 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
Nanotechnology >
The (Needed) New Economics of Abundance
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0671.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
The (Needed) New Economics of Abundance
Molecular manufacturing coupled with AI could bring about a "personal manufacturing" revolution and a new era of abundance. But abundance could be highly disruptive, so we need to design a new economics of abundance so society is prepared for it.
Originally published in Nanotechnology Perceptions: A Review
of Ultraprecision Engineering and Nanotechnology, Volume 2, No.
2, May 8, 2006. Reprinted May 9, 2006 by KurzweilAI.net.
For centuries, we have built cultures and economies around scarcity.
Economics is the "study of how human beings allocate scarce
resources"1 in the most efficient way and conventional
wisdom agrees that regulated capitalism results in the most efficient
allocation of those scarce resources.
But what happens if resources are not scarce? What economic system
would we use to allocate plentiful resources? Is there even
a point to talking about the “economics of abundance”
in a culture where economic equations are entirely oriented around
scarcity? As Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine says,
"My college textbook, Gregory Mankiw's otherwise excellent
Principles of Economics, doesn't mention the word abundance.
And for good reason: If you let the scarcity term in most economic
equations go to nothing, you get all sorts of divide-by-zero problems.
They basically blow up."2
We are on the cusp of a new era that has the potential to be an
era of abundance. In the coming decades, molecular manufacturing
will be a reality. The Nanotechnology Glossary3 defines
molecular manufacturing as "the automated building of products
from the bottom up, molecule by molecule, with atomic precision.
This will make products that are extremely lightweight, flexible,
durable, and potentially very 'smart'." And cheap. Just as
Apple enabled personal publishing by marrying the Postscript language
with the Macintosh interface and an inexpensive LaserWriter printer,
so will the coupling of molecular manufacturing with appropriate
programming tools bring about a revolution we might call "personal
manufacturing." Such personal nanofactories (PNs) already have
been envisioned and are likely to be similar in look and ease of
use to a printer or microwave oven. Indeed, an artist's conception
can be seen at http://www.foresight.org/nano/nanofactory.html
The advent of PNs should bring the cost of most nonfood necessities
to near zero. Much of the raw material for most objects we commonly
use can be found in air and dirt, with a few fortified materials
thrown in. If we build things from the molecules up (and conversely,
break things down into their component molecules for reuse), materials
cost will nearly disappear. Information would then become the most
expensive resource. Meanwhile, computing power—information
management—continues to expand exponentially even as its cost
drops precipitously. Furthermore, as true artificial intelligence
(AI) approaches, computers will become self-programming, and information
cost may drop even more dramatically. It's already happening. Today,
most of our products contain greater and greater information content
(technology) at lesser and lesser cost. It appears that even food
eventually could be manufactured on the kitchen countertop personal
at practically no materials cost.
However, if history is a guide, the "haves" will always
want to have more and the "havenots" will end up
getting relatively less. That is the way many people keep score—as
the bumper sticker wisdom goes, "He who dies with the most
toys wins." It's not just a silly ditty. It is a frank statement
of the mindset of many individuals. And it is the "haves"
that possess easy access to the levers of power and legislation.
In a system based on scarcity, those holding the levers of production
will not easily give them up. In domestic and international markets
based on scarcity, the function and responsibility of directors
and officers is to maximize shareholder value—at nearly any
cost that does not fall afoul of laws, or at least not so far afoul
that the penalties exceed the financial gain resulting from illegal
actions.
So, what kind of culture do we want? In a system of plenty, will
we continue to keep score by maintaining the preponderance of benefits
inside corporate walls and coffers? Will we continue to stifle the
spread of benefits through secrecy and protectionism? Unless something
changes, history suggests that laws, regulations, and protections
will continue to be designed for the exact purpose of directing
all profits and the virtually all of benefits to shareholders.
Is it possible to change this historical trend? Is it desirable?
