From: j3r@example.net   
      
   In  Sourcerer    
   wrote:   
   > Is it "scarcity" or "finite"? They are not identical. Scarcity is a   
   > political and technological problem. That natural resources are finite   
   > is just the dealt hand.   
      
   Certainly, in the universe, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and energy are   
   operationally infinite. Making use of them requires technology beyond ours.   
   Thus they are scarce, Food and water used to be the limiting factors, but for   
   the moment they are not scarce    
   for a large chunk of the world. This, of course, can change very quickly   
   (can't wait for those food riots!). Theoretically, if you can get enough   
   energy together, nothing is scarce (for a long while, at least). I mean, who   
   cares if there's not enough    
   space if you can melt down Mercury and make gigantic space stations? But, you   
   know, we can't even keep a permanent station in LEO, so we're going to have to   
   deal with scarcity for a while.   
      
   I guess the point is that as long as your population growth rate is small   
   enough, and your technology is layme enough, all resources are actually   
   scarce. In _The Diamond Age_, nanotech is kept carefully controlled, so that   
   the masses cannot seize the    
   means of production. Scarcity is thus artificially enforced to control social   
   order. (Which is not, perhaps a bad thing, as artlessly pointed out by   
   _Realware_.) The book traces the final failure of the control. In    
   _Distraction_ and _Snow Crash_,    
   scarcity is greatly reduced over today, such that even the jobless have a   
   fairly comfortable living. Thus, the great emphasis on reputation in those   
   worlds. (The great threats to the general welfare in both books is   
   megalomaniacs, since they don't have    
   as much competition from people who are just trying to get by.) In the sprawl   
   trilogy, OTHO, scarcity seems to be greater than what we have today. Clothing,   
   vat-grown food and humanity seem to seem to be the only non-scarce   
   commodities. It remains to be    
   seen which future will be ours.   
      
   > "...humanity is not ready for a world where working is something you   
   > do when you feel like it".   
   >   
   > If so, 1st world states will have to devise a colossal 'make work'   
   > program employing several hundred million of its citizens in order to   
   > sustain post-industrial capitalism, in essence paying us to consume.   
      
   Alternately, we just wait for our wealth to spread throughout the world, at   
   which point the living standards differential between countries becomes pretty   
   small. Of course, this sucks for everyone in the 1st world.   
      
   j3r   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)