Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Liffguard

Bullshit Jobs

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TrueMetis said:

I don't even really understand the issue, everyone wants waterfront property now, and not everyone can have it. People deal with it now, why wouldn't they deal with it in a post-scarcity future?

I'd rather be under the sea or in space than worry about beach front property, and news alert, not everyone wants to live on an ocean (or lake or river). It's a mistake to assume that everyone would want the most exorbitant life style possible, and frankly once we move past money, that kind of thought process would be left behind, much like this idea that we need to work all week at soul crushing jobs to get some form of satisfaction. Frankly humans have a lot of inherited dogma that we really need to get rid of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

I don't even really understand the issue, everyone wants waterfront property now, and not everyone can have it. People deal with it now, why wouldn't they deal with it in a post-scarcity future?

Many people are idiots.  I live in an area with considerable bluff erosion - 3-15 feet a year depending on soil and vegetation. (I've measured it several times).  Twenty-some years ago, I watched one fool build a nice house all of 50 yards from the bluff.  He pretty much doesn't have a back yard anymore.  Can't sell the house, because it's about to 'go over.'  And he is not alone - houses started going up on bluff lots six-eight years ago in a new subdivision, and there are idiots boasting about what 'great deals' they got on such places.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'd rather be under the sea or in space than worry about beach front property, and news alert, not everyone wants to live on an ocean (or lake or river). It's a mistake to assume that everyone would want the most exorbitant life style possible, and frankly once we move past money, that kind of thought process would be left behind, much like this idea that we need to work all week at soul crushing jobs to get some form of satisfaction. Frankly humans have a lot of inherited dogma that we really need to get rid of. 

Yeah, I don't really care too much about my lifestyle. Money to me comes down to affording things like cars that will actually not break down, beer and quality coffee supplies, and access to premium cable tv shows.

The nice thing about the hobby of tabletop RPG gaming is other than an occasional rule-book it is almost entirely free to play. It's more a matter of knowing players and refs.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

I don't even really understand the issue, everyone wants waterfront property now, and not everyone can have it. People deal with it now, why wouldn't they deal with it in a post-scarcity future?

The issue is that currently more desirable properties are allocated based on who can afford to pay for them. In a post scarcity future, people who don't get their preferred housing would deal with it, yes, but how do you choose who does get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, felice said:

The issue is that currently more desirable properties are allocated based on who can afford to pay for them. In a post scarcity future, people who don't get their preferred housing would deal with it, yes, but how do you choose who does get it? 

You'd need to know how many people actually give that much of a shit first wouldn't you? This is an objection based on solving a problem where it's so far in the future with so much uncertainty you can't even be sure there is going to be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

By the time a society based around abundance could exist, yes, building up would be an obvious solution, as would say building underwater cities and living in space.

Seriously though, you are thinking too small. In a society based around abundance, the word "price" would be an antiquated concept. There would be various forms of social capital, but nobody would ever even consider how much it costs to live where they live, or pay for the food that they eat or the cost of going to the theater. All that would be gone, and people could live fulfilling lives doing as they pleased so long as it's within in the confines of society. You'd still have to work in some form, obviously, but it would look nothing like it does today. 

I don’t think I’m thinking small, I’m just seeing some of the flaws in what appears to be quite utopian thinking.

There can never be an infinite abundance of places to live, because real estate is different everywhere. You can build the nicest apartments in the Sky or under water but what if there are nicer houses that are 50000 acres large with their own island... who gets that? What if we all want one? Well we can’t, so we need to find a way dividing it up. 

It’s all a great dream, but I think there will always be new ways to form societal hierarchies. Some people will always have more of something than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a straw person, perhaps, though.  napoleon dynamite's vote for pedro campaign promises an absolute egalitarianism wherein all your wildest dreams will come true--but i'm not aware of anyone else who advocates for this.  classical marxism is simply from each according to ability; to each according to need, which is sufficiently abstract to keep it away from ledgers and scales.  am not sure what need there is for a 50,000 acre compound on a private island--likely the public can democratically take a decision that no one needs this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I don’t think I’m thinking small, I’m just seeing some of the flaws in what appears to be quite utopian thinking.

Thing is, many such flaws appear if you project the thinking of 20th century humans (the 21st is only just beginning) onto humans living in any theorized utopia. In other words you assume the mechanisms producing desire would be similar in the far-future... Or to put it differently, you deeply underestimate how desires are at least as much the product of the society you live in as of human nature, if not more.

To be more specific, I'd say you underestimate at least two things:
- The first I believe is called the "economy of scarcity." My knowledge of it is a bit vague (will dig into my library tomorrow if you want the reference), but the theory is based on the difference between "value of use" and "value in exchange" (described page 32 of my edition of the Wealth of Nations, to be pedantic) and says that the value in exchange of many goods really depends on scarcity. But building on this, it also says that scarcity is often the product of resource allocation and that a society that would manage resource allocation in even a slightly better (more democratic for instance) way would see the difference between value of use and value in exchange reduced dramatically in pretty much all cases.
Why? Because even in a slightly improved version of our current society, humans would easily learn to rationalize and limit their desires better. Perhaps paradoxically, people are pretty bad at examining the value of use of what is scarce, especially because of the associated social prestige.
Real estate is a particularly good example methinks. A society that would manage resource allocation through democratic means would see the social prestige of otherwise scarce "prime real estate" go down. Or to simplify, if everyone can get something, then the value of this thing becomes closer to its value of use. I don't think it's even necessary that a society actually offers everyone the possibility of owning "prime real estate," the mere fact that society as a whole may be able and willing to do so would be enough.
Although I can't show studies about real estate using such an angle (dunno if they exist, some probably do), there's little reason to believe the theory doesn't apply. A beach-front property for instance is a luxury (my in-laws are selling theirs, so I have some notion of the drawbacks). Rationally speaking, no one should want to own such a place, but simply to have access to one. The subtelty here is that the rational value of use of beach-front houses does not require ownership but access. That may still be a problem if everyone loves going to the beach in the summer (which isn't the case needless to say, I personally am lukewarm about it tbh), but it's already a very different problem.
Generally speaking, in a society of abundance, ownership would naturally be focused on personal property, i.e. movable goods, not real estate.
- The second one is a pretty basic analysis of the consumer society. I'm personally familiar with Baudrillard's work, but I'm sure there have been comparable productions written in English. Simply put, we underestimate how consumption is a way of thinking. Still taking the beach as an example, society teaches us to consume the beach. Our appreciation of it and our pleasure are derived from the impression that moments on a beach can provide us happiness, an impression that has been built by advertisement and social coding. In actuality, a whole lot of people do not enjoy themselves as much as they expected when on a beach. To be sure, there's value of use for people with kids, and also for people with romantic feelings about the sea (though Baudrillard does argue that even such feelings are generally artificial). Most people however really consume an experience they have been led to imagine, which is almost always distinct from reality.

That's not to say that I'm a dreamer who thinks human nature will change in just a few centuries. But pretty basic sociology or anthropology teaches us that concepts of value and ownership are completely relative to a given society. The concepts you are using here are those of our society. You need to make at least some effort to think about how a society of abundance can affect them.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×