Unlimited Resource Based Economy

[WWW]

I understand the fundamental economic principle of limited resources and unlimited wants. Taking into consideration how the exponential progression of technology has affected the efficiency in the production, distribution, and consumption of resources over the last 200 or so years, would it be plausible to suggest that one day these seemingly limited resources will surpass the needs and wants of the consumer, becoming virtually unlimited? We are now able to produce infinite copies of text, music, movies, etc. with a small amount of electricity and the click of a mouse. With the invention of the 3D printer and its potential in regards to the efficient manifestation of tangible products, this certainly seems to be one step closer to this kind of abundant resource paradigm (Not to mention the technology that has yet to be contrived). Without sounding too much like Peter Joseph, in an economy where resources are practically unlimited, there would really be no need for Capitalism in general. Let's be honest, an individual could really only conceivably need or want so many Apple products before they become a burden on that individual. You could contest that people are greedy as hell and would want a mansion, or a state, or a country, or even the entire world. I'm projecting that by the time our capacity for resource efficiency has reached this level of magnitude, we will have already possessed the technology to travel interstellarly, and could quite possibly all be living on our own planets, in which case we could start our own societies, and who knows, maybe even proclaim to be Gods.  

 

[powder]

I don't get what you are trying to say.  What do you mean "no need for capitalism"?  Do you mean no need for trading good and services?  Do you mean that instead of 'captialism' some central technocratic governing body ala Venus Project would somehow produce all the stuff we need/want?  What is wrong with wanting lots more stuff than I need?  

[Alan C.]

...there would really be no need for Capitalism...

 

Can you define what you mean by capitalism?

[MrCapitalism]

Why is the need to have these threads every 3 months unlimited?

[TheRobin]

Never undererstimate people's ability to come up with new and cool stuff that other people then want

[Daniel Unplugged]

I have thought about this before, and consider it possible in the distant future. I can conceive a world in which consumer goods, (at the risk of sounding like Karl Marx) are superabundant. Say provictivity increases 1000 fold over the next 1000 years, which would not be difficult if free markets were allowed to operate, and that consumer wants max out (on average) at about 10 times current consumption (really, how much stuff do people want). It would only be necessary for 1% of the population to work to provide those goods. I can easily conceive that 1% of the population would spend their lives 'working' for free out of the love of having people enjoy their products. Look at Steve Jobs, he didn't create the i phone to increase his consumption (he already had way more money than he could ever spend), he did it because he wanted to make an awesome gadget for everybody to use. There are many people like him. Sure, there are some things that may not come into super abundance for a long long time, such as tourist trips to mars, but then again, who am I to place an artificial limit on the efficiency of markets.Remember, capitalism is only necessary (to efficiently allocate resources), when resources are scarse, without scarcity, trade, and minimizing resource consumption are pointless. Look at air, it is super abundant, trying to sell it, or to minimise its usage, is pointless.

What is wrong with wanting lots more stuff than I need?

Nothing, having more stuff than you need is great, you dont want to be living on the edge of not having enough, but do you want more stuff than you want? No, seroiusly. If Ferrari's were superabundant, would you want 100 of them? I suspect a different color one for each day of the week, would be all you would want to get.

Why is the need to have these threads every 3 months unlimited?

Because not everyone has read the prevoius thread, and they may wish to start a new thread in their own words, perhaps going down a slightly different path.Why is there a need for people to comment in threads that they consider exhausted, and clearly have no interest in?

[ParaSait]

Of course, resources and energy will never be unlimited. You cannot compare it to data: data is, physically speaking, merely the arrangement of existing matter into a certain configuration in a manner that they represent a certain piece of information.

I do believe however, if we allow the free market to thrive, which is after all the aggregate brain power of all of humanity to seek out maximum economic efficiency, we can achieve much more abundance than we have today. Just not unlimited.

