this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
616 points (95.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43943 readers
405 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Every single large server in this federation has at least one Star Trek community. There is even an entire server dedicated to Star Trek.

Not only that, these communities are some of the most active I've ever seen. There is no other franchise I know of that dominates the federation as much as Star Trek does.

So, what's the correlation with Lemmy and Star Trek? Why not other sci-fi series? Please, are there any connections?? Is this all coincidental?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

Our world is already post scarcity too for basic needs like food and housing. We're just terrible at actually getting them to people since most countries are still capitalist, so they prioritize capital/profit over human lives and rely on what's basically slave labour from less developed nations to make the ruling class richer.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago

Under capitalism, food isn't produced to eat but to make profits. When it's not profitable to sell, they would rather dump foods, starving the people than to plainly donate.

We produce enough foods to feed the entire population. But the sole purpose of food is to not feed the people, but to feed the greed of the producers, the farmers, the corporates.

Capitalism created an artificial scarcity of food where we produce too much food for the obese and throw the rest away to rot in front of the poor.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Read an article in the economist ten years ago or so that said that with the automation potential back then, we could have 70% unemployment and still produce western middle-class living standards for absolutely everyone. Probably not cars (go public transport, instead) but definitely roof and four walls, healthy food, education and entertainment, healthcare, and a washing machine. Reason it's not happening is that while investing in that kind of thing has a giant ROI, it's also long-term, for quarterly or even ten-year profits it's more advantageous to hire humans.

Honestly, actually that's good news: It's going to happen one way or the other anyway, and we don't want that kind of control over automated means of productions in the hands of people too greedy to invest in it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Just gonna point out that by definition, a world that is post-scarcity is post-scarcity for all of its inhabitants. Your assertion that there are "less developed" nations that "don't get basic resources" means we are not post-scarcity.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's just one definition, no? You could interpret this part of the wiki like I did for example

Post-scarcity does not mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all goods and services but that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met

and conclude that we're already in that world, like Star Trek is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in > which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely.[1][2]

Post-scarcity does not mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all goods and services but that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met along with some significant proportion of their desires for goods and services.[3] Writers on the topic often emphasize that some commodities will remain scarce in a post-scarcity society.[4][5][6][7]

It can mean that if you cherry-pick your clauses, but if you actually take the entire text into account, you are absolutely wrong. Tell me what "basic needs" are met cheaply or freely to the general population of the planet? And I mean all of us. From the children in Beverly Hills to the grandparents in Mozambique. Food, shelter, water. At a bare minimum, those three are available cheaply to everyone on the planet on a post-scarcity planet. We absolutely do not live on one of those at this point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They could have easily have those ends met, but at the moment, they can't easily go get those basic needs fulfilled.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Like I said, just different ways of interpreting the definitions.

The wiki definition "people can easily have their basic survival needs met" is passive, which could mean either

  • your definition of the people themselves being able to "go get those basic needs fulfilled", or just
  • the world having more than enough resources and the technology to easily meet everyone's basic needs.

The latter is how I interpreted it. And that's our world, just hindered by our current political/economic system of capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Aside from the arguments posited by this comment’s siblings, I’ll add: artificial scarcity is scarcity nonetheless.

We’re very far from post-scarcity despite the fact that there’s seemingly no material conditions stopping us from achieving it.