Figlio di Moros wrote:That sounds a bit estranged from reality- a truck, an ATV, and a snowmobile all serve different functions, as does a mudding truck and street-legal truck. I fail to see how we'd "require less"; if anybody who wants one can have one, then one's required for everyone, as well as parts, maintanance, and replacement, even if shared.
Not everyone who needs to use a truck, etc. needs to do it at the same time. An estimate of the maximum number that would be needed simultaneously can be made, with an additional buffer or margin of error amount. I expect that this number would be considerably lower than providing a truck for everyone who needs it.
Figlio di Moros wrote:You haven't described how you'd prevent demand from rising to the level of production...
You haven't explained how increasing the level of production would increase demand in a technocracy. You believe it based on assumptions of human behavior in a scarcity economy. In fact, the over-abundance of air reduces its economic value to zero, and no one hordes it or increases their consumption of air to match its supply.
Figlio di Moros wrote:Perhaps you could explain that in laymen's terms- agriculture isn't something that can be produced at will. You have to prepare well ahead of time to meet demand, and have to include some portion above that incase of a rise in demand. If we're basing agricultural production off of demand, we have to assume the year before's demand is roughly accurate.
Of course it is produced at will. But here's always some lag between a request and its fulfillment, whether its just the time required to communicate the request, the time it takes to deliver, or the time it takes to produce. Technology is constantly reducing that time. As today, production is based on anticipated demand, to the extent possible. The difference is that there would be no incentive to artificially induce demand, as we do today through advertising, and there would be no incentive to produce more than needed because one's livelihood would not be dependent on this unnecessary production, as it is today. Why do you think so many people are telemarketers? Was it their life's ambition? Is their work productive? For whom?
Figlio di Moros wrote:Currently, the American "abundance" of foodstuffs creates an increase rise in demand of foodstuffs, propogating our "diseases of affluence".
It's not the abundance that creates the demand, its the need for for the salesmen (including farmers) to make a living by selling, that creates the excess demand.
Figlio di Moros wrote:The same issue would arise under technocracy, that increases in agricultural productions would increase demands, as people would more easily be able to access food. This both increases demand on "production", aka increased farming efforts, and health risks. As a result, there's the potential to "overfarm" and ruin the soil.
I understand that this is what you believe. But I have absolutely no reason to believe it, based on the arguments I've already made above. I think your view is rooted in current economic paradigms of work, production, supply and demand which do not take a full account of the rapidly developing technology, and are therefore in need of change.
Figlio di Moros wrote:The easy solution would be to reduce or limit production of agricultural goods, but that would create a "scarcity" of goods. The question is, how would technocracy preserve the principle of "abundance" in agriculture, while limiting production to prevent over-farming?
There's no need to produce at a greater rate than we're already doing, and have done for some time. There's no real scarcity. The scarcity is created by preventing people from accessing food and other items that have already been produced, and shelving them under guard until the consumer pays. This is necessary because in the present system, this is how the seller makes a living. I don't believe this would be necessary in any system. There can be alternatives.