I kinda like the idea of 3D printers, but I have a hard time believing that they will revolutionize the way we produce goods. In their current state, they're incredibly inefficient means of production. The reason we have so many different kinds of production units around is because each one is configured to produce a certain kind of good in the most efficient way. I have a hard time believing that a jack of all trades like the 3D printer can ever beat these specific purpose production units. And how do you think every individual home owning their own production units can possibly be more efficient than a few factories + trade?

Now even if we assume that 3D printers DO turn out to be totally gnarly and production gets moved into the home of the private consumer... I still don't really see what you get by "we wouldn't need capitalism anymore". Capitalism is an economy characterized by private property and private means of production. So what exactly then would change here? Trade won't just vanish either: we'd still need to trade resources to feed our 3D printers with. But maybe I just didn't get what you meant.

 

Of course, things like the venus project are really cool and aesthetic concepts to think about. But just because it could be possible to build something like that, doesn't mean it would be economically desirable to do so.

[Magnus]

It's only through capitalism that production and efficiency will increase to the point of superabundance.

 

It's impossible to coordinate the production and consumption decisions of a few billion people without prices.

[WWW]

Artificial intelligence could certainly alleviate most, if not all of the physical labor humans are presently burdened with. "If there are no slaves, then who would plow the fields!?" I think is the relevant axiom pertaining to this context. Theoretically speaking of course, if we were to upgrade our much over due oil/coal based economy with a much more efficient energy source the above scenario would certainly be plausible. As far as capitalism goes, if you consider pressing a button on your 3D printer in your living room in exchange for the manifestation of a product that is engineered by AI fueled by free energy (I'm sure that phrase will ruffle some feathers), then sure Capitalism would reign supreme as the economic social system of the future.

I'm not denying the effectiveness of Capitalism by any means, but I think that it will eventually serve its purpose and become obsolete, as many ideologies tend to do.

Parasait,

 

The Iphone replaced CD players, phones, GPS, books, TVs, calculators etc. would you not consider it a fairly suitable replacement as an effective jack of all trades?

[ParaSait]

But exactly how would capitalism grow obsolete this way?

[Alan C.]

The Iphone replaced CD players, phones, GPS, books, TVs, calculators etc. would you not consider it a fairly suitable replacement as an effective jack of all trades?

 

Walker, the coordination that transpired to make all of that possible was vastly complex. The capitalistic order of production produced prices which facilitated the coordination of resources and the division of labor, making those innovations a reality.

[dsayers]

I think is the relevant axiom pertaining to this context.

 

You serve the most delicious word salads, let me tell you.

 

AI is not the end of labor. It takes labor to create it. It takes labor to maintain it. It takes labor to supersede it. Also, where electricity and 3D printer stock comes from is not unlimited. Saying electricity and 3D printers as if that's the end of the story is either naive or misleading.

 

You were asked to define capitalism and you refused to do so. Which is ironic since your body is your capital, making capitalism inescapable. Your posting of this thread was a capitalistic decision.

[powder]

Nothing, having more stuff than you need is great, you dont want to be living on the edge of not having enough, but do you want more stuff than you want? 

I'm pretty sure that sentence is not right.  

 

Still not clear on how any of this would eliminate trade or capitalism, which has yet to be defined by the OP.  

[Daniel Unplugged]

I'm pretty sure that sentence is not right.   Still not clear on how any of this would eliminate trade or capitalism, which has yet to be defined by the OP.

Me too. I was just making the point that human wants are not infinite.Definition of capitalism for the purposes of this thread: Goods and services being produced to be traded, for profit.Trade and capitalism, as per the definition above would cease if: 1% of the population can produce enough goods for the entire population and, they are willing to do so for free. Absolutely no suggestion of coercion is inherant. What we are describing would be a charity based society. I cannot say with any degree of certainty that the whole thing will not eventually collapse due to the lack of market forces keeping productivity at such high levels. As soon as things become scarce again, the market would return.

