Please read the source before commenting. I did and I’m surprised by what’s been said so far here. The context for the article is an alien from some other planet visiting Earth and taking inventory of human society (really the whole planet) every 50 years. If you don’t want to read the whole thing, I think the summary at the end does a good job of encompassing the perspective:
“Visiting the planet every half-century has made her (the alien), unlike her Earth friends, an optimist. Humankind never goes the easy way around, and given the stakes, they could easily mess up—by starting World War III or being unprepared for a more lethal pandemic than COVID-19, unrestrained artificial intelligence, or the deadly consequences of the climate crisis. She reminds herself, and wishes the citizens of the planet could remember, that few living in 1974, 1924, or 1874 could have imagined the extraordinary progress earthlings have made since. Which, perhaps against her better judgment, gives her hope that she will get to visit in 2074 and be impressed once again.”
I think many of us did read before commenting, and simply find that Huxley or Pohl or ... had much more interesting things to say about the problem than TFA. Sure, "the pie is big enough, it just needs to be sliced better" is true, and would be a simple technical sol'n, but as a social sol'n? Someone famously attempted to say much the same thing a few thousand years ago, but got nailed to sticks for his trouble.
That layman’s introduction to Bourdieu was a nice read.
I am getting a bit of an odd vibe from your claim of cultural technical superiority though. I assume it was intended to be more of a self-aware quip than anything else.
Yes. In fact, the original use of "sol'n" was pure habit, and the habitus stuff is just a post-hoc way to (a) rationalise why I used it, and (b) introduce something I recently found interesting[0].
But it is a gang sign, of sorts — instead of throwing "westside" or some similar geographic allegiance[1], it's declaring (an actual, or a desired?) membership with that gang of people who care about systems, existence and uniqueness of sol'ns, and the distinction between general and particular sol'ns.
Are we better at coming up with technical sol'ns than that other gang, those who spend their time finding new ways to tell people what they like to hear? That question I leave as an exercise for the reader.
Just as a comment-by-anecdote on how I think the world looked in 1954:
I was once eating a sandwich when an elderly man struck up a conversation with me, as he noticed I was reading something either by or about Norbert Wiener*. It turned out this fellow had made his pile in the 1950s by automating bowling alleys, then nearly lost it again by trying —as a classical second system— to automate restaurants a bit later.
These days we think of the Jetsons as a future-that-never-was, but in 1954 I think they would have seen it as a future-that-plausibly-could-be.
Note that Brave New World (1932) already started to address the problems of plenty.
> "The ethics and philosophy of under-consumption …"
> "So essential when there was under-production; but in an age of machines and the fixation of nitrogen–positively a crime against society."
(My headcanon is that it is sold as a dystopia largely because it presents a future devoid of english teachers; the savage proves his savagery by committing suicide, despite having been offered the islands: the Rumspringa of the world After Ford)
Something the communists never understood is that capital is only powerful in the presence of scarcity. Once there is an excess of capital, the capitalist loses his power, but due to overproduction, it is now possible to hire less than 100% of the population. You get a double crisis with both excess capital being dismantled and mass unemployment.
The sphere of production and circulation are impacted simultaneously. So you have an excess of resources and labor, but also not enough money to buy it, because access to resources is gated behind money and money is earned in correlation to productivity.
In its essence, you need to be productive in an economy which no longer needs further production, simply for the sake of obeying the "productivity <=> money" rule.
If this wasn't clear maybe this example is more illustrative: house prices go up by 50%. You need to work 50% longer, but this doesn't mean the economy will actually consume 50% more just because you need the money for the house.
In the scarcity regime you don't have to think about this at all, there is enough of a backlog to just work through it.
Now, if you were to object that poor people still have unmet needs, then the answer is that rising wealth inequality is allocating money to people with a lower propensity to consume. That by the way is where positive capital returns eventually end up, simply because exponential growth outpaces the human brain at some point.
Had given up doomsday reading but decided to read this one. Sensible -- and depressingly so -- but my takeaway is going to be this: "Visiting the planet every half-century has made her, unlike her Earth friends, an optimist."
Optimism is the only way forward if we want to get out of the quagmire.
Realty is still scarcy. Good education is scarcy. Medicine is scarcy. Only things which are plentiful are plastic crap, unhealthy food and arguably cars.
There's plenty of real estate, it's just that some of it is in the centre of Monaco and some of it is several hours away from Magadan.
Education (at least for anglophones) is plentiful like never before; it's only the "old boys' networks" that remain scarce.
Medicine as in pharma is still scarce, but medicine as in "how to avoid needing pharma for as long as possible (and how to tell when it's time to learn to love big pharma)" is as plentiful as education, above.
What is really scarce is any incentive for people to learn to use the plenties above.
(Lots of plastic is crap. The plastic bagging that allows me to leave fodder out all winter in the snow and rain? Defo not crap)
People are increasingly competing for that Monaco real estate (or realistically, Paris suburbs), whereas a lot of land which had agricultural communities thriving as soon as 50 years ago is now worthless and abandoned. Nobody needs the fruit of your small scale farming in a subpar productivity area. A lot of towns which had thriving industries are also dying out. Even if there's a demand for industry, it's much easier to conjure a brand new metal sheet box in the vicinity of a megapolis and fuel it by exploiting (often illegal) migrant labour.
Magadan is an extreme example but there are a lot of such settlements not only in Russia and Eastern Europe, but also in USA and Western Europe.
I think one way to reduce the "city premium" is to make remote work easier. For example, develop a wall panel that acts as a "window", through which your room could become a part of a larger virtual office. Then you'd be able to talk with people, make eye contact and so on. But it would also reduce the "rich country premium", as offshore work would become easier as well. It might be a good thing overall, but it'll hurt the careers of many.
That's if AI doesn't get all the jobs first though, which seems increasingly likely. But that's another question.
If people adapt, there are still options for life in ex-agricultural communities. Small-scale farms can make excellent environment for tourism, as many city dwellers don't exactly enjoy living in a city, and want some peace on their holidays. Remote work is also a possibility for an increasing number of people.
Smaller post-industrial cities could also be a good option for commuters, if they are located close enough to big, living city. Many are not, which admittedly is problematic.
Small scale farms as tourist destination is a wet dream, and remote work is shrinking (personally affected by this). You can think of many utopistic ideas, but reality hits like a train.
Rural tourism is definitely a thing. The problem is that the countryside used to feed and employ half of the population until very recently. The large city will unlikely consume that much rural hospitality services. So only a token amount of rural population will remain, especially if these lands have subpar productivity, as is the case around Moscow and Madrid and Beijing and likely Berlin as well. Or in the original 13 colonies?
A massive chunk of people fleeing the equator to me looks like increased scarcity of habitable places. Not “realty”. In one sense sure, craholes rendered unlivable by climate change will still be listed on websites for sale.
In accordance with American establishment narrative IMO. The Rest of World see America as running it's own very successful empire. Post scarcity is a crisis for capitalism because it's current form relies on an ever expanding market. Having an (expanding) empire keeps the dream alive.