What would an economy based on abundance look like? What would we
call it? Could we convince the lawmakers, the regulators, and those
who currently benefit most from a system based on scarcity to relinquish
what has worked so well for them?
I maintain that it is desirable and that we must
drive toward an outcome whereby the benefits of molecular manufacturing
accrue to the greatest number of people. War, poverty, and business
drive my reasoning.
To date, all our technological and economic progress has produced
a world at war and in poverty. War is largely fought over scarce
resources. Widespread wealth (through universal distribution of
PNs) would remove the apparent fuel for most wars.4
The World Bank estimates that 2.7 billion humans live below a level
necessary to meet basic needs. The organization says that this kind
of poverty includes hunger, lack of shelter, no access to medicines,
and losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water.5
Few would argue that human misery is desirable. PNs could be programmed
to provide basic building supplies, medicine, foodstuffs, and clean
water.
As regards business, I believe we can convince a wide range of
enterprises, from local to transnational, that maximizing the benefits
for billions of people (read: "customers") simultaneously
maximizes value for shareholders...in the long run.
However, nearly all businesses act primarily in the interest of
the short term. Corporate directors cannot allow a departure from
known short-term profit centers in the market without assistance
from legislation and regulators to flatten the playing field for
all. Even Bill Ford, chairman of the Ford Motor Company, is calling
for government to incentivize his industry to produce environmentally
friendly technology6—ostensibly, so his firm can
afford to produce such vehicles while staying competitive with other
auto manufacturers.
We must incentivize, strongly encourage, or require the broad sharing
of the benefits of early-onset molecular manufacturing advances
and breakthroughs so that the long-term benefits can be realized.
This discussion needs to happen now, before entrenched interests
develop protections and harden regulations adapted for maximum short-term
profits while stifling innovation. Market forces can be too slow.
What's needed is a means to produce broad and inexpensive licensing
so that early breakthroughs in molecular manufacturing can quickly
benefit a broad swath of humanity.
Over hundreds of years, we have developed the skills of how to
allocate things in short supply. For widespread abundance, we have
no experience, no projections, and no economic calculations. Abundance,
paradoxically, could be highly disruptive. It is time to design
a new economics of abundance, so that abundance can be enjoyed in
a society that is prepared for it.
REFERENCES
1. (2003) The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition,
Columbia University Press
2. Anderson, Chris (2005) "The Tragically Neglected Economics
of Abundance" http://longtail.typepad.com/the_long_tail/2005/03/the_tragically_.html
3. (2004) Burgess, Steve; Holister, Paul; Keiper, Adam; Swartz
Esq., MPA, Jonathan S.; Wang, Rosa (2004) "Nanotechnology Glossary”
http://www.nanotech-now.com/nanotechnology-glossary-N.htm
4. Burgess, Steve and Treder, Mike (2005) “Policy Debate”
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/05/policy_debate.html
5. The World Bank (2006) “Poverty Analysis—Overview”
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20153855~menuPK:435040~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:4303
67,00.html
6. (2005) "Bill Ford's Address at the National Press Club,
Washington, DC" http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/11/22/148983.html
| | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
Re: Economy of abundance
|
|
 |
|
It would seem to me that whilst the economics of abundance is a laudable idea and, in the event of abundance being an actual reality, very much needed I have a suspicion that there is a little of 'putting the cart before the horse' in the concept.
By this I mean that economics is a result of social behaviour. True that social behaviour is based upon the availability or otherwise of resources, but whilst technology may well provide us with a major transition in the physical world, the individual and social world of scarcity is deeply ingrained and not so easily adjusted.
This mindset is ingrained into everything about human society. It is how we feel better about ourselves - i.e. "I'm better looking" "I'm smarter than you" "My job title is more important than yours" "My golf clubs cost more than yours" and so on and so on. The phenomenon of trading up in the purchasing process is driven by this basic need to "be better" than others as a way of self approval. Follow this on to the social behaviour of groups "My business club is better than yours" "My gang is better than yours" and so on.. and on to countries "We are the best in the world" "God is on our side" - it is inherent in the basic processes for self approval of humans on every level.
