Hacker News Reader

Comment by jraedisch | Hacker News Reader

So when I think “every important thing in my life is scarce”, that is just incorrect imagination? 11 billion people can live on a lake with perfect child and health care?

View on HN

Living on a lake is a prestige goal, not a requirement for existence. There is no meaningful scarcity at tier 1 of Maslow's hierarchy.

I don't see a point in striving for a society where most of the population is only meeting tier 1 needs. That's a human chicken farm, not a civilization.

In 100 years you'll be dead as Caesar's ghost regardless of what car you drive or how braggable your social media presence makes your life appear. Pointless bling is pointless, regardless of how it's framed. Edit: apparently that poked someone in the worldview. Nifty.

Unnecessary suffering is also pointless. Existence of life in a cold indifferent universe is pointless. The whole point is that it's all pointless, might as well make it worthwhile, whatever version of it one prefers.

K. Now you get to choose what "worthwhile" means. Borderline sociopathic self-gratification or communal striving for an improved human condition.

Who gets to decide what "improved human condition" means and what if large segments of the population disagree on what it means?

Historically, whoever is better armed and guillotines or similar. It's nice to dream about our species collectively pulling it's head out of it's own ass but there's really no precedent for it.

Vilifying opposing views on "worthwhile" as "borderline sociopathic self-gratification" seems dogmatic and perhaps even projective.

The guilty flee where none pursueth. Are we now going to argue that aligning society to service (primarily) hyperconcentration of wealth at the cost of every ecosystem on the planet while burning through non-renewable resources isn't sociopathic? Bear in mind we live in a closed system. Oh what, you thought I was implying having your worldview handed to you by someone else's marketing team is sociopathic? Nah, aim higher up the food chain.

The question is not whether some individuals strive for it, but whether the entire ecosystem moves toward it. Different contexts, different mechanisms.

This is your own interpretation you swapped "at least" into "at most" and are now arguing against the straw man you built.

I love swimming and direct access to "nature". You left out child and health care, too. I do not see how any of these are prestige goals.

Both of those desires can be fulfilled in a myriad of ways more accessible to the average person than "living on a lake".

I will vote for the party that has a believable plan. So far, at least in Hamburg, Germany, I feel it is mostly a fight amongst many for the same, very scarce resources.

It seems like it's a different picture in the states. "The many" are in no way near able to afford/accomplish owning a house on a lake. This is reserved for the elite.

I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy downing half a fifth of tequila and setting fire to my neighbor's rose bushes but I don't consider that part of my definition of a functional society.

Is an 8-acre lake ok?

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=world+water+area+%2F+wo...

That would be fine. There are also many that do not like swimming.

Waterfront is usually measured by shoreline length as we can't build in the middle of the ocean efficiency.

The paper mentions basic human needs like calories, potable water and shelter. What you are talking about goes way beyond biological needs.

This is the problem with partial abundance and the absolute definition of scarcity. Scarcity still exists even after you have a million yachts. You would have to be crazy to argue that scarcity doesn't exist, but absolute scarcity is meaningless in the face of humans with limited brain sizes.

We definitely have partial abundance. Please don't shut this discussion down because of imprecise language.

It's just massively taking for granted what you have and being a sucker for marketing. Food, warmth, companionship/love, these things aren't important to you?

The article seems to define scarcity as a very basic existence. Most would call it abject poverty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com