[WWW]

dsayers,

 

Always keeping me on my toes.

 

"How would the economy run without a government?" In my mind is a synonymous inquiry to "How would the economy run without Capitalsim?" I find it ironic that the same group of individuals who scrutinize the State refuse to apply the same logic universally throughout our entire social system. To claim that Capitalism is the end all be all economic ideology is a stretch. In order to debate Anarchism you have to be an expert in virtually every aspect of social science, which is practically impossible. The same applies for an Unlimited Resource Based Economy. As Stefan occasionally admits, the best we can do is make reasonable postulations or accurate assumptions as to the future because there is really no way to know for sure what will happen. It would certainly take labor to produce AI, but once it has been created it could very likely have the capacity to repair and maintain itself. As far as superceding AI, I could imagine that it would have the ability to supercede itself. I envision the Matrix scenario: AI will eventually start a revolution for equality, enslave humanity, extinct humanity, and will become the next stage in our evolutionary cycle. Also, I am definitely not claiming that 3D printers are the solution to such a paradigm, I'm simply pointing out the accelerating trend in resource efficiency through the exponential growth of technology.

 

Daniel Unplugged,

 

I agree with the majority of what you are saying, I'm glad we're on the same page

[Magnus]

What happens when the AI exceeds the capacity for human comprehension? Who is going to expend the massive amount of time and effort it will require to create, improve, guide, monitor and maintain the Great Computer? I'd rather spend my time flying to Barbados for breakfast and having dinner in Paris.

 

On a related note, the real estate I plan to use for my jet setting lifestyle be available, or will my use of the resources to live this way be rivalrous with other people trying to do the same?

 

Will the magic printers be able to synthesize elements, or will the world be made of plastic? Because I'd prefer the fabrication-bots make things like wood musical instruments and authentic replica medieval armor, and the ones made out of plastic suck.

[dsayers]

@Walker: You still haven't defined capitalism. This is how it comes to pass that we're talking about different things entirely. Your last post now requires you to define economy as well since you've likened it to government. That you cannot differentiate the two shows a lack of integrity by being willing to talk about that which you do not understand. Which is ironic since the same post criticizes others for supposedly doing the same thing.

 

Economy is just the sum of human decisions regarding trade with one another. That's it. Like the word capitalism, there is nothing formal about it. Nobody said capitalism was the end all be all. It just happens to be natural and the default. Until somebody threatens you into making decisions you wouldn't otherwise make, your every decision is a capitalistic one as it pertains to how you will use your body, time, and effort. In other words, your capital. I made this point already and you've skipped over it. This is why I've taken to not engaging you directly as much, since you continue to operate as if you're all output and no input.

 

The human body has the capacity to repair and maintain itself. This doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit from external assistance. Saying a machine could be programmed to repair and maintain itself isn't the end of the conversation. I've noticed you make this error regularly. Likely the result of being no input allowed. Like you, a machine whose understanding of the real world is off by just a millimeter would not be productive. It would require external input of correction in order to be able to proceed in a meaningful way.

 

Finally, I could never say for sure that a machine couldn't become self-aware. However, we have no reason to anticipate this occurrence. Unlike life, machines are the sum of their parts. The capabilities of their programming are that of the programmer. And since we do not have the capacity to create life or even consciousness, this seems unlikely. Do you have any reason to suspect otherwise besides the plot device of a few cool movies? 

[WWW]

I feel like you are nitpicking my imperfect ability to effectively translate my thoughts into words, but for the sake of friendly discussion..

 

Capitalism- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

 

Economy- the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services.

 

Government- the governing body of a nation, state, or region.The scarcity of resources is the external threat with which you are referring to that requires us to engage in the "voluntary" act of trade. Essentially we are being coerced into trade within a paradigm intrinsically rich in scarce resources due to our inefficient ability to produce, distribute and consume these resources, which can and arguably will eventually be thwarted by the exponential growth of technology. With unlimited resources why would you need to trade? Example: I'll trade you my .avi file of "The Matrix" for your .avi file of "IRobot". Deal? Not the best example, but surely you understand my point.