Should abundance occur, this way of being by humans is not going to change at the same rate. (And some may argue, given the history of the last few thousands of years, that at a fundamental level it doesn't and won't change one whit.) While humans derive strength to their ego structures (both at individual and group levels) by "having more" in some way, no matter how 'abundant' the possible physical reality is, mankind will regulate it to meet its emotional and psychological make-up - if you look around you, you will find that occurs today. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: Economy of abundance
|
|
|
|
Indeed, one can point to cities such as Shanghai to suggest that once the imposition of the communist government structures are lifted (which I would personally argue are simply an extension of feudalism minus the capitalist processes for the individual - but that's another discussion), the Chinese (as a people) leap back into their historically capitalist perspective and modus operandi that would make the most right wing capitalists of the western world proud.
I would agree, but I think this has more to do with availability of resources and the fear of death (by the lack there of), triggering this natural instinct in us.
You and I are sharing knowledge back and forth and neither of us feels as though we are losing value or worth. In fact, both of us are gaining value (in knowledge), as the result of this dialog. This same dynamic is what is at play today with software (open source), wikipedia, myspace etc.. The day we can convert a bucket of dirt into anything of equivalent mass is the day we as the human race will see tangible goods in the same way as we do the sharing of ideas.
There is really only one danger I see to the above becoming true and that's over population and/or unequal distribution of matter. Both of these issues could easily be solved by controlling population growth and forming a collective consensus to decide what "fair is". I note that both of these key concepts have more in common with socialism than capitalism. Honestly though, being the good capitalist that you are which would you rather.
First assume we have the technology to convert any matter into anything else. The methods / ideas for these conversions are shared freely online between everyone as they are developed by everyone in the Open.
1) Now would you rather live in a world where society governs itself through true digital consensus. Where population is kept reasonable so that natural resources can be distributed evenly and every man women and child has an earth sized chunk of matter to mold in any shape they wish.
or
2) Live in a world where Americas capitalist elitism determines the hierarchy. Where the lower, middle and likely even the upper-middle class is no longer needed. Where the existing powers (i.e. top .01%) combine together to claim the solar systems resources to divide them up among themselves.
Capitalism/trade/barter like systems are REQUIRED for a healthy growing society when scarcity and survival is a daily concern. I have no doubt that this is true. However, the needed balance these systems provide begins to change as a society moves further and further away from just trying to survive another day.
When technology is such where I have the means to manufacture anything that I and my community of friends can imagine then the game changes. Capitalism is now the enemy, as are any who wish to keep me and the larger community in a position of weakness. It no longer becomes about who earned what they have, it is now purely a game of who is in control, those with advantage or society as whole without preference.
In my opinion the only reason capitalism still works well today is because.
a) Many people are uneducated and have been conditioned by society to be lazy and have not discovered a purpose that they believe in.
b) The world is over populated and there is not enough abundance of basic resources to provide the level of security required to appease the human fear of death.
The day will become where the zero sum game that we have been playing will either be the death of most or the day we all regain true freedom and evolve as a society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Economy of abundance
|
|
|
|
Actually, I'm Australian, but that is by the by. While I agree with you that there are certainly signs of unfettered dissemination (I so hope my spelling is ok) of information etc such as the open software movement (of which I am very supportive) and which occur because those providing such products have other means by which they can feed themselves - I must return to my original point in reply. That is, that there is a fundamental instinct to elevate oneself by comparing oneself to others and seeing oneself as somehow 'greater' - even to the point of "aren't we wonderful.. we're more altruistic than all of those other rabid captialitsts' (ok.. slightly over the top but you get my point). This self patting on the back applies to all forms of government and human endeavour. Look at the enormous popularity of gaming - it is about competing, having 'more powers' etc, than others. This inherent drive to self adulation by the use of external markers has enabled the human race to survive and flourish. I am not saying that this is justification for this modus operandi to continue, rather, I am saying that this modus operandi is so pervasive (down to the minute of our daily lives) that, even in a world of abundance, this need (unless modified or transformed) will create the new economics. So I suspect, ultimately, that we are driving at different points (though I could be wrong - online converstation can sometimes cause problems due to the loss of subtle nuance).
