HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ ZenoArrow

Here's the thing, we could live like this now, we don't need any new technological advancements to make this possible, yet we haven't and don't.

So if you're waiting for the future to make this altruistic lifestyle mainstream, ask yourself what's holding it back now. It's certainly not a lack of material wealth, we've had that for centuries.

⬐ js8

You see, in the future, we don't work to produce; machines can do that handily. We work to prove to other humans that we are worth enough to get a share of the product.

But isn't that pointless? You could instead just enjoy life doing whatever else you want to do, if the machines already produce everything you need.

Yes. But it is our collective decision, not a decision of any of us. The needs of the society take precedence over the needs of each of us. The only way to reverse the decision is -

- to collectively agree that every one of you wants something else?

Yes. There is an old economic theory predicting that the preferences of the society should eventually reflect individual preferences of its members, at least in the long run. There is still hope that this will happen in the future, but not before I will be long dead, I'm afraid.

⬐ jjaredsimpson

In the future there will exist people who are equally capable as they are today. These people will also possess the same needs and desires that people today possess.

It used to be that each person was responsible for performing tasks that would ensure their survival and the survival of those important to them.

Specialization and division of labor allowed certain people to do productive activities that didn't directly connect to their own survival.

Some people built houses and thatched roofs. Some people became blacksmiths and made tools. Others farmed large plots of land.

Markets in equilibrium allow producers and consumers to exchange goods and services for money and the system as a whole can be said to be more productive.

As some point in time though, machines will advanced such that nearly any productive output a human can undertake would be performed more efficiently by a machine instead. The value of human labor output will be driven to nearly zero.

Where people go wrong is that they ask the question, "If humans make no money how will they buy anything, won't everyone just starve to death?"

The purpose of an economy seems to be to create information in the form of prevailing wages which signal to members what tasks the system values. Once machines are the supermajority of the productive value output and humans are a mere tax on output, we take on a role similar to the ones pets have right now.

If the machines are sentient, then they simply outcompete us and we lose unless they support us with generosity. If the machines are owned and directed, then either the majority of people will decide to ensure some component of the machines output will always be directed to the sustaining of humanity. If a minority owns the machines and resist the taxing of their wealth, then there will be revolution and violence.

⬐ hacker_9

I wish. The truth is the whole world is run on money, meaning the millionaires and billionaires are the ones in charge. It absolutely doesn't have to be this way; we already produce so much food no one need starve. But greed runs deep within humanity, preventing this sort of change from ever happening.

⬐ aiNohY6g

You can make this change happen in your own life. Perhaps not completely, but probably significantly enough to make a big difference. Truth is: the whole world is run on money.... because we're all looking for money. Change your mind, use all the margin you have, promote humanity, and your world starts to change.

⬐ hacker_9

This isn't a small scale change, everyone has to be on board for it to work.

⬐ aiNohY6g

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It can be yours.

⬐ aiNohY6g

(haven't watched it yet) Why should we wait for the future to improve ourselves and humanity? IMHO we should start right now. We should even have started a long time ago.

⬐ hacker_9

Mainly because the ones in power want to stay in power, and actively stop change. We are safer than ever, yet according to the media we are super lucky to not be killed by a terrorist every second of the day.

⬐ aiNohY6g

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitu...

The essay argues that any tyrant remains in power until his subjects grant him that, therefore delegitimizing every form of power. The original freedom of men would be indeed abandoned by society which, once corrupted by the habit, would have preferred the servitude of the courtier to the freedom of the free man, who refuses to be submissive and to obey.

⬐ Pica_soO

Well at least we have Swedish furniture. Take the wall-alcove Borg for example. Visit the next Ikea-Kubus near you.

Transhumanism had a Backdoor.

⬐ UK-AL

The money is just tool to achieve your goals.

You don't need to get rid of it to acheive your personal goals.

⬐ jjaredsimpson

Money isn't a tool. Tool have uses and multiply productivity of their users. Money is, among other things, a representative of value.

⬐ UK-AL

Money does have multiple uses and multiplies productivity if correctly used

⬐ blakeyrat

Ok; I want to improve myself by moving into a big house on the shore of Lake Washington.

Oh. It takes money to do that? Well shoot.

