[nradov]

We will never have a post scarcity society. Automation can make certain foodstuffs and manufactured goods somewhat cheaper but the things that people really want will always be in short supply, for example real estate in geographically favorable areas.

[lll-o-lll]

With a stable population, post scarcity is surely possible technically. Just invest resource into improving everything that already exists.

I also agree that we will never have a post scarcity society; but this is more about humanity than technology.

[parineum]

There will always be scarcity for goods whose value is derived from their scarcity.

Maybe food won't be scarce (we wre actually very close to that) and shelter may not be scarce but, even if you invent the replicator, there will still be things that are bespoke.

[exe34]

there are levels of post scarcity. if food, shelter, medicine and leisure are available to all for almost no toil, then we're in post-scarcity. You'll (probably) never have your own planet. You might never be able to convince a certain artist to produce something for you personally.

[alanbernstein]

I have never understood "post scarcity" to mean the end of ALL scarcity, which is essentially impossible by definition.

Relative to 500 years ago, we have already nearly achieved post-scarcity for a few types of items, like basic clothing.

It seems this is yet another concept for which we need to adjust our understanding from binary to a spectrum, as we find our society advancing along the spectrum, in at least some aspects.

[nasmorn]

Also for basic food. You can get all the rice and beans you really need for basically no money. That means actual starvation is nowadays a political not a resource issue

[aswegs8]

But what is scarce now, really? We are just moving up Maslow's hierarchy and strive for more abstract concepts like power, self-actualization or recognition. How would AI provide those to us? Our self-image is linked to other's perception of us. It feels like we would have to radically re-think what it means to be human. As someone above wrote, we need to overcome equating existence with toil, however, it seems so ingrained into human nature to compete that we might all have to hop on antidepressants at some point.

[boredhedgehog]

When the celibate classes have been able to sublimate what is arguably the strongest of all wants for as long as they have, I doubt there is any desire that could not be redirected with similar techniques.

[nine_k]

This assumes that the celibate was actually maintained, not pretended and secretly violated. There is plenty of evidence that those who were intended to preserve celibate in medieval times actually did not.

[nradov]

Lol buddy if you really believe there are any "celibate classes" then you've fallen for the oldest con in the world.

[addaon]

Such cynicism! I’m proudly celibate, like my father before me, and my grandfather before him!

[hgomersall]

Indeed, scarcity will be artificially created if it's not naturally present. The human need to have something that others do not is strong.

[variadix]

You’re not imagining what post scarcity can really look like. If you have abundant energy, automation, etc. you could manipulate geography and climate, you could build artificial land mass, and so on. It really depends on what people mean by post scarcity.

[GauntletWizard]

We can automate plenty in physiological needs, and in fact have already. There's plenty of food and housing for everyone to have them, but a bunch of people will immediately destroy them if provided with such. I don't think "Dispose of a full house every 3 months" will ever be practical, but we might be able to "solve" physiological needs.

Safety needs might be possible to solve. Totalitarian states with ubiquitous panopticons can leave you "safe" in a crime sense, and AI gaslighting and happy pills will make you "feel" safe.

Love and belonging we have "Plenty" of already - If you're looking for your people, you can find them. Plenty aren't willing to look.

But once you get up to Esteem, it all falls apart. Reputation and Respect are not scalable. There will always be a limited quantity of being "The Best" at anything, and many are not willing to be "The Best" within tight constraints; There's always competition. You can plausibly say that this category is inherently competitive. There's no respect without disrespect. There's no best if there's no second best, and second best is first loser. So long as humans interact with each other - So long as we're not each locked in our own private shards of reality - There will be competition, and there will be those that fall short.

Self Actualization is almost irrelevant at this point. It falls into exactly the same as the above. You can simulate a reality where someone is always the best at whatever they decide to so, but I think it will inherently feel hollow. Agent Smith said it best: https://youtu.be/9Qs3GlNZMhY?t=23

[vladms]

> There will always be a limited quantity of being "The Best" at anything

Still, to pick a simple example, we do have different sports at which different people are "The Best". One solution would be to multiple the categories, which I feel is already happening to some extent with all the computer games or niche artistical trends.

And I would claim that very few people are "The Best", it's mostly about not being "the worst" at everything you are involved in.

[GauntletWizard]

You would think, but you've never seen drama like single-speedrunner games. They know they're unfulfilled and kings of a molehill, and as soon as there's the slightest competition - a single other "run" from someone who bothers with a little practice - there's a blowup. Super-niche-ing is not the solution you think it is.