Citation needed. As far as I can tell, post-scarcity is almost fundamentally unachievable; and, at best, achievable with technology that today's eyes would confuse for magic.
Seems like it's more an economics issue than technology. We're already most of the way there as seen by the sheer quantity of throwaway product - where it's cheaper to make another than allow repair and maintenance. (I'm ignoring DRM on repairs - that's a different issue).
We could probably have post-scarcity as Keynes envisaged right now if we hadn't created rampant throwaway consumerism along with increase in capability post WW2. The moment an issue is "solved" fake problems will be invented to sell a needless alternative. e.g. The creation and marketing of liquid soap that's worse in essentially all respects to bar soap, or the whole creation of body and looks insecurity to sell a cosmetic or cream.
So, surely in x years when technologically we're able to achieve post-scarcity it'll just spawn another fake solution to another fake problem? Another reason to keep working 40 hrs instead of dropping to 20.
Maybe it can truly appear after World War 3, the banking and finance wars.
You're thinking solely about materials, and thusly forgetting about energy. (So did Star Trek, I reckon, but I degress.)
Humans require a timely supply energy to live and act. Converting energy into human-usable form, requires energy. Recycling and remanufacturing require energy just like mining and "unsustainable" manufacturing do. And even renewable sources can collectively provide only a finite amount of energy per unit time.
> best achievable with technology that today's eyes would confuse for magic
That's a pretty low bar, isn't it? Show an iPhone's capabilities to, say, a WWII soldier or industrial revolution textile worker, and they'll deem it pretty magical.
The revolutionary war was 250 years ago which seems to reinforce the parent's point. That's several generations of human beings and outside of the lifetimes of ourselves, our children, almost all our grandchildren and many if not most of our great grandchildren.
Electronic computers were being built in WWII and television existed. I doubt many would see an iphone as magical.
Show it to the people who designed the PDP11 at the time they designed it, and chances are they won't.
The uneducated masses of soldiers and workers are much easier to dazzle and fool than technical personnel; and I apologize for not qualifying my previous comment enough to convey the idea that the Star Trek replicator, if it were to exist and be transported to the present day, would indeed be magic to any sane scientist or engineer.
No, you would be very disappointed. The vast majority of usefulness from a smart phone happens because it is connected. Since there would be now towers for the phone to connect to, most of the things you want to show couldn't be done.
You could use it as a personal organizer - but without connectivity it can be argued that a paper organizer is easier to use. There are a few other programs that will also work in a fashion, but again lacking connectivity the paper equivalents are as good if not better.
There are also a few games that will work: you can really impress them with the games you can play.
The only thing impressive will be the camera - a full color picture that you can zoom in on and save is interesting. Having 10000 photos (plus some videos) in your pocket will get attention. Of course once the phone breaks you lose all that, but still it will be impressive.
Maybe GP here's phrasing didn't communicate the idea well, but just because one item might be seen as magical to some particular people doesn't mean that anything we might see as magical is possible.