EDIT: to actually respond to the video clip, it's kind of surprising how interesting Star Trek got when they threw out some of Roddenberry's ideas during the Deep Space 9 era. The Starfleet people co-existed with the Ferengi and Bajorans who didn't have post-scarcity economies. The Bajorans were also highly religious. Starfleet had a shadowy spy organization willing to assassinate foreign leaders. A Starfleet Captain becomes a traitor to Earth-- twice!

And yet despite that, Deep Space 9 is one of the most beloved Star Trek series.

Related to the clip above:

(Quark is selling an auction of a 1950s baseball card Jake wants. Jake's convincing Nog, a Ferengi, to help him.)

Nog: "It's my money, Jake! If you want to bid at the auction, use your own money."

Jake: "I'm Human, I don't have any money."

Nog: "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement."

Jake: "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity."

Nog: "What does that mean exactly?"

Jake: "It means... it means we don't need money!"

Nog: "Well, if you don't need money, then you certainly don't need mine!"

⬐ hacker_9

I don't think anyone is saying you suddenly don't need money, because in our current society you absolutely do. But it is possible to imagine one without it, once we get over a certain threshold of technology.

⬐ stenecdote

Off-topic: @hacker_9 just saw one of your recent comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13267106) and you seem to be thinking along similar lines to me and akkartik (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=akkartik). You can read more about our work here (http://akkartik.name/about). Would love to hear any thoughts you have!

⬐ hacker_9

Looks interesting, good luck with it. I don't have anything much concrete to add to what I last said, but I do think visual programming is still an unexplored space. I feel like the flowchart stuff is maybe thinking about the problem the wrong way round, putting code in nicely coloured boxes seems a bit redundant.

⬐ blakeyrat

What threshold is going to make prime real estate lots around Lake Washington not scarce?

Asking seriously. Because I have a lot of imagination and I can't come up with anything. Except perhaps we all plug into VR 24/7 like The Matrix. But even in my fake Matrix VR house, I'd envy the guy with the real thing.

⬐ bkirkby

you may envy the guy with the "real thing," but future generations likely won't. if you have fully immersive virtual reality environments, then it won't matter where you live.

as someone who has done a recent job search, i knew i couldn't afford to live in the bay area with my large family, but half og the companies i interviewed with were in the bay area allowing me to work remotely. the technology and kind of work we do (software engineering) is getting good enough to broaden the reach of "the office."

if we had just fully integrated audio and visual environments, for work collaboration, i could see many people choosing to live at the lakeside in montana and work in seattle rather than having to live on Lake Washington.

⬐ canadian_voter

> What threshold is going to make prime real estate lots around Lake Washington not scarce?

Warp drive? A thousand habitable planets that make Earth look like dusty, irradiated backwater? An vast frontier to explore, filled with endless new challenges and experiences?

⬐ hacker_9

Like I replied to your other comment; portable housing that can move on demand. AI bots that rewire water pipes and electricity etc. It could be a regular event to re-landscape whole cities and towns.

⬐ slifin

  if $your_vr_house == $his_real_house
    & you are envious then you are the problem in the equation

Which is why "work to improve ourselves" is important

⬐ None

None

⬐ None

None

⬐ ZenoArrow

How does moving to a big house improve you?

⬐ blakeyrat

It would certainly give me a much quieter environment to work in, with a far better view. Also would do a ton to help me attract a girlfriend.

But you're right, it's not all the way there yet: I also need to hire someone to do the basic maintenance and cleaning. Or perhaps a robot. But either option takes money.

⬐ ZenoArrow

Money is a sedative. It improves life to a certain point, but past that point it's less effective. There's also the effects that chasing wealth has on your psyche, where accumulation of wealth requires fiscal discipline, and the more money you get the more reluctant you become to spend it, and you're driven towards the accumulation of even more wealth.

Perhaps you don't believe me. If so, how do you think the cultural meme of the unhappy rich person came about? What is it about the lifestyles of the rich that would get in the way of living life to the full?

⬐ blakeyrat

Well then why don't you give me all of yours. Imagine the good I'd be doing you.

⬐ ZenoArrow

Learn to read. I said it helps up to a certain point, I'm not rich enough to have a home of my own. Plus, I do occasionally give away money when to help those I wish to.

⬐ rublev

How doesn't it? I'm living in an apartment right now bordering a psycho neighbour and it's mentally ruining me. I can only dream of having my own quiet space again. Simply having the mental freedom to think about what you want, not 'juggling' thoughts about managing your lifestyle around other peoples lives.

