When material goods are plentiful, how will mate selection change?

[Des]

Nanotechnology will make manufactured goods plentiful, so that even the poorest man can provide food, shelter and clothing for a family. This does not mean there will be no scarcity, just that scarcity of manufactured goods is not an issue.

 

How then will good women select the best fathers for their children?

[rosencrantz]

Via personal traits and the occupation. Artisanship is going to become more likely. Stephenson described a society based on Nanotech in Diamond Age. His prediction is that societies will either be based on a common ancestry or strong ethical bonds. 

[David Ottinger]

My guess is that when all essential survival needs are met, the men will demand intelligent women to help with the management of the household. 

[Des]

Sounds like an environment rife for r-selection characteristics, assuming some random danger thrown in there as well (say, from the state swooping in to persecute and/or extract wealth, war, etc).

With nanotechnology also allowing people to be healthy until death by accident or murder, I expect people to start paying attention to how ethics can reduce their odds of being murdered, and will discard statism, understanding that statismis an ethical malpractice.

Via personal traits and the occupation. Artisanship is going to become more likely. Stephenson described a society based on Nanotech in Diamond Age. His prediction is that societies will either be based on a common ancestry or strong ethical bonds. 

I just skimmed the wikipedia page for the book. I'll read the book when I get a chance. I imagine a world where most people conform to a basic universal ethic, but split up according to preferences in regard to rules which are not part of that basic universal ethic. It is my preference, for example, that powered transport should be under-surface, with people limiting themselves to walking / cycling / swimming / rowing / sailing on-surface.

My guess is that when all essential survival needs are met, the men will demand intelligent women to help with the management of the household. 

Yes, I estimate that it is more fun to have the attention of an intelligent mate, than the attention of a less intelligent mate. The attention of other people is something that does not become more plentiful when useful physical things become more plentiful. What about skill at designing the surroundings to look attractive, balancing that with functionality and safety - intelligence focused in that way may be very highly prized in both sexes, hmm?

[A4E]

Just like with all other things, including technology, that have the possibility of creating excess, it will eventually be artificially constrained or limited. The title question is valid theoretically, but not your post imo. Nanotechnology will probably fall under yet another constrained technology.

 

There are 2 reasons I can think of now why this happens. Business people/capitalists wanting to make money. And governments keeping power and independence away from people.

 

Think about why the computer industry seems to be moving towards centralized storage in "clouds". This is not good for the consumer in the long run, it will severely hamper peoples power with computers, and is a blatant attempt to limit this technology for the people, (and save money on parts), especially considering that they are mostly offering this service for free. And then when localized storage is old school because most people blindly accept centralized storage, the charge will be introduced, like the monthly charge we have on internet now. Not only that, but our freedom with our files will be severely decreased. And privacy.

 

Don't fall up into the cloud!

 

-Proudly cloud free since born.

[David Ottinger]

Yes, I estimate that it is more fun to have the attention of an intelligent mate, than the attention of a less intelligent mate. The attention of other people is something that does not become more plentiful when useful physical things become more plentiful. What about skill at designing the surroundings to look attractive, balancing that with functionality and safety - intelligence focused in that way may be very highly prized in both sexes, hmm?

 

 

Once material goods are abundant, then one's character can be evaluated based on how one chooses to utilize the given goods rather than the performance of obtaining them.  However, I think the more objective way to phrase your initial question is:  How does wealth affect mating strategies?  Because, as you phrased it in the OP, there is an underlining assumption that wealth changes the decision making.  Something I immediately jumped on as well, but after further thinking, I have to ask if that is a false dilemma.  And I think it is because if you focus on females, i would say their hypergamy remains intact.  So, in essence, nothing changes.  Women will still seek a man that masters his domain regardless of how abundantly survival needs are met by the environment, and men will seek women that know how to assess value.     

 

 

Although, I would caution against this sort of perspective because it can lead men into thinking, "I achieved X, therefore women should love me."    That would be tantamount to thinking, "I created this hover board, therefore everyone should pay me."   And, needless to say, the market doesn't work that way. 

[Crallask]

I love future tech, but it really doesn't matter until we get there.

 

 

For example: When We have Nano Tech How Might Mating Strategies Change?

 

Answer: You might be able to freely switch bodies/sex at will, create bodies with previously unfound characteristics, identities that fill all sorts of new niches, etc.

 

 

In all seriousness I doubt we'll ever have post scarcity. Sure, production levels this or that, but the waste of the moronic is more limitless than this theoretical production, I promise.

[AccuTron]

Nanotechnology will make manufactured goods plentiful, so that even the poorest man can provide food, shelter and clothing for a family. This does not mean there will be no scarcity, just that scarcity of manufactured goods is not an issue.

 

How then will good women select the best fathers for their children?

But aren't we already there in some ways?  Something like this:  the rise of chemistry and factories first made clothing, household goods, etc., amazingly cheap, over the last century or so.  They were cheap in part because of cheap local labor.  

 

The local labor may or may not be able to afford these very goods.  The forces of economics in large part boil down to how many people are there per land space, and what can they actually make for sale?  Many people worldwide afford inexpensive clothing.  Yet many cannot afford a second shirt.

