If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

Transhumanism?

13»

Comments

  • edited 2012-11-01 17:23:26
    a little muffled

    The universe is finite, the planet even more so.
    Technically true, but not necessarily relevant. It's not as though once you use a resource it's actually "gone" in a physical sense: it's just been chemically transformed.


    Post-scarcity just means that all important resources can be renewed at least as quickly as they are used. This is certainly far from realistic, but it's still physically possible.


    Edit: Yes, a necessary condition for post-scarcity is that human population growth slows down immensely. Still not impossible.

  • OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    See my above post.

  • a little muffled

    See my above edit.

  • OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    Ah >.>


    Yeah, it's true that a lower human population would help, but still, if there is ever a situation in which someone says "I really like the house and location that guy lives in, and would prefer it to my current one," the world is not post-scarcity.

  • a little muffled

    True, strictly speaking. But I think most people who talk about post-scarcity don't necessarily mean it quite as absolutely as that.

  • OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    Yeah, I suppose that's true.

  • One foot in front of the other, every day.

    A post-scarcity society isn't hypothetically unrealistic as long as the most important resources can be gained faster than they can be used. Most of the Western world has very arguably gone post-scarcity with its supply of basic foods, for instance -- these aren't technically unlimited supplies, sure, but they're so functionally widespread that no-one should theoretically go hungry.


    The biggest issue facing a post-scarcity society, now that technological progressions make it look more and more hypothetically realistic, is the currently established order of the world. Capitalistic interests thrive on scarcity, so the most powerful corporations in the world have no interest in seeing a new order via post-scarcity. The catch is that such corporations usually have the best access to new resources and technologies, so guess who gets the capacity to create renewable energy before we do? Oil companies. And if oil companies control the renewable energy supply... 

  • BeeBee
    edited 2012-11-01 17:38:46

    True, strictly speaking. But I think most people who talk about post-scarcity don't necessarily mean it quite as absolutely as that.



    You basically have to.  As long as people want some luxury they don't have yet, some of it will inevitably be stuff other people have.


    If your idea of post-scarcity is just "basic needs are met", I know a few 1890's company towns that would like to give you a job offer.

  • a little muffled

    My definition, I suppose after giving it some thought, would be that basic needs are met and luxury needs are also met to a considerable degree but not to the extent that anyone can literally have anything they want because that is impossible.


    Which maybe defeats the concept, I dunno. I'm not much of a utopian.

Sign In or Register to comment.