It's the future, it's completely fucking inevitable the second we hit any kind of basic post-scarcity/cold fusion scenario, and Death Stranding is a pretty convincing portrayal of that.
@druid Abundance doesn't remove scarcity, but more importantly, human time is scarce resource.
We already have the technology and means for living in a post-scarcity world, in many aspects like food, clothing and shelter we already have them, but since we only pursue profits for the sake of it we end up throwing things away because that is "cheaper" than proper redistribution.
The entire point of the technology and tools we develop is to free us from remnants of old systems of feudalism, that should be the purpose of technology, for people to have the freedom in time to do whatever they want in their personal development.
The best argument I encountered for such a society did not come from a marxist(although they all argue for such a society) but from a chemist, this quote in Wikipedia from him says it all.
>We thus arrive at the conclusion that any sort of perpetual motion is impossible. A continuous stream of fresh energy is necessary for the continuous working of any working system, whether animate or inanimate. Life is cyclic as regards the material substances consumed, and the same materials are used over and over again in metabolism. But as regards energy, it is unidirectional, and no continuous cyclic use of energy is even conceivable. If we have available energy, we may maintain life and produce every material requisite necessary. That is why the flow of energy should be the primary concern of economics. In a world which has adequate supplies of energy, scientific knowledge and inventions for utilising it, and the man-power able and willing to perform the necessary duties and services, poverty and destitution are purely artificial institutions, due to ignorance of the principles of government, actively, if not deliberately, fostered for class ends by legal conventions confounding wealth with debt. Under any scientific system of government they would disappear like small-pox and malaria, by means of preventive rather than ameliorative or curative measures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth,_Virtual_Wealth_and_Debt
@orekix @druid
I doubt that, but more importantly you can't respond to "post-scarcity can't exist" with "yes it can" without anything more to substantiate it.
If I grant you that, why do have we have the means to live in such world? How did we reach that state?
Guy was obsessed with "muh joos".
The energy we have isn't not scarce or stable, but again, where does it come from?
Poverty can't disappear due to the simple fact that it is relative.
@orekix @druid
I agree, being wrong in something unrelated to your area of expertise shouldn't undermine your work. I just thought it was funny to point out.
I agree that GDP growth doesn't necessarily translate to anything tangible and chasing it isn't realistic.
Banks are just businesses and the government bailing them out only breaks the market.
What I don't see is the connection to post-scarcity being tangible.
it should go without saying that association of jews with usury and thus with economic systems is not a historical uncommon view and particularly in the time that Soddy was alive anti-semitism was rampant in Europe, thus his prejudices were not something the brightest of people at the time couldn't have and it is unfortunate that people can fall for such demagoguery aye? nonetheless his contributions to the field of chemistry and later on economy should not be discredited for a single belief we agree?
his ideas were cited almost a century after he published them as a result of the crash in 2008 where banks were bailed out
>A massive bailout – and having the US taxpayer take on billions in bad debt – is merely a way to keep the growth economy from failing a little longer while allowing it to continue degrading the planet. Propping up such a destructive system makes no sense. Instead, we need to redesign our laws and institutions to foster an economy that remains within biophysical limits.
>Of course the growth economists will howl that such measures would slow the growth of GDP. I say so be it – growth has become uneconomic, and we have limited time to bring the economy into line with the biosphere’s carrying capacity.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120212112514/https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/81/the_crisis.html