 

How would better tech change this?  I'm not sure what nano means in this case, sort of a magic wand of unseen future possibility, which is good enough.  Which almost certainly mean fewer workers.  So those shirts would have to grow themselves, which is possible, but with a mere fraction of the workers.  I think nano is another way of saying automation.  It's a continuum.

[AccuTron]

Via personal traits and the occupation. Artisanship is going to become more likely. Stephenson described a society based on Nanotech in Diamond Age. His prediction is that societies will either be based on a common ancestry or strong ethical bonds. 

I am skeptical of the artisan angle, whenever I see it mentioned.  The term "starving artist" exists for a reason, and that was before the internet.  We see already thru YouTube an enormous amount of very creative work by endless random citizens.  And yet what does it amount to, how many get paid enough for it?  Yet another link among millions.  Already, to create something means anyone else can use it, perhaps 3D print it.  And the obverse:  buyers are saturated with stuff.  I try to picture historic or current villages or small towns and there is only one blacksmith, or potter, or weaver, or anything, per given population, unless the whole village does that trade.  Vendor saturation seems to occur quickly, and we see the resulting mix of successful businesses, or barely so, or failing, just like always.  I'd say we already have saturation, so more tech just means supersaturation.

My guess is that when all essential survival needs are met, the men will demand intelligent women to help with the management of the household. 

The household will have a RoombaHAL9000 that will blow the socks off any human's management skills.  Even the men will crave sweeping the back steps just for some exercise.  How about a reasonable sex bomb with an ethical sense that can honestly respond to any situation instead of caving in or running away or lying, and doesn't throw tantrums, ever, and never thinks that extra body fat is really her friend?  There's your highway to the future.

...Answer: You might be able to freely switch bodies/sex at will, create bodies with previously unfound characteristics, identities that fill all sorts of new niches, etc.

 

In all seriousness I doubt we'll ever have post scarcity. Sure, production levels this or that, but the waste of the moronic is more limitless than this theoretical production, I promise.

That last line is almost an equation of natural law.  It would be a curious research attempt, to try to define the graph of efficiency vs waste for non-technical issues.

 

I know the idea of switching genders is well addressed in literature, or current events.  Current events are not at the level of growing an actual different body or perhaps modified brain.  To a large extent, it seems that future things would reshuffle themselves into the same old patterns.  Body mods is body mods, to a point.  Even someone who grew big muscles on demand is another form of dating a weightlifter.  Or super vision means dating Superman.

 

How could we imagine a true game changer?  Essentially another creature.  A human, but with modifications that include entirely new mate selection considerations.  I can't think of anything that isn't just a variant of superman or superwoman.  What new abilities could there even be?

[Des]

Just like with all other things, including technology, that have the possibility of creating excess, it will eventually be artificially constrained or limited. The title question is valid theoretically, but not your post imo. Nanotechnology will probably fall under yet another constrained technology.

 

There are 2 reasons I can think of now why this happens. Business people/capitalists wanting to make money. And governments keeping power and independence away from people.

 

Think about why the computer industry seems to be moving towards centralized storage in "clouds". This is not good for the consumer in the long run, it will severely hamper peoples power with computers, and is a blatant attempt to limit this technology for the people, (and save money on parts), especially considering that they are mostly offering this service for free. And then when localized storage is old school because most people blindly accept centralized storage, the charge will be introduced, like the monthly charge we have on internet now. Not only that, but our freedom with our files will be severely decreased. And privacy.

 

Don't fall up into the cloud!

 

-Proudly cloud free since born.

I am anticipating that people will become really interested in not dying, when they don't have to die within 200 years of birth (anyway), and this will lead to an interest in ethics, and the implementation of correct ethics to reduce each person's odds of being murdered. Ethical people won't stop others from getting the stuff which they need - to not die. Yeah, what my company knows about our customers, is not in the cloud for some other company to access and decrypt.

Once material goods are abundant, then one's character can be evaluated based on how one chooses to utilize the given goods rather than the performance of obtaining them.  However, I think the more objective way to phrase your initial question is:  How does wealth affect mating strategies?  Because, as you phrased it in the OP, there is an underlining assumption that wealth changes the decision making.  Something I immediately jumped on as well, but after further thinking, I have to ask if that is a false dilemma.  And I think it is because if you focus on females, i would say their hypergamy remains intact.  So, in essence, nothing changes.  Women will still seek a man that masters his domain regardless of how abundantly survival needs are met by the environment, and men will seek women that know how to assess value.     

 

 

Although, I would caution against this sort of perspective because it can lead men into thinking, "I achieved X, therefore women should love me."    That would be tantamount to thinking, "I created this hover board, therefore everyone should pay me."   And, needless to say, the market doesn't work that way. 

Yes, I guess "good at something" is an attractant, and there is a wide variety of avenues for developing some skill which some potential mate will find attractive. Oh, that just inspired me to think that having a mate who understands how to reduce the odds of dying young, and how to make life more entertaining along the way, would probably be highly valued.

I love future tech, but it really doesn't matter until we get there.

