This is why I don’t take promises of a post-scarcity society very seriously. They seem to think in terms of leaps in production technology, as if the key to ending scarcity is producing lots and lots of stuff.
Is this simply a matter of people using the word scarcity differently?
When someone talks about a post-scarcity future, I doubt that they are thinking about a future without choice between alternatives, but indeed a future without unmet needs of one sort or another. Indeed, such futures tend to have a bewildering amount of choice and alternative uses of time.
Haven’t faintest idea what they really mean, frankly. Usually too fuzzy, vague; using technical terms in odd ways. “Post-scarcity” and “economics” or “economy” should occupy same sentence in only same way that “inorganic” and “biology” should.
Posit a world where sustenance, shelter, and well-being are magically provided—nobody actually needs to do anything to continue existing. This would be an instance of what is colloquially, and perhaps to an economist incorrectly, termed a post-scarcity society.
I’m less certain about this phrasing, I’m not yet comfortable with the semantics of the economic definition of scarce, but one could try: An society where only time and some luxuries are (economically) scarce.
You don’t need to do anything to continue existing already. Someone will find you, put you in hospital. Your life will be sustained regardless of wishes.
See, aren’t definitions tricky? Isn’t it nice that we’re spending 3 whole articles just nailing down the most basic concept? Concepts which are basic, but not easy? =)
Is this simply a matter of people using the word scarcity differently?
When someone talks about a post-scarcity future, I doubt that they are thinking about a future without choice between alternatives, but indeed a future without unmet needs of one sort or another. Indeed, such futures tend to have a bewildering amount of choice and alternative uses of time.
Haven’t faintest idea what they really mean, frankly. Usually too fuzzy, vague; using technical terms in odd ways. “Post-scarcity” and “economics” or “economy” should occupy same sentence in only same way that “inorganic” and “biology” should.
Posit a world where sustenance, shelter, and well-being are magically provided—nobody actually needs to do anything to continue existing. This would be an instance of what is colloquially, and perhaps to an economist incorrectly, termed a post-scarcity society.
I’m less certain about this phrasing, I’m not yet comfortable with the semantics of the economic definition of scarce, but one could try: An society where only time and some luxuries are (economically) scarce.
You don’t need to do anything to continue existing already. Someone will find you, put you in hospital. Your life will be sustained regardless of wishes.
See, aren’t definitions tricky? Isn’t it nice that we’re spending 3 whole articles just nailing down the most basic concept? Concepts which are basic, but not easy? =)