If you are well slept and content, then arguably everything you undertake will be the 'improved' version.

⬐ aiNohY6g

What's the "self" in improving yourself? You as a human being (humanity)? Or your human condition (comfort)?

⬐ ZenoArrow

Let's put this another way. I agree that having to deal with negative people is draining. However, does fixing that require a big house? From what I know you don't need a lot of money (by Western standards) to find somewhere else you prefer to live. What's holding you back from living somewhere new (whether that's a new country or somewhere with fewer problems in your current country)?

⬐ CuriouslyC

The surprise twist to that story, is that after living in a nice house for a while you no longer notice it. If you have to sacrifice something else you do notice for the money to live in a nice place, you're caught in the trap.

⬐ canadian_voter

"When you positively leave a house and enter into another house your positive action ceases to be positive action at all because you have abandoned one power structure for another, which you will again have to leave. So this constant repetition, which appears to be a positive action, is really inaction. But if you reject the desire and the search for all inward security, then it is a total negation which is a most positive action. It is this action only which transforms man. If you reject hate and envy, in every form, you are rejecting the whole structure of what man has created in himself and outside himself. It is very simple. One problem is related to every other problem." -- Krishnamurti (from Freedom, Love and Action)

The main problems that STNG deals with are ethical, philosophical and spiritual, not technological or economical.

Just as there is "technobabble" about space-time continuums and positronic brains, there is also a bit of hand waving about the specifics of how the economy functions.

Just as it's silly to worry about whether they're calibrating the plasma manifolds correctly, it is missing the point to think that STNG is going to deliver actionable economic advice.

⬐ PoarNeemn

I care about myself, not about humanity as a whole.

⬐ flareback

It's a nice theory but doesn't solve the problem of supply and demand. If there are 7 billion people on earth that all want a widget, how does this economic philosophy handle the fact that the manufacturing capability can only produce enough widgets for 1 billion people. Who decides which billion people get the widget?

⬐ canadian_voter

Well, for a start, it's a post-scarcity society that has the capacity to produce 7 billion widgets if necessary. So that gets you around a lot of problems.

You'll notice that the crew quarters in the show are decorated in a minimalist style. The only objects people keep are the ones that are important to them. Tools, games, gifts can be conjured as needed and recycled when you're done with them.

Scarce resources do exist, however, especially on a starship: crew quarters are probably not all of the same size, for example. Some people might have to walk a little further to the turbolift (elevator). These sorts of resource allocation problems are likely solved by either a lottery method or based on need. For example, if the Captain gets bigger quarters, it's not because she's the captain, it's because she might need the space to host visiting delegates, etc.

Although I suppose there are still some material inequalities based on rank. For example, ensigns get a single rank pip, while a captain gets four.

⬐ flareback

Until we learn how to create something out of nothing, there will be no post-scarcity world.

⬐ blakeyrat

A post-scarcity economy is never going to be able to create more lake-front properties or more seats at the top pop star's front-row. (Although I suppose you could argue: VR. But I doubt people even 100 years from now will agree VR is just as good as the real thing.)

When you think about it, there's a lot of stuff that'll still be scarce even when we have magic robots that can build everything instantly.

⬐ dragonwriter

> A post-scarcity economy is never going to be able to create more lake-front properties or more seats at the top pop star's front-row.

By the definition of economic scarcity it will be required to in order to merit the name. However, that illustrates that a post-scarcity society will never exist (or at least is vastly farther off than some people imagine), which is the more critical point.

⬐ Pica_soO

If you want to keep capitalism in a post-scarcity society- all you need to do is counter the exponential production with exponential consumption- breed tribble-human hybrids.

⬐ dragonwriter

That's actually not keeping capitalism in a post-scarcity society, since the proposal relies on having existing (and artificially enhancing the existing) scarcity.

If anything that anyone wants is limited such that enhancing one person's realized utility is a trade-off with someone else's realized utility, you don't have a post-scarcity situation.

Which is why post-scarcity isn't really something we are ever likely to need to worry about.

What we need to worry about is a scenario with scarcity where large masses of the public are (some in a static way, and some in a transitional way that, with optimal policy, could resolve given time), through arrangement of capital and the relative utility of automation vs. labor (including when it comes to producing additional automated production units) unable to contribute significantly to output, and thus have nothing to sell in the marketplace.