 

 

For example: When We have Nano Tech How Might Mating Strategies Change?

 

Answer: You might be able to freely switch bodies/sex at will, create bodies with previously unfound characteristics, identities that fill all sorts of new niches, etc.

 

 

In all seriousness I doubt we'll ever have post scarcity. Sure, production levels this or that, but the waste of the moronic is more limitless than this theoretical production, I promise.

Yes, the waste of the moronic. I worry that open spaces where one can look around without seeing ugly stuff designed by people of poor taste, may be in short supply. Already I see litter which is a sign of poor taste in physical environment.

[Des]

In all seriousness I doubt we'll ever have post scarcity. Sure, production levels this or that, but the waste of the moronic is more limitless than this theoretical production, I promise.

I estimate that scarcity will just move to somewhere else. If it is not scarcity of physical objects converted into a form you prefer, then it is a scarcity of the attention of interesting people, or scarcity of nicely uncluttered spaces.

I am skeptical of the artisan angle, whenever I see it mentioned.  The term "starving artist" exists for a reason, and that was before the internet.  We see already thru YouTube an enormous amount of very creative work by endless random citizens.  And yet what does it amount to, how many get paid enough for it?  Yet another link among millions.  Already, to create something means anyone else can use it, perhaps 3D print it.  And the obverse:  buyers are saturated with stuff.  I try to picture historic or current villages or small towns and there is only one blacksmith, or potter, or weaver, or anything, per given population, unless the whole village does that trade.  Vendor saturation seems to occur quickly, and we see the resulting mix of successful businesses, or barely so, or failing, just like always.  I'd say we already have saturation, so more tech just means supersaturation.

The household will have a RoombaHAL9000 that will blow the socks off any human's management skills.  Even the men will crave sweeping the back steps just for some exercise.  How about a reasonable sex bomb with an ethical sense that can honestly respond to any situation instead of caving in or running away or lying, and doesn't throw tantrums, ever, and never thinks that extra body fat is really her friend?  There's your highway to the future.

That last line is almost an equation of natural law.  It would be a curious research attempt, to try to define the graph of efficiency vs waste for non-technical issues.

 

I know the idea of switching genders is well addressed in literature, or current events.  Current events are not at the level of growing an actual different body or perhaps modified brain.  To a large extent, it seems that future things would reshuffle themselves into the same old patterns.  Body mods is body mods, to a point.  Even someone who grew big muscles on demand is another form of dating a weightlifter.  Or super vision means dating Superman.

 

How could we imagine a true game changer?  Essentially another creature.  A human, but with modifications that include entirely new mate selection considerations.  I can't think of anything that isn't just a variant of superman or superwoman.  What new abilities could there even be?

Ethical sense, and honesty. Great. Body mods - I expect these will be easy enough to reverse or to modify again into something completely different. Very different from current tattoo technology. I also estimate that the reason for modifying is artistic expression aimed at being entertaining.

K.Eric Drexler presentation on radical abundance

 

Explanation by me: If a factory containing 200 1kg robotic arms can assemble a 1kg robotic arm, these will emerge from the factory at the speed of the arm working at slowest frequency [detail missing here]. If that arm pushes out one unit per second, the factory throughput is one kg per second, for a factory of 200kg of robotic arms plus say 200kg of support structure for the arms, that is 400kg converting 1kg at a rate of 1kg/s

 

When the 200 arms are 1ng each, 400kg of factory will have a throughput of 1000kg/ns : throughput increases by a factor of around 10^12, because the very short robotic arms are now moving that much faster, the way a mosquito flaps faster than a housefly, housefly faster than hummingbird, hummingbird faster than albatross.

 

If we can convert raw materials into tiny robotic arms for tiny factories: that fast, we can very quickly have all the factories needed to convert whatever can be found into whatever we require to sustain our lives, and those factories will convert materials at that same crazy fast rate per kg of factory.

[A4E]

It is many many years ago that nano technology was hot and new. But I rarely if ever hear about it now. Is this a sign that it has already been put away from the public so that we can not use it to create excess or become independent?

 

Reminded me of the cancer industry, with its cancer organizations who act as police and strong man for the cancer industry, to keep it as high profit and low effect as possible. (By attacking/ignoring/slandering all cheap treatments)

[Des]

It is many many years ago that nano technology was hot and new. But I rarely if ever hear about it now. Is this a sign that it has already been put away from the public so that we can not use it to create excess or become independent?

 

Reminded me of the cancer industry, with its cancer organizations who act as police and strong man for the cancer industry, to keep it as high profit and low effect as possible. (By attacking/ignoring/slandering all cheap treatments)

I discuss nanotechnology with the friends I have around me, and have with friends and family at times in the past (yes, starting 20 years ago). I am pretty sure not one of them has attempted to spread the hope that we could live longer. Not one person has reacted to say, "hey, that's cool, I'm going to talk about this with everyone, because I also want extra years of life". I expect you can imagine what reactions I have had.  I expect the excitement will start when there is video and additional proof of a person of 130years, with the physique of an 18-year-old, doing star jumps of something. I expect people will go ho-hum until they suddenly go "hey, I'm jealous".