill, we have to file our taxes, which creates an entirely separate vulture economy that preys on the poor. This is one of hundreds of examples. Poverty is a feature, not a bug. Where you and I might disagree is how to bring about post-scarcity. I’m old, and I’m absolutely convinced the problem is psychological, not legal, and certainly not institutional. It’s the way we think and perceive things that is the problem. In other words, it’s a hearts and minds problem. Until people are at peace with themselves, the rest of humanity, and all other living things, you will never achieve post-scarcity, as all the technological innovations and advancements will just be used to oppress others and maintain the status quo. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to have misunderstood you.

Maybe I just do not understand the rules of Wikipedia classification. Sometimes I feel Wikipedia editors act as establishment gatekeepers on some social change topics.

The fact is that currently post-scarcity is classed as economic utopia (an imagined condition that can not be made real because the powers that be will not allow it).

PS. I am old as well (87 :-) and below average in digital literacy. Janosabel (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, poverty exists because all human beings are born different, and until proven otherwise, it's inevitable. But if you think that scarcity is somehow intentional, then how can you explain how everything was worse 200 years ago? Incidentally, with the reduction of jobs by robots and AI, it's very easy to weigh in on a universal basic income (which is curiously supported by many rich people and politicians). I think classifying post-scarcity as a "hypothetical economic scenario" is better for now, even if there's no evidence that it's possible. Make the L (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s a pipe dream, same as voodoo economics, but updated for a new generation not familiar with the pathological lies of the right. They told us for 40 years that the wealth was going to trickle down from tax cuts for billionaires as they cut funding for democratic society, eliminated the middle class, and robbed the treasury. Every economic expert now says it was a lie and never happened. They still haven’t changed their policies. Now you expect us to embrace the new lie, that UBI will be implemented by the same economic gangsters that refuse to fund child lunch programs? I’m sorry, you must have me mistaken for a fool. The future will look a lot like Elysium and Westworld, with AI oppressing humanity and eliminating its self-determination and individuality, ironically at the behest of self-interested conservatives. If god existed, she would laugh. And in case you are not already aware, Musk knows this, which is why he wants to turn humans into cyborgs, as a survival mechanism. This is what happens when you let the bean counters and tech bros take over. Go read Hacker News for just a moment. They are all fascists. Post-scarcity won’t happen while billionaires rollback the clock on modernity and take us back to feudalism, serfdom, and company towns. The Kochs say we should all move underground to survive the coming climate change and just suck it up and evolve into Morlocks. That’s the product of a century of conservative thought. It’s always been nonsense, a system of self-justifying excuses for the rich to fuck everyone over. The future of humanity looks like a boot stomping on our faces, forever. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)