[vineyardmike]

They have some chips they insert into your spine to read your thoughts and other similar stuff.

But personally the “dystopia” to me feels very much like something we could end up with -it’s much more a warning. Meanwhile the fantastic nature of the utopia doesn’t really matter in contrast, because the idea of sharing society’s abundance with everyone is clearly possible.

[darepublic]

It's possible if we believe human nature to be sufficiently malleable. Why can't we all just get along. Perhaps the mountains that need to be moved for such a thing are as daunting as some of the physical laws we try to hurdle instead

[vineyardmike]

There are nations and societies very different from the United States. In the United States, we can see the distrust in our neighbors play out politically, contrasted with other societies trust. You can even see it play out across various states and regions. Perhaps they’re not mountains imposed by human nature, but our perception of society.

Other nations have socialized healthcare, where anyone can be treated. Other nations have calm safe and clean public transit. Other nation’s redistribute wealth and provide strong safety nets. Other nations don’t have mass violence. Other nations guarantee retirement and pensions. Other nations trust their governments.

The fantasy physics aren’t what’s holding people back.

[darepublic]

> Other nations have socialized healthcare, where anyone can be treated. Other nations have calm safe and clean public transit. Other nation’s redistribute wealth and provide strong safety nets. Other nations don’t have mass violence. Other nations guarantee retirement and pensions. Other nations trust their governments.

I feel like this is very much in flux, and not a constant anywhere. And it's something that is contested over continually. In some places there have been generations of rising quality of life, but not everywhere, all at once.

[robertlagrant]

> the idea of sharing society’s abundance with everyone is clearly possible

It is possible. If we stopped at the invention of fire we'd all have equality by now. The problem is that people keep inventing new stuff.

[vineyardmike]

Why is innovation and sharing mutually exclusive?

[robertlagrant]

They aren't. But for full sharing to occur every time you invented anything you'd have to stop inventing until the population of the world had one.

[vineyardmike]

What? How does that make sense?

Is that genuinely what you think sharing means? Everyone everywhere has everything? Obviously that’s not the case. And even if it was, why can’t independent inventors create thing in the meantime?

Have you heard anyone genuinely espouse this view? Is this what you think socialized healthcare means too? Everyone gets the exact same medical procedure at the same time too?

Just be clear, that’s not even what “communism” is. This feels like a misinformed understanding of “sharing” based on American propaganda. That’s just American propaganda derived from Soviet era rationing. Read the story this thread is about first.

[robertlagrant]

Sorry, I'm not sure if you're replying to someone else - I didn't mention socialised healthcare or communism.

> the idea of sharing society’s abundance with everyone is clearly possible

This is what I was replying to. I'm saying that discovery comes with "inequality" in some sense, because it takes time to distribute and refine processes for making things. Only rich people 100 years ago could afford what would now be classed as the worst cars in the world. Now almost anyone can buy a car, at least in developed nations. But you don't need to think of it as "sharing", but rather as "markets". Goods and services that are worth scaling, and can be scaled, will be.

[vineyardmike]

Sorry, the assumption that sharing somehow precludes variety or innovation just felt inspired by some misunderstanding of communism, which is a very common trope in America.

> I'm saying that discovery comes with "inequality" in some sense, because it takes time to distribute and refine processes for making things.

Again, read the original source. Inequality and discovery isn't in opposition with sharing. Inequality in outcome and opportunities are very different.

All of human society produces enough food, and enough excess wealth, that we could "solve" hunger across the planet if we chose. That wouldn't require everyone eat the same meal, and it wouldn't preclude people going to restaurants or spending money on Michelin-Star meals. This wouldn't even prevent market-driven opportunities for farmers or chefs or distributors. Not everyone in the planet can be entitled to rare fish flown across the world, but for example, America has so much corn we put in our gasoline (and offered plenty of tax credits to do so).