My point boils down to: the physical reality may change, but it will be the internal emotional motivators of humans that will create the economic environment. Until the internal emotional motivators are re-aligned and are no longer built upon scarcity, humans will continuously self sabotage 'abundance'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The (Needed) New Economics of Abundance
|
|
|
|
'Almost a billion are hungry. According to wstar dot org, 24,000 people *die* every day from hunger and 75% of those are children.
So this is a different kind of scarcity.
It would be nice to discover what these billion minds could create, given the opportunity to survive and be norished.'
indeed we all can try to discover what these 'minds' are able to create or do. at least they deserve an opportunity to improve their standard of living. until then, i am considering that something serious is failing in the human evolution'.
two points:
a. children adoption
b. hydrogen energy democratic WORLDWIDEWEB DISTRIBUTION
a) there should be an international worldwide agreement that favoured the adoption of childrens of the third world or simply childrens abandoned by their parents (due to lack of economical resources or any other causes'). today there are many families that wish to adopt childrens, but there are a lot of long / complex legal / costly processes and lack of information that simply difficult the intention to adopt or simply do not encourage the possible adoptive parents to take a decision for adoption.
'. of course there must be a control to avoid abuse and fraud. but a simple/effective/well implemented/documented worldwide agreement for adoption could help to reduce the scarcity of these childrens.
one universal jurisdiction for adoption should exist.
..and the parents /or single people wishing to adopt wouldn't need to be rich, if an intelligent adoption program would really be implemented '.
b) recently i read an article about the likely transition to a hydrogen economy. indeed, billions of dollars have been invested in the research and development of technologies by space industry, army, universities, the automotive industry and the oil multinationals.
brian mcgormick of general motors calls the HYDROGEN REVOLUTION OF SOMETHING UTMOST IMPORTANT !!
quote:
'hydrogen is clean. it produces only water. nonetheless the electrolytic process to seperate hydrogen from oxygen needs energy. the rentability is a bit better than those of fossil fuels, but not impressive. alone when produced by renewable sources hydrogen becomes 100% safe for the environment. not only for the environment. hydrogen can become a blessing for the sunny-, windy- and mountain-rich parts of the world which are mostly in third world areas. these countries can make money out of their renewable sources by producing and exporting hydrogen. megacities, centers of energy in energy low areas loose an important part of their attraction as energy will be available at every place in the world.
hydrogen can reduce the centralised energy distribution, with its mega-power-stations to a much smaller, a human scale. when each car runs on hydrogen fuel cells, this will be used as a private power station, with a unit that produces 25kw. these 25kw are necessary for the power peaks of the car, the moments of acceleration, high speed. the car produces much more than it needs and the car is out of use for 96% of its lifetime. this extra energy and the energy which can be produced in the time the car is parked can be delivered to the house, to neighbours, to ones business.
hydrogen experts in the united states are convinced that the combination of hydrogen, fuel-cells, electricity distribution networks, and computer networks can have people a full say over their energy production. THEY IMAGINE A WORLD WIDE HYDROGEN WEB, A GLOBAL NETWORK FOR ENERGY DISTRIBUTION WHICH CONNECTS ALL THE SMALLER AND BIGGER PRODUCERS. JUST LIKE THE ENERGY MARKET BETWEEN BIG COMPANIES FUNCTIONS THESE DAYS. IT WILL BE POSSIBLE THAT IT IS YOU WHO DECIDE WHERE THE EXTRA ENERGY YOU PRODUCE WILL BE DELIVERED TO AND TO WHAT PARTS OF THE WORLD.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The (Needed) New Economics of Abundance
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you mean by relationships in the context of your reply. You say, "relationship information is less likely to be shared, and therefor will be more valued." I may be getting your meaning totally wrong, but isn't relationship the big new thing in websites? I'm thinking in particular of MySpace, YouTube, and others of their ilk (even KurzweilAI). These sites are valuable due in large part to the relationships created, yet they are free, and people freely give their information and contributions to receive others' information and relationship in return. No money is exchanged by the users, but value is.
