aaf6c0a3   
   From: trminlxGARBAGE@bitstreamnet.com   
      
   In article <20031111121903260-0500@news.wplus.net>,   
    j3r  wrote:   
      
   > 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   
      
      
   Even if the standard of living is made uniform .. though I'm not sure I   
   see why it would suck for the 1st world unless it went down .. there   
   still has to be a way to get money to everyone so everyone can buy stuff   
   and thus keep the economy from just grinding to a halt.   
      
   The way I see it we just don't have the means to employ six billion   
   people or so in order to keep the standard of living above Homeless and   
   Destitute.   
      
   Consumerist societies may not be long for this world.   
      
      
   ghost   
   ~/~ Sometimes I forget to pray I'll make it through this fucking day ~/~   
               www.accanthology.com ~/~ www.bitstreamnet.com   
                      take out the GARBAGE to email.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)