Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by akira2501 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

akira2501

> and land get taken.

It's always land. This is because land is scarce. You can keep things that aren't scarce without force.

> Is there any convincing argument for getting out of this equilibrium?

The total destruction of artificial scarcity?

View on HN

scarcity's been around since the dawn of time, even if it's sometimes intentionally worsened. do you see some way of truly eliminating it?

I said the end of _artificial_ scarcity, which much of our current world, and most of it's economic system is based on. As you've flagged, the fact that entropy exists means scarcity itself will be with us until the end of time.

In Lysistrata they were basically asking the hard questions.

Can men live without war?

Aren't men fighting over women to begin with?

Can women live with war?

Can war live without women?

Can war live without men having anything to fight over?

Why would you think scarcity is artificial? Have you tried growing your own food lately? Do you have an army of robots who are doing it for you?

Just because artificial scarcity exists doesn't mean natural scarcity doesn't. Do you deny the existence of artificial scarcity?

No. I go to the grocery store. Where an army of robots controlled by farmers has already done it for me. We're so good at this more than 1/3 of it goes to waste. We export so much food it literally disrupts world markets.

The question you want to ask is there ever a point where population's psychical space demands overcome the space required to feed those people? We are nowhere near this limit.

Right, so you are claiming you are entitled to the productivity of land worked by the labor of someone else, managed by someone else. What are you contributing to the process?

How exactly would we eliminate the scarcity of land?

Artificial scarcity, the proposal is for the elimination of the ability of owning classes to restrict supply of a given good through various means.

That said, >100 years in the future it could be possible to make more land with rotating habitats in space, which would functionally eliminate land scarcity.

I've watched enough sci-fi set in space to know that there's always something for the ruling powers to find scarce enough to start wars over..

Also something always goes wrong.

I would think I creating islands would be the first stop for "more land in good places" considering it's already possible.

It's much more economically viable, but it comes with a lot of ecological and environmental risk that we care about a lot more now (which is right and good). Same with preserving Antarctica, the other one people always bring up. The fact is we care hugely about the environment in the modern day, people who don't care about the environment are a loud minority, so in terms of making new habitable land on a large scale space is the most realistic even though it's more difficult in an economic and engineering sense.

Good enough VR that people can be stored in matrix-like pods

Terraforming or depopulation. I prefer the former.

Depopulation only works on average.

I presume land ownership is according to a power law (~money). Perhaps just need to "depopulate" extremely large land owners?

Terraforming takes centuries and trillions. Depopulation is super easy. Just provide a minimum level of education, opportunity and contraception and significantly more people choose not to have kids.

Not sure if our economies can survive that way though.

Neither seems realistic or achievable, except the latter by nuclear armageddon.

Depopulation is super easy. Provide universal access to contraception and give people the choice to not have babies. Evidence shows that works.

>Provide universal access to contraception and give people the choice to not have babies. Evidence shows that works.

Not realistically achievable within my kid's lifetimes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com