Yeah, LB, I'd advise revision of what you said there. You didn't come across as having a valid point, but just insultingly.
From my point of view we have a couple people applying definitions that make the entire concept being discussed in this thread not possible, by definition. I invoked "magic boxes" and yet was told, basically, that even with the ability to magically poof things into existence, we still would be constrained by scarcity because, basically "friction exists."
I would accuse these people of trolling if I weren't convinced that they're
genuinely locked into that kind of mindset.
But it's difficult to have a conversation with people who are applying such ridiculous standards. They may as well claim that
"entropy exists. Someday trillions of trillions of years from now, and long after our species has ceased to exist...thermal exchange will cease, making the manufacture of goods impossible. Therefore post-scarcity is not possible in this universe."These might be factual statements, but we can't have a meaningful conversation when those are the kinds of standards being applied. And these standards are clearly not
useful. If people are going to claim that because of things like friction and entropy the entire concept being discussed in the thread is not valid...I would simply ask those people to not participate in the thread, and let those of us who are more concerned with things that are valid within the lifetime of our species talk about things that could happen within the lifetime of our species.
"I have a ball!"
"No you don't. Someday you'll die!"
That's basically what some people are doing here.
The only reason I contend that these free services are not post-scarce is because I work on stuff like this as a job. The more people push that button, the harder my job gets. It hardly feels like post-scarcity to me 
Ok, but your personal situation is not relevant to what was being said.
Right now I'm sitting in the range of three, accessible wireless networks that make web access available to me. If I walk down the street with a laptop, I will continue to be within the range of various wireless networks that will make the web available to me. If I go to a nearby commercial area with a laptop and walk from one end of the parking lot to the other, I will still be in range of various wireless networks that give me web access.
Even if I don't have a laptop, even if I'm homeless and starving...I can walk into my local library and access the web from a public computer. And I pointed out Project Loon which is not here yet, but probably coming, which will make wireless access available everywhere on the planet.
Your response to all this, basically, was that web access is still scarce because somebody still has to work at that library to provide services, and governments pay for them to do that.
What sort of standards are you applying? And are your standards such that your participation in this discussion is useful?
Pretend for a moment that food was as available as net access.
Imagine that sitting in your living room, so long as you have a bowl (like the laptop), you can hold your bowl in the air and food will magically appear in it. Imagine that you can walk down the street with your bowl, and food will magically appear in it. Imagine that you can walk to a nearby commercial area with your bowl, and walk from one end of the parking lot to the other, and
And imagine that
even if you don't have a bowl, there are places you can go where
a bowl will be provided for you so you can hold it in the air and have food appear.
And now, imagine you responding to that with "oh, well food is still scarce, because somebody has to provide the bowl."
Do you see how the standard being applied is not a productive one? And even after all this, when I pulled out "magic boxes that makes things" you
still said that things were scarce. We can't have a practical, useful conversation if people are applying those kind of standards.
if you still perceive a situation where magic boxes that poof things into existence are in the hands of every human on the planet...as a situation where those things being poofed into existence are nevertheless, still "scarce" ...all I can say is that your perspective is not useful. You're applying a definition that makes the topic of this thread an impossible concept. So if you don't believe it's possible because of criteria that people who appreciate this topic don't apply, then kindly please don't participate, and let the people who are applying non-ridiculous criteria have a discussion. Thank you.
The sun is not worn out by us using the light it sends out. It's a false analogy.
The distinction you're calling attention to does exist, yes. It's also completely irrelevant to the analogy.
For example:
* Metaphor: "Gasoline is like food for cars. Food is like gasoline for people."
* Hypothetical response: "No, that analogy doesn't work because I don't buy food at the gas station."
That is the manner in which you're missing the point. It might be true that the manner of your acquiring that metaphorical fuel is different...but that in no way diminishes the analogy.
To go back to what was actually said, my
question was:
"if everyone on the planet each had a magic box with a button on it that every time anyone pressed it, a paperclip magically materialized inside the box...would you claim that paperclips were scarce because the work of pushing the button was required to generate paperclips?"The point here is to give a hypothetical "fantastically extreme" example of a situation in which a commodity would be, in my opinion, not scarce. 7 billion magic boxes, one in the hand of every human being on earth, that magically produce a good.
To which
alexandertnt's replied:
"If the magic boxes were scarce themselves, and wore a bit each time you pushed that button, than yes, I would."...so his response to this idea of a magic, good-producing box in the hands of every human being on earth, paraphrased, is that:
1) These boxes that every human being has, exist in limited quantity.
2) Eventually the boxes would wear out, so at some uncertain point in the faroff future,
eventually people would no longer to able to use them to make paperclips.
And because of this "paperclips are still scarce."
This is the point at which I started to think "trolling."
My
response was:
"In that case, sunlight is scarce because eventually the sun will burn out."This is
very clearly a reference to #2 from above, in which he appeared to claiming that because
eventually, someday those boxes that make paperclips might no longer exist...that's not "post scarce paperclips"
right now.
The analogy here is that:
"Boxes that make paperclips will someday wear out due to friction" therefore--> "paperclips are scarce now"
"Sun that produces sunlight will someday burn out" therefore--> "sunlight is scarce now"
To which
your response was:
"The sun is not worn out by us using the light it sends out. It's a false analogy."...what? o.O
How does the distinction between wearing out due to friction and burning out from lack of viable fuel have any relevance to the point that it's basically silly to claim that because
someday, eventually these things will no longer produce goods, the goods that they produce are therefore scarce now?
It
doesn't.
Author
Topic: Post-Scarcity Thread (Read 8943 times)