[AFAIK]

I believe many pre-industrial societies achieved post-scarcity.

The Angkor Empire was able to produce huge quantities of fish and rice due to the seasonal flooding of the Tonle Sap. Surpluses were used to purchase building materials and the population was conscripted during the off season. These surpluses were directed at the construction of large temples, which had intricate carvings painted with gold. The rulers of the day believed that such monuments were required in order to attain passage into heaven (Cambodia was Hindu at the time). Armies were conscripted to conquer surrounding territory. Ancient Egypt operated in a similar manner.

Why should we expect the leaders of a 21st century technate to distribute resources in an egalitarian manner and focus on improving the standard of living for the populations they rule?

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

I don't see why a technate would have to shun democracy.
Why can't engineers, analysts and others form think tanks and analyse the environmental, economic and social impacts of a policy?
The results could be published publicly, peer reviewed and debated by the public.
At the end of the process we would hold a vote- perhaps in parliament, perhaps as a referendum.

[Igor Antunov]

Their fortunes were seasonal. Eventually surplus would turn to deficit and starvation would set in, devastating law and order across such empires. We've seen it time and again. A true resource economy becomes effectively immune to availability and price fluctuations relative to what is actually required.

[Eran]

Why go that far? Couldn't we even more plausibly point to our own society as being "post scarcity"?

After all, we too produce huge quantities of fish and rice, as well as countless other food products, not to mention clothes, housing, entertainment, health-care, etc.

Surpluses are using to purchase goods from other economies (in a process known as "foreign trade") further enriching society.

By any objective standard, there is less scarcity today than during any historic period.

[AFAIK]

I wanted to highlight some pre-industrial examples.
My criticism is that surpluses were used to pursue military conquests and build vanity projects rather than providing healthcare, education or housing for the population.

[Eran]

I understand.

I did want to use your example to draw attention to what I view as a peculiar "blind-spot" in post-scarcity aspirations.

Viewed from a point of view in the past, post-scarcity has already been achieved. Viewed from the present, post-scarcity appears to be in the achievable future. But once we get to that future, even if all the technological developments indeed take place, society will not feel like it is in post-scarcity state.

Post-scarcity is like a rainbow. You can never reach it.

[Figlio di Moros]

That's a good soundbite, but there's an upper limit to consumption. More importantly, it completely ignores distribution methods; people are starving today not from a lack of food anywhere, but a lack of ability to access food. Yes, people feel scarcity today, not because they inherently desire more but because there is an artificial scarcity thrust upon them. Certainly you're familiar with how diamonds, which are both abundant in nature and even easier to manufacture, are limited by one corporation by over 90% in order induce a false sense of scarcity? Or the recent escapades by Goldman-Sachs shuffling aluminium between warehouses in order to drive up aluminium prices? If the principle works so well that an abundant crystal that can be readily made can be seen as worth thousands of dollars even when the resale value is known to be 10% what you paid, and we've observed the same behavior elsewhere by businesses, what doubts can you provide that our modern "scarcity" that we agree is felt, is not wholly manufactured?

[Eran]

there's an upper limit to consumption.

Really? Where is it?

Here is a thought experiment for you. Try taking yourself back a few decades, and honestly answer the question based on the information available, say, in the 1950s.

people are starving today not from a lack of food anywhere, but a lack of ability to access food.

The only people starving on the planet are people made to starve by their own governments, or which find themselves in the cross-fire of civil wars fought to determine who would have the privilege to be the next government.

For people in the Western world, post-scarcity is already here, if measured by the ability to survive without working.

[Fasces]

Really? Where is it?

It is physical. Economists are right to say that an individual's wants are infinite. The same is not true of their physical ability to consume.

I can want a hundred loaves of bread. After four or five, though, I'm sure I'll feel sick if I continue to eat.

A better analogy - I can want a garage full of expensive cars. However - I can only drive one of them at a time, and I cannot drive even that one 24/7.

Post-scarcity [for a technocracy] for a good occurs when a society, the sum of individuals, cannot physically consume a greater quantity of a good in a specific unit of time.

[Eran]

It is physical. Economists are right to say that an individual's wants are infinite. The same is not true of their physical ability to consume.

I can want a hundred loaves of bread. After four or five, though, I'm sure I'll feel sick if I continue to eat.

A better analogy - I can want a garage full of expensive cars. However - I can only drive one of them at a time, and I cannot drive even that one 24/7.

Post-scarcity [for a technocracy] for a good occurs when a society, the sum of individuals, cannot physically consume a greater quantity of a good in a specific unit of time.

If that is your line, then we have already achieved post-scarcity some time ago. All members of modern capitalist societies have access to all the physical goods they need to survive, typically having to work very little, if at all, for them.

Physical needs include a certain quantity of calories, shelter from the elements, basic clothing. That's about it.

Anything beyond that (and even the poverty line in the West is far beyond that level of existence) isn't "physical".

[AFAIK]

Post-scarcity [for a technocracy] for a good occurs when a society, the sum of individuals, cannot physically consume a greater quantity of a good in a specific unit of time.

The key word here is quantity. The quality can improve and be in demand perpetually.

Would a technate be able to provide any food to any person who desired it or would certain items be considered luxuries and be rationed in some manner?

[Fasces]

All members of modern capitalist societies have access to all the physical goods they need to survive, typically having to work very little, if at all, for them.

Not survive - any good a man could feasibly want, production of which would be limited only by his ability to physically consume it. This includes non-essential luxury goods, such as a Porsche.