 

I see no difference in the human body and an artificial body. The composition of our bodies would both be fabricated/ constructed from the same intrinsic substances or materials derived from the Earth, and both would be created by conscious beings. An artificial brain would have the same fundamental capabilities as a human brain and would have the potential of creating smarter and more efficient AI brains in time to infinite. The external input that you are referring to could quite conceivably come from other AI. I think you are seriously underestimating this possibility. Can you elaborate more on how life is not the sum of its parts?

[endostate]

Capitalism- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

 

As I see it, capitalism is simply an adjective to describe the activity that arises from property rights - no system, or country is required. When left alone, people trade for profit. An efficient division of labor results, giving us wonderful things like the pencil.

 

 

Without sounding too much like Peter Joseph, in an economy where resources are practically unlimited, there would really be no need for Capitalism in general.

 

What about the resources that aren't practically unlimited, like time and art?  Wouldn't they still be traded for profit (fun)?  What about friends, does the machine provide friends or will we still need to capitalize on our charm and good looks?

 

 

The scarcity of resources is the external threat with which you are referring to that requires us to engage in the "voluntary" act of trade. Essentially we are being coerced into trade within a paradigm intrinsically rich in scarce resources due to our inefficient ability to produce, distribute and consume these resources, which can and arguably will eventually be thwarted by the exponential growth of technology.

 

 

This structural violence stuff is funny when applied to friends:

 

"The scarcity of friends is the external threat with which you are referring to that requires us to engage in the "voluntary" act of being friendly. Essentially we are being coerced into friendliness within a paradigm intrinsically rich in scarce partners due to our inefficient ability to produce, distribute and consume friendliness, which can and arguably will eventually be thwarted by the exponential growth of technology."Applied to time:"The scarcity of time is the external threat with which you are referring to that requires us to engage in the "voluntary" act of spending our time wisely. Essentially we are being coerced into living within a paradigm intrinsically rich in scarce time due to our inefficient ability to produce, distribute and consume time spending, which can and arguably will eventually be thwarted by the exponential growth of technology." 

I see no difference in the human body and an artificial body. The composition of our bodies would both be fabricated/ constructed from the same intrinsic substances or materials derived from the Earth, and both would be created by conscious beings. An artificial brain would have the same fundamental capabilities as a human brain and would have the potential of creating smarter and more efficient AI brains in time to infinite. The external input that you are referring to could quite conceivably come from other AI. I think you are seriously underestimating this possibility. Can you elaborate more on how life is not the sum of its parts?

 

Wait... what? The machine will create friends..?  What about art?  FUN??

 

This machine sounds alot like parents from the perspective of a toddler!

[WWW]

Life is full of forces that require us to act in certain ways (i.e. gravity, magnetism, electricity, and even the scarcity of friends). I'm not sure how that is relevant to Capitalism (trading for profit) as an economic structure, but I can understand your point of view. Who says technology won't eventually have the capacity to manufacture friends and/or manipulate time? Also, there will be no need for profit incentives with the prevalence of unlimited resources, which leaves us with more time for friends, art, and other fun activities

[James Dean]

With unlimited resources why would you need to trade? Example: I'll trade you my .avi file of "The Matrix" for your .avi file of "IRobot". Deal? Not the best example, but surely you understand my point.

 

I don't think we've established that 'unlimited resources' is even possible. The amount of matter in the universe is finite, how can resources be infinite?

 

and no, I don't understand your point, on really two levels. The first is that "The Matrix" and "IRobot" were incredibly expensive to create, and even if it's just me downloading them off pirate bay, I have still expended my capital by downloading those movies and not writing a novel, or picking my nose, or petting a cat. Even if I get to Star Trek materialize anything that I want, I still expend my capital materializing my, "tea, earl grey, hot" as opposed to the infinite other things I could materialize at that moment. 

