SoS Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 For the sake of debate imagine a future where technology has eliminated scarcity and also human labor. How would/should unlimited goods and services be owned and distributed? I think it would make a command economy necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 For the sake of debate imagine a future where technology has eliminated scarcity and also human labor. How would/should unlimited goods and services be owned and distributed? I think it would make a command economy necessary. Communism. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elsuper Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I think it would make the system of distribution irrelevant, because by definition all needs would be met no matter what. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adama Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I think it would make the system of distribution irrelevant, because by definition all needs would be met no matter what. This ^ When you live in a society with no needs then distribution becomes an irrelevant phenomenon. Everyone becomes self sustained and thus there is no need for any form of system at all to regulate that which is not needed. Quote If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a roll. There is one you will follow. One who is the shining star, and he will lead you to beautiful places in the search of his own vanity. And when there is no more vanity to be found, he will leave you in darkness, as a fading memory of his own creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordSlop Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 This ^ When you live in a society with no needs then distribution becomes an irrelevant phenomenon. Everyone becomes self sustained and thus there is no need for any form of system at all to regulate that which is not needed. In theory I agree. However, human nature has taught us that it's an innate tendency to always want more. This in turn will lead to a cyclic centralization of resources with a few elite and a system will need to emerge to regulate such centralization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I don't see this becoming reality, seems more like a dream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I believe that communism would be idealistically the most efficient, however as we know with the USSR, corruption, the want of personal gain would make it impossible, unless we take out the human error. Then, at what point are we making machines our overlords? Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elsuper Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I believe that communism would be idealistically the most efficient, however as we know with the USSR, corruption, the want of personal gain would make it impossible, unless we take out the human error. Then, at what point are we making machines our overlords? SAI-40 2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted December 11, 2014 Author Share Posted December 11, 2014 In theory I agree. However, human nature has taught us that it's an innate tendency to always want more. This in turn will lead to a cyclic centralization of resources with a few elite and a system will need to emerge to regulate such centralization. That's one problem that'd make a system necessary. Realistically, supply would still be finite. Even with a Star Trek replicator, the replicators would be finite and a dick could monopolize them. Even if only temporarily, supply could be monopolzed without a system. "There's enough for everyone's need, not greed". The system would have to go off that maxim. The other problem is everything is currently owned. How would we go from this to an economy where there is no exchange of property? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I believe that communism would be idealistically the most efficient, however as we know with the USSR, corruption, the want of personal gain would make it impossible, unless we take out the human error. Then, at what point are we making machines our overlords? That purely depends on how you go about achieving communism. Theres a reason why Marxism is separate from Anarchist Communism, even though they both have the exact same goal. I don't see this becoming reality, seems more like a dream First intelligent post I've seen from you. I think it would make the system of distribution irrelevant, because by definition all needs would be met no matter what. Shhhh.... Skynet might hear you. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 That's one problem that'd make a system necessary. Realistically, supply would still be finite. Even with a Star Trek replicator, the replicators would be finite and a !@#$ could monopolize them. Even if only temporarily, supply could be monopolzed without a system. "There's enough for everyone's need, not greed". The system would have to go off that maxim. The other problem is everything is currently owned. How would we go from this to an economy where there is no exchange of property? There isn't even enough for everyones need, assuming the global population keeps skyrocketing. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted December 11, 2014 Author Share Posted December 11, 2014 There isn't even enough for everyones need, assuming the global population keeps skyrocketing. That's why the scenario is hypothetical. Also, there wasn't enough food for population growth throughout human history. We kept improving technology and vastly expanding production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 That's why the scenario is hypothetical. Also, there wasn't enough food for population growth throughout human history. We kept improving technology and vastly expanding production. And in the end, we rape the finite planet. The problem with modern society is that we keep expecting constant growth of everything without realizing the undeniably finite limits of our world. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I looked up "command economy" and got this: So my guess is that by unlimited goods and services you mean a future where supply matches or is in excess of the demand on all or nearly all fronts and keeps pace with it too. There would be a need for a highly intelligent/competent administrative force making sure that all the industries are kept supplied, up to date, and running efficiently. The debate I think is about what kind of administrative force could potentially be. The answer is obviously Jesus. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I looked up "command economy" and got this: So my guess is that by unlimited goods and services you mean a future where supply matches or is in excess of the demand on all or nearly all fronts and keeps pace with it too. There would be a need for a highly intelligent/competent administrative force making sure that all the industries are kept supplied, up to date, and running efficiently. The debate I think is about what kind of administrative force could potentially be. The answer is obviously Jesus. What's the need for a government/adminisrative system, if everyone is bascially self-substained? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 What's the need for a government/adminisrative system, if everyone is bascially self-substained? I'm working on getting a self-sustainable internet connection but I haven't quite got there yet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 I'm working on getting a self-sustainable internet connection but I haven't quite got there yet. The topic of this debate is basically stating everyone is self-stubstainable; therefore there's no need of any government to help regulate the suppose "tech" But, I don't see this becoming realilty, as I've said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 What's the need for a government/adminisrative system, if everyone is bascially self-substained? maintenance? I think its a question of who supplies the suppliers etc. If you're making the assumption that if all needs are met then all the process is also automated, then I get what you're saying. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.