Would a technate be able to provide any food to any person who desired it or would certain items be considered luxuries and be rationed in some manner?

Post-scarcity occurs when it is possible to provide any imaginable food (or any good) to be consumed by any multitude of persons at any single point in time. It would be based around a man's physical ability to use - so you can't expect a single individual to have a large mansion, for example, because he cannot physically occupy every room at once and it is thus unnecessary and inefficient to make them available. Private property is also inefficient, for the same reason, and could not exist. Instead of owning a Porsche, for example, it would be at a central lot (see ZipCar or other car-sharing companies today), and whenever an individual had a desire to drive a Porsche, he would be able to retrieve one (or have it delivered, etc).

We are far from that society - but it is not, theoretically at least, impossible because one would be planning around a man's ability to consume, not a man's desires (which are, of course, infinite). It is this distinction that makes the impossible only highly improbable.

[lucky]

Instead of owning a Porsche, for example, it would be at a central lot (see ZipCar or other car-sharing companies today), and whenever an individual had a desire to drive a Porsche, he would be able to retrieve one (or have it delivered, etc).

And smell other people's vomit in the car? Disgusting.

[Fasces]

Maintenance is implied in the system.

[Eran]

Not survive - any good a man could feasibly want, production of which would be limited only by his ability to physically consume it. This includes non-essential luxury goods, such as a Porsche.

That doesn't seem consistent with Figlio di Moros's claim that "there's an upper to consumption". Or with your characterisation of the limit as "physical". Luxury goods aren't about quantity, but rather quality. There is no limit to people's desire for quality.

[Fasces]

The limit is the ability to consume that quality, once it was provided.

The limit is the ability to consume that quality, once it was produced. Even if you have the nicest car in the world, you still need to eat, sleep, shit (etc), during which other people can also enjoy that awesome car.

Eran, I'm not trying to say this society is feasible or likely - just that it isn't outright impossible.

[Eran]

No, it isn't possible.

In part, it is because part of the value people extract from their possessions is their uniqueness or superiority.
In part it is because there is no limit on human creativity, and its ability to invent new, better, more desirable products.
In part it is because the limit on personal possessions cannot conceivably be available to all. Consider, for example, the desirability of having prime-location real-estate, such as a house by the beach, close to major cities with large and private grounds.

[Fasces]

In part, it is because part of the value people extract from their possessions is their uniqueness or superiority.

This value cannot be quantifiable, and thus, the ideology deems it irrelevant. Technocracy is a hyper-materialistic ideology. It's aim is to provide for any possible material want.

In part it is because there is no limit on human creativity, and its ability to invent new, better, more desirable products.

At which point the Technate will begin producing these new goods and make those products available to anyone who may want them.

In part it is because the limit on personal possessions cannot conceivably be available to all. Consider, for example, the desirability of having prime-location real-estate, such as a house by the beach, close to major cities with large and private grounds.

Your ownership of a space is determined only by your ability to immediately use it. Residencies would function similarly to hotels. While you are not occupying a room, it would be (first cleaned) and made available for another user.

There is no private property of any sort in the Technate because products would be immediately available upon request. There would be no functional need for "storage" space because you cannot keep a good you are not currently using - it would be made available for others to use. The idea of ownership is archaic in a post-scarcity society. Everyone owns everything simultaneously.

[AFAIK]

In part it is because the limit on personal possessions cannot conceivably be available to all. Consider, for example, the desirability of having prime-location real-estate, such as a house by the beach, close to major cities with large and private grounds.

Dubai has solved the beach problem with massive geo-engineered islands.

A capitalist system rations access to scarce resources by wealth. A technate would use other means of rationing. The question is whether the population would tolerate this definition of freedom.

Your ownership of a space is determined only by your ability to immediately use it. Residencies would function similarly to hotels. While you are not occupying a room, it would be (first cleaned) and made available for another user.

This would deny any ability for personalisation. I like living in a property with my own furnishing, decor and assorted items with sentimental value. The children's finger paintings that people display on their refrigerators would be meaningless and hollow if they were produced by a machine. I also enjoy experiencing the same view from the window and interacting with the same neighbours everyday.

[Eran]

This value cannot be quantifiable, and thus, the ideology deems it irrelevant.

No value can ever be quantified. An ideology bent on quantifying value is incoherent from the get-go.

Technocracy is a hyper-materialistic ideology. It's aim is to provide for any possible material want.

There is no line distinguishing "material" from other wants. Capitalism is also aimed at providing for any possible material want. But the key word here is aim. You can direct your efforts towards the satisfaction of material wants, but do not delude yourself into thinking that such goal is achievable.

At which point the Technate will begin producing these new goods and make those products available to anyone who may want them.

Which contradicts your point about there being an upper-limit to consumption. Unless, of course, you mean a constantly-moving upper limit?

[Fasces]

No value can ever be quantified. An ideology bent on quantifying value is incoherent from the get-go.

Technocracy does not aim to measure what goods are valued or for what reason - merely that any good someone may want is physically available when they want it. This is what is meant by post-scarcity. The rest is a philosophical discussion.

There is no line distinguishing "material" from other wants.

Yes, there is. One of them is material (I want a physical good). The other is not (I want a loving family). Post-scarcity is defined as the ability to provide the former, not the latter.

Which contradicts your point about there being an upper-limit to consumption. Unless, of course, you mean a constantly-moving upper limit?

No, it does not. A person can only use, at the most, a few goods at one time. This is the limit I am talking about - the physical ability to consume. If someone invents a new iPhone tomorrow, I cannot use my current phone and that new one at the same time. I choose one or the other.