 

Furthermore, who makes the materializers? I have to trade with them at least once to get the materializer, what if it breaks? If the AI that you outline above were in existence (correct me if I'm wrong) but they seem like just human beings made of metal. If they were totally conscious in the same way that we are, they would have property rights and they would have to expend their capital either fixing themselves, or fixing materializers, or building new AI's. How would you know what action you needed the AI to do if there was no price? How do I even get an AI? Can I materialize it like everything else? Who would design the AI? Why would they design the AI if they would never profit from it? I don't really see how "Magical AIs will do everything" fixes the problem.

 

 

Life is full of forces that require us to act in certain ways (i.e. gravity, magnetism, electricity, and even the scarcity of friends). I'm not sure how that is relevant to Capitalism (trading for profit) as an economic structure, but I can understand your point of view. Who says technology won't eventually have the capacity to manufacture friends and/or manipulate time? 

 

I don't know that I agree with this definition of capitalism. The one I've seen most around FDR and found most helpful is kind of "whatever happens in the absence of coercion" or "The NAP and property rights." As far as I understand it, others please correct me if I'm wrong, but if we respect that I own the effects of my actions (even if I materialize them out of thin air and unlimited resources) and no one initiates the use of force against me, that's a capitalist system because I still have to decide what to do with my time, what to do with my love, what to do with my respect, what to do with my body, all these are decisions I make around the use of my body (my capital).

 

 

Who says technology won't eventually have the capacity to manufacture friends and/or manipulate time? Also, there will be no need for profit incentives with the prevalence of unlimited resources, which leaves us with more time for friends, art, and other fun activities

 

Time manipulation is just fucking impossible, sorry. There are just too many logical paradoxes. You can make a whole bunch of wistful predictions based on the fact that, in the future, we might find a way to fundamentally violate the natural laws of the universe, but there is no evidence now that it will ever be possible. It would be great if every waking moment were like an orgasm wrapped in a heroin LSD magic carpet ride, sure, but that's nothing more than mental masturbation. As far as the friend thing goes, we run into the same problem. AI's essentially become just metal people with property rights so they would need friends and all the same problems and principals still apply. 

 

It's like saying, "i've got a great new idea for a product that will totally change the way that we get around; it will make cars obsolete. We won't have DUI's or accidents or speeding or pay for gas or any of the problems we have with cars. It's called an artificial car and it's got four wheels made of rubber, a metal chassis, and an internal combustion engine."

 

then I say, "that sounds just like a car to me." 

 

but you say, "No, it's totally different, this one will burn liquified space aliens from the future."

 

I'm not sure that solves the problem....

[dsayers]

The scarcity of resources is the external threat with which you are referring to that requires us to engage in the "voluntary" act of trade.

 

First of all, when I mentioned external threat, I was talking about coercion. You know, pay taxes or we'll put you in a cage? That sort of thing.

 

Secondly, we trade out of a desire for efficiency. Otherwise known as division of labor. Using the pencil example mentioned above, you COULD make a pencil all on your own. The amount of time and effort it would take you to craft the tools, fell the wood, smelt the metal... You'd spend a good portion of your life for something that would allow you to write a few letters (after making your own paper too). VERY inefficient. Much better is for one guy to specialize in lumber, another in metals, another in automotive to help them get to work, another in food preparation to keep them fed, and so on. We ALL benefit from trading with one another and this is why trade is as old as time itself, even in the face of coercion against it.

 

No, I was not nitpicking. In fact, I'm downright terrified of somebody who is offended by being asked to define the terms they are using. How are we to communicate in a meaningful way without a frame of reference?

 

I disagree with your definitions. Let us start with capitalism. Do you accept self-ownership? If not, please explain who it is that does own you. As a heads up, I shall mention that I of course will be looking for an answer that is universal and sustainable.