[motoxpro]

To use your phrase of: You haven't thought through the consequences of this at all. I'll break this down a bit further for you hopefully in a way you can understand.

Don't even have to go further than "You work to provide value in exchange for a store of value; currency."

Work assumes that there is work to be done. If everything is abundant, there is no work to be done because no currency needed. Who makes food? Machines. Who makes the physical infrastructure? Machines. Who generates the power? Machines.

I'm not saying that this is going to happen (I also don't think anything you're saying is going to happen either), and I think the GP was being facetious, but if you are going to take that statement seriously, then I think you do not understand what abundance truly means.

[trod123]

You are blind, and supporting something that is both incredibly evil and destructive.

If you can, take a look at what abundance does to people in the real world, objectively, do some actual research. Look at mortality for lottery winners, and business tycoon heirs; read their horror stories.

When there is no work, there is no purpose, no growth, no value, and no life, nothing new happens.

It is death, either quick and self-inflicted, or slow until madness from suffering takes over, where you can't notice it along the way like a person suffering from a progression of Alzheimer's. That is the abundance you seek.

[motoxpro]

I said "I'm not saying that this is going to happen" so I wouldn't say I am supporting it. Was just making a point that you looked at it too black and white and didn't think through everything. More of a response to what I felt was unnessecarry pompusness

Your argument feels more like an anarcho-primitivism/Unabomber idea of abundance or technological progress reducing humanity's satisfaction, so we should stay where we are, i.e., always have tasks(work) rather than pursue fulfilment.

[hnthrow28]

That is probably not what he meant.

1. The weaknesses of the human condition might be the cause of our destruction. That's why I am not surprised when people give these anti doomer takes. History keeps repeating again and again and people haven't really learned from their mistakes.

2. The solution to this problem would be to fix or greatly diminish human greed and selfishness or anything else that I might be missing. We would then have greater chances of heading towards a utopia.

We will end up with either a utopia or a dystopia.

[motoxpro]

I don't disagree. I don't really have too much of an opinion on which one we end up with. I was more pointing out that, at the limit, it's not certain that we will end up in a dystopia through abundance, more that it is extremely uncertain of which one it will be and to extrapolate as the GP did is to not full take abundance to it's limit.

[hnthrow28]

I would assume we are moving towards a dystopia. GP is correct on the dangers but his perspective is incomplete and takes you on a wrong direction as you may have said.

It would require a lot of people to understand the dangers and take action to solve the necessary problems before it's too late.

Governance and the other systems we have must fundamentally change. (All over the world)

We must acknowledge our flaws and frailty which causes us to be selfish,greedy and seek dominance and control over the rest. This is animalistic behaviour.

People must recognize that we are running out of time.

We are seeing a race whose direction is difficult to predict but the magnitude will be out of bounds.

If you are useless, you won't matter. Have you thought about how pests are treated?

This is relevant today and as time goes by, it's not difficult to predict.

I think we are heading towards a dystopian world.

I hope peace and goodwill prevails.

[meiraleal]

You sounds like those annoying religious nuts screaming the end is near and we all going to hell.