So,do you mean this kind of value, or are you referring to pecuniary compensation?
You ask, "How do we minimize the impact of abundance?" I wonder if we want to minimize the impact...perhaps maximizing the impact, while economically disruptive, might create a better world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Economy of Abundance
|
|
|
|
An economy of abundance, where material goods can be produced on a whim and where nanotechnology has eliminated the entirety of traditional economic processes has one clear side effect:
For all that we will be producing, we will need plans, blueprints, instructions.
As we have moved from a second wave society to a third wave society, we have lost the need for manufacturing to be our primary economic activity. We are no longer focused on making things, instead we are a service economy, a knowledge economy, etc.
In the age of abundance this will be the only economy. When we have nanofactories and such to produce things on a whim, we will become immensely reliant on the designs for those things, just as today we are immensely reliant on the designs for the things that we have manufactured elsewhere.
The Economy of Abundance will be of physical items. The Economy of Scarcity will continue to exist, but only in terms of the innovative and novel designs for things. We will continue to have scarce resources, but they will be mental resources. Scarcity of ingenuity, scarcity of genius, scarcity of ideas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Economy of Abundance
|
|
|
|
I think that, the way our minds are wired, we tend to spend most of our time thinking about things that are scarce to us. We live in a world abundant with both oxygen and space for moving about (those reading from prison, forgive my generalizations) and hence we do not consider them to be objects of our "economy." If economics is, by definition, the study of how to distribute scarce resources (which I know it is, by definition), then there is no economics of abundance any more than there is a square circle in our future.
Therefore I would argue that instead of looking for an economics of abundance we should ask about what will be different in a "lifestyle" of relative abundance. It's not so much that our economy will shift in nature as much as it will shift in scope. Certain things to which our relationship are now defined by scarcity will exit from the stage of economics and enter the definedly (sort of made up a word there) different stage of abundance.
Our minds will, of course, need something to strive for and hence we will probably spend our daily budget of worry on meaning and positive impact. I would agree with whomever it was before that said relationships may become the most valuable commodity. Interestingly enough, though, they can't be traded. Or perhaps there are other things which we will find to trade with one another. . . or perhaps because of the non-exclusivity of non-material goods economics will just die a quiet and peaceful death. The way to attack this question, i would say, is to have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of _needs and ask ourselves: what of these needs will be satsified by universal abundance of material goods, and which will not? Of those that will not, which can we specialize in producing for trade? If there are any, then those will comprise the new economy; if there are none then economics will become a forgotten word. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Economy of Abundance
|
|
|
|
First, being a physicist with some background in biochemistry and computer science, I have little doubt that humanity will soon control biology at the cellular level, likely making bio-nano bots become our ultimate, universal constructors. Whether this will lead to gray goo or utopia I can't say--we may yet be squashed by a BIG meteor hidden by the sun next week--SPLAT!
Should we survive being flattened or being disassembled one molecule at a time, I also have little doubt that humanity is not the final word in Earth-based evolution. In our quest to solve medical problems (cancer, Alzheimer's, blindness, etc.) bio-nano-quantum computing technologies will change us profoundly someday, likely sooner than later, and sex, drugs, beer and other sundry carnal activities will lose their meaning as we know them. What super venal replacements "transcended people" will find is beyond speculation, but they will likely be wild beyond our imagination.
