Main Page Contact Register Log In

Sounds like Star Trek's post-scarcity economy. I agree that in that situation, wealth inequality is pointless.

I wouldn't say wealth is pointless. We only have a finite amount of resources, and they have to be distributed somehow. Most people might be fine using a tiny amount of resources, but there are some people who will just build bigger and bigger megaprojects until they've run out of resources. You still need wealth. But when you get to the point where AIs are better than humans at everything, and there's no need for humans to work, there's no point in wealth inequality. You just give everyone the same amount of money, and they have no conceivable way of earning anything beyond that. Although at that point the AIs will probably be smart enough to give people who will appreciate the money more more of it.

It doesn't need to be post-scarcity to make sense. If you are going to crash-land on a deserted island and have a choice of taking a pile of potatoes or a pile of gold it isn't obvoius that gold is the right choice.

In ordfer for the gold to be the rigth choice the islands needs somebody to trade with. But even if the islands has natives if they refuse to trade with you you are almost as good (if not worse off) than if they didn't exist. People are not inherently trade-dependant. If you are like a dozen people deserted on an isloand you don't need a coin economy to organize yourself to make life more comfortable (ie the gold is of no use). Organisational problems start only emerge once the group size is over thousands.
Replies (1)