Reading the article it’s pretty clear that this isn’t what we’re talking about. There are bunches of other words that add context.
Yeah…the headline connects to the article just fine, but for those who just read the headline there are a couple of different ways to read it depending on your mood and predisposition.
I think we’re all in agreement that it’s on the impractical extreme of the analog scale, but are also aware that there are plenty of people who do fine with very little ownership (in fact, it’s the de facto standard in many situations, like the military).
It’s also definitely something that’s people-specific and not for everyone (just like everything). Some people would give up a lot of personal ownership for free access to makerspaces and such. Others can’t imagine not having tons of personal stuff that’s THEIRS.
In some warehouses, yes. In other warehouses, they use robots from that robotics company that they bought (and then canceled all the contracts with its other customers) and substantially reduce the number of necessary humans. And they’re working on automating more warehouses this way all the time.
It really depends on what I’m subscribing to. I’ll happily pay $10/month for access to a massive library of music – the price of a CD to listen to anything I want? No problem.
But $50/month to subscribe to access to Adobe CC, instead of owning a copy of Photoshop? Never.
The whole thing strongly reminded me of this bit from Aristophanes’ play Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι:
[quote]Praxagora: I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common; there will no longer be either rich or poor; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all.
Blepyrus: But who will till the soil?
Praxagora: The slaves.[/quote]
Like most futurism and transhumanism, it’s a fantasy for the privileged. A grotesquely wasteful pseudo-utopia that, outside of a post-scarcity society, is only possible if it’s extracted from the lives of the poor. And anyone who thinks that we’re going post-scarcity within thirty years is just plain daft.
Post-Scarcity’s kind of a silly term. It’s another case of analog being turned binary.
We’re already ‘post scarcity’ when it comes to the basics (Food, housing, clothing, etc.). We just have a resource distribution issue there.
Meanwhile, we’ll NEVER be even vaguely post scarcity for things like healthcare because it will always have an unlimited demand.
We’re certainly at the point where a large enough group can own their entire supply chain, and we’re at the point where that group could easily have a universal above-typical-western lifestyle.
That’s not ‘post scarcity’ or ‘Utopian’ though, that’s just solid nuts and bolts. Even then though, most people will want a few physical treasures that are precious to them.
That’s an aspect of humanity that I honestly don’t feel the need to fight. I’d rather embrace it and have better, higher quality treasures… less disposable crap.
Joe’s Pizza and Spaghetti House in Northampton, and Pizzeria Paradiso, also in Northampton are worth a visit if you make it out to the western end of the state.
Post-scarcity doesn’t mean “we have enough for everyone to meet their basic needs”. It means “we have so much that it doesn’t matter how much we waste”. Iain Banks rather than Karl Marx.
Which is what the sort of hyper-disposable on-demand home-delivery economy proposed in the OP requires. It isn’t only economically implausible, it’d be environmentally catastrophic unless it was accompanied by magic pixie dust levels of clean energy production and recycling efficiency.
The day’ll come when all little things’ll be throwed away after one use, and all big things’ll be rented. Nobody’ll own anything. Then we and the Russians kin shake hands.