One "econometric" question I often ponder is who will make it IF we make it? Will the AIDS stricken Africans make it? Will only relatively wealthy people make it? Given the steep price of current invitro fertilization, one question I grappled with at a UN panel on cloning was what will happen when only the richest rich can afford to make super offspring? What will our kids do to secure their future against super kids? Will the wealth and power gradients grow so fast that only a tiny fraction of humanity survives Singularity?
A great book over which to ponder these points is "War and Peace and War" by Turchin, on the mathematical modeling of the history of the rise and fall of civilizations. Turchin's book is very accessible, and very compelling, and may lead you to read his more hardcore historical dynamics texts. The book Citizen Cyborg does a pretty good job on discussing what kind of political systems we should strive for to make sure all make it to Singularity. I also explore all of these ideas and more in my history-based strong science fiction book Beyond Future Shock about the near-terms perils and promise of advanced bio/nano technology in a world still roiled with Middle Age religious conflict and ever growing extreme wealth gradients.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Economy of Abundance
|
|
|
|
How can we have an economics of abundance, when we (humans) seem always to want more, more, more?
Will higher intelligence really solve this tendency? Won't higher intelligence merely want a higher degree of more, more, more?
Okay, we reproduce the universe. Is THAT enough? No! We then strive to do what?..... gain access to as many alternate universes as possible? Aren't these supposedly infinite; therefore, abundance is always out of reach.
If we have enough, then it seems that we're bored. We create reasons to get........ more, more, more.
Robert K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Economy of Abundance
|
|
|
|
How can we have an economics of abundance, when we (humans) seem always to want more, more, more?
This is a common comment I hear, but is it true? Do you not have enough air to breath? Enough water to drink? Do you lack sufficient food?
I think it is important to separate "stimulation" from "substance" when discussing the concept of abundance. Before long we will be able to design methods of hooking you up (or perhaps just uploading you into) a system that provides maximum bliss, something so potent that it makes heroin look like caffeine. I assure you at this point you will want nothing more, you will have found your Nirvana... What happens to many heroin / drug addicts? They stop wanting anything but their fix, in affect they are satisfied with less not more.
Will higher intelligence really solve this tendency? Won't higher intelligence merely want a higher degree of more, more, more?
More of what? Humans like all things that evolve are driven by external pressures, when those pressures are removed or relaxed we stagnate. There must be external pressures for "progress" to be economically desirable.
Okay, we reproduce the universe. Is THAT enough? No! We then strive to do what?..... gain access to as many alternate universes as possible? Aren't these supposedly infinite; therefore, abundance is always out of reach.
Whats the point? There is NO evidence that it will even be possible for us to travel between stars and maintain any semblance of continuity let alone between universes. Expansion for expansions sake makes no more sense then more for mores sake does. There must be reasons (external pressures) to make it economically viable to expand/progress.
If we have enough, then it seems that we're bored. We create reasons to get........ more, more, more.
Bored is a lack of stimulation, not a lack of substance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The (Needed) New Economics of Abundance
|
|
|
|
Hi purpose,
I don't see that you've deconstructed my main point.
In fact, you seem to support it. Pressure to evolve or to create more substance (to me) implies a lack of abundance - an abundance, in fact, that can never be reached, precisely because we continually demand to be under such pressure.
You ask me about air, food, shelter, etc. Yes, I have sufficient quantities of these. But I do not apply the idea of abundance to these basic requirements of life. My sense of abundance has a leaning towards opulance, blatant overconsumption beyond what is sufficient for a balanced being (i.e., "happiness").
The drive for "economic growth" is precisely such a drive for overabundance, from my perspective. We don't need all that stuff we make. We don't need all the people on the earth,... and those people making more babies to make more goods-and-services for more, more, more.
The world is a cluttered place. Lots of roads too narrow, curves badly cut for cars to turn properly, stairwells designed with too short approaches, not enough clearance between buildings, ceilings in many dwellings too low, too little green space in many areas, strip malls, traffic jams............ see where I'm going?
We have not perfected the things we invent already, before we think that we are ready to move on. We fail at making the relationships elegant. We focus on the growth, the amount of stuff, the abundance of goods. It's all crap, when we don't look at the relationships and the harmony between the substance we create.
Robert K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The (Needed) New Economics of Abundance
|
|
|
|
I don't see that you've deconstructed my main point.
My goal is not to deconstruct your main point. You focus on examples where man kind has not yet stagnated, and you focus on our instinctive need to build up our security, by over eating, over stockpiling, over consuming. My point is our motivation for progress is directly related to a tangible "scarcity" that will soon be satiate. You seem to think there exists a universal/intellectual truth driving us forward, nay it is emotion and emotion alone that leads to the tool of rationality, who's soul purpose is to fulfill our emotions every whim.
In fact, you seem to support it. Pressure to evolve or to create more substance (to me) implies a lack of abundance - an abundance, in fact, that can never be reached, precisely because we continually demand to be under such pressure.
You are historically incorrect IMO. Every time a society has ever entered an age of "abundance" stagnation is quick to follow. You see it today in America as we continue to fall behind other countries in info technology... you saw it in the Roman empire where all of its resources were dedicated to "maintain", not to move forward.
Here in America the pressure that does exist today, that keeps us moving forward, is largely driven by the humans who do not have our "abundance" and want it. For we as a nation (like the Romans) are more concerned with "maintaining" our abundance than we are with moving forward. This is why we will not have a true economy of abundance until it is available and sustainable for all man kind.
You ask me about air, food, shelter, etc. Yes, I have sufficient quantities of these. But I do not apply the idea of abundance to these basic requirements of life.
Of course you do not, things that are Non-rivalrous are hardly ever noticed ;). That is in fact the point, when all things of substance are Non-rivalrous they will be taken for granted and need not be noticed. The rest is stimulation and remember, this can be achieved cheaply and will be much like air, while not infinite it will be enough.
My sense of abundance has a leaning towards opulance, blatant overconsumption beyond what is sufficient for a balanced being (i.e., "happiness").
Interesting, if stimulation = happiness then as soon as we are capable of creating "Nirvana machines" then our quest for "abundance" will be over. You see this drive that you speak of is not to assimilate the universe, it is to satiate the human animistic need for security, it is our primal fear of death that we seek to over come. It matters not if you remove this with heroin, a magic machine or sufficient physical "security" in the form of true abundance, the result is the same, stagnation. For it is this primal fear that drives us and that alone. This is the primary reason why I feel we will not evolve nearly as fast as Kurzweil thinks, our rate of evolution will slow as the external pressures have less and less power over our security.
The drive for "economic growth" is precisely such a drive for overabundance, from my perspective. We don't need all that stuff we make. We don't need all the people on the earth,... and those people making more babies to make more goods-and-services for more, more, more.
Our animistic qualities drive us to over stimulate often times to our own detainment. It is also these basic instincts that have kept us alive up until this point. Like the heroin addict, this animistic need can be satiated cheaply, soon we will be able to maintain this contentment without serious risks. Many people might not like this view of our nature, this simplistic animal-ism that drives us, I know I do not but it appears true none the less.
Enhanced intelligence will not change this equation. Enhanced intelligence is just another phrase for "enhanced rationality" and like our current rationality it needs the driving force of emotion and thus no matter how much we enhance our "intellectual abilities", it will always be subservient to emotion, either directly or indirectly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The (Needed) New Economics of Abundance
|
|
|
|
So,..... to summarily simplify one of your ideas a bit,....... would you say (?):
ABUNDANCE ----> STAGNATION
......... in other words, [abundance leads to stagnation] is a pattern/rule in human affairs?
I find myself not disagreeing with you. Again, I think we might be expressing slightly different tones of the same basic idea.
I guess I'm just questioning whether the concept of "economics" is even a logical idea, given a sense of abundance where everybody has all they need.
I suggest that ECONOMICS (at this stage of the human condition) is a dead concept.
We don't even use the term "economics" at this stage. It'll be a laughable primitive idea, honed in an age of confusion.
But, again, I can't help thinking that intelligence cannot reach such a place, simply because intelligence always requires somewhere else to evolve, meaning... universal abundance is perpetually out of reach.
Also, I'm not sure that the concept of "abundance" has an equal applicability to all things or to all human wants/needs.
For example, does it make sense to speak of "abundant air supply" as though this is equivalent to saying "abundant sexual stimulation"? I don't think so.
What do you think?
RK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The (Needed) New Economics of Abundance
|
|
|
|
So,..... to summarily simplify one of your ideas a bit,....... would you say (?):
ABUNDANCE ----> STAGNATION
......... in other words, [abundance leads to stagnation] is a pattern/rule in human affairs?
Yes I would say it is a predictable and constant pattern embeded at the fundamental level of human nature.
I suggest that ECONOMICS (at this stage of the human condition) is a dead concept.
We don't even use the term "economics" at this stage. It'll be a laughable primitive idea, honed in an age of confusion.
Perhaps, however I do not think the core concept of economics will disappear per say. Intelligent beings will continue to exchange/trade their life energy in some form or other. But I agree it will likely be almost unrecognizable compared to today's system.
But, again, I can't help thinking that intelligence cannot reach such a place, simply because intelligence always requires somewhere else to evolve, meaning... universal abundance is perpetually out of reach.
But you see evolving is not the goal, satisfaction is. We have plenty of biological examples on this planet, of life forms that stagnate (evolving only VERY slowly) as external pressures fall below the required threshold. Online games like World Of Warcraft should show you that human beings can satisfy both their intellectual and emotional desires by simple repetitive visual / tactile stimulation. Intelligence does not seek to evolve, intelligence evolves only because our emotions demand satisfaction and the rational mind is the means to achieve it.
Also, I'm not sure that the concept of "abundance" has an equal applicability to all things or to all human wants/needs.
If abundance is defined as "every emotional need is instantly satisfied" then what human want/need is lacking? What then is the motivator for progress?
For example, does it make sense to speak of "abundant air supply" as though this is equivalent to saying "abundant sexual stimulation"
Of course not you would gladly for-go having sex if you were suffocating. No they are not equivalent, they are related though, as the lack of both cause you pain and the having of both cause you pleasure (to a greater/lessor degree).
I do not think it will be quite as bleak as I am describing things. It is likely the intelligences of the future will maintain a minimal amount of progress to insure society does not decline, robbing them of their bliss. It is also likely a small minority of us will have the irrational need to continue on the journey of exploring the unknown, seeking a deeper understanding. But I think these people will be viewed as a security risk by the majority. It is also possible that by the time we get to this level of abundance we may have a pretty good idea of what is left to discover and that it might not be nearly interesting enough to keep any us from immersing ourselves deep into our Nirvana machines ;)
Again my main point here is to illustrate that our human nature does not suggest our evolution will accelerate at ever greater rates. Evolution goes in stops and spurts, I think we are in for a large spurt, but a long stop will quickly follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The (Needed) New Economics of Abundance
|
|
|
|
"Over hundreds of years, we have developed the skills of how to allocate things in short supply. For widespread abundance, we have no experience, no projections, and no economic calculations. Abundance, paradoxically, could be highly disruptive. It is time to design a new economics of abundance, so that abundance can be enjoyed in a society that is prepared for it."
Of course it will be disruptive. Every single society in history, including America, has emerged in scarcity, its people striving to deal with scarcities in food and all other goods.
A true abundance--anything you want at anytime, grown in your own kitchen vat or garage vat--now that's something that has unimaginable consequences. And as such, we can't "design" anything to deal with it. Creative responses will emerge from the free decisions of billions of people.
All in all, I prefer the problem associated with abundance to those associated with scarcity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