⬐ canadian_voter

Not everyone can get what they want, but certainly everyone gets what they need. Everyone living in mansions? Nope. But is anybody homeless? Nope. It's a trade-off.

Many sought-after things are scarce. Starship commissions are scarce. They require hard work and are assigned based on merit. Not just anyone gets the opportunity to explore the edge of space; it takes dedication and sacrifice.

The show is certainly influence by the philosophy of Stoicism[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

⬐ hacker_9

I would think that in such a society, people would upload blueprints for how to create things, which you could then send to your local manufacturing plant to get built. Some sort of advanced 3d printer could even see these sorts of things widespread.

Additionally it would be 100% recyclable, with the idea that you would 'give back to the earth' when you were done with it (materialism would be a thing of the past).

⬐ flareback

It doesn't matter how it gets created if there is only the manufacturing capability to produce x amount yet more than x number of people want it? Maybe there isn't the raw materials to produce it, perhaps it takes too long to produce. Maybe it's that we all want our own spaceship and don't want to be under the command of Captain Picard. Maybe it's something even more limited like a house exactly on the north pole. Without money, who decides who gets to live exactly on the north pole?

⬐ hacker_9

Perhaps with a VR setup like The Matrix, we could all have what we want all the time. Within the society of the world though, there are rules and hard limits so we can all live together peacefully. Besides everyone having their own stuff is what caused many of our problems in the first place, but this is a very hard mindset to get out of (survival instinct being the root cause of it, meaning it's biologically hardcoded behaviour).

⬐ blakeyrat

Ok I want lake-front property with a view of Mount Rainier. What address do I send my blueprint to?

Oh wait.

I'll never understand why people who promote this "magical robots solve everything" view ignore the simple examples that robots, no matter how sophisticated, cannot fix. For example, scarcity of prime real estate.

⬐ hacker_9

One of the main problems with housing is it is stuck in place, which gives rise to lots of problems:

1. you have to build round existing structures

2. if the sea level rises, there is nothing you can do

3. small roads can't be widened to accommodate heavier traffic and so on.

In the future the concept of a fixed house would be bizarre, with everything being able to be made portable. It would be normal to have giant shifts in house placement and rewiring of pipes and electricity via AI bots, in order to accommodate change.

⬐ marcosdumay

> In the future the concept of a fixed house would be bizarre, with everything being able to be made portable.

People have been predicting this for some 200 years. It's older than flying cars.

⬐ blakeyrat

Ok so it's the future and the magical robots can easily move houses.

Why would the guy with the beautiful lake front property move his house? Why would he make his lot smaller to let other people live closer to him? What's his incentive?

Being able to easily move a house doesn't do anything to make lake front property less scarce.

If your answer is: "the government would force him", then that sounds more like a dystopia than a utopia.

⬐ ZenoArrow

Do they have to own said widget, or do they merely require use of said widget?

⬐ flareback

irrelevant. Only 1 billion people can have it and 7 billion want it.

⬐ ZenoArrow

It is relevant. Imagine everyone wants to use a car. Is everyone going to be using a car at every point during the day? No.

Shared ownership allows you to drastically reduce the number of items that need to be produced. Look around you at the things in your house. How many of those things do you use on a regular basis, and how many things are under utilised for most of the time. Shared ownership means you get access to a much wider range of items whilst reducing the cost of ownership.

⬐ CuriouslyC

The truth is, we have the means now to provide food, medicine and power to the entire world easily. People actually need those things. People don't need widgets, and they've lived meaningful lives for millenia without them. It's only through the deceit of advertising that you think they are necessary. They're nice, but you adapt fairly quickly to life without them.

⬐ golergka

So, you're going to tell people what they actually need and what they don't? From each by his ability, to each by his needs?

This have already been tried you know. Didn't work. At all.

⬐ UK-AL

Widget could mean anything. So yes people need widgets. It could be a capital good used for farming.

⬐ aiNohY6g

Even if you optimize the supply/demand problem, you just can't rule a finite world with infinite desires. At some point, there are things you need to give up. The question is: which things, and when?

⬐ flareback

exactly. Money helps solve this problem.

⬐ aiNohY6g

This problem = boundless desires. Money is just some kind of palliative care, not a cure.

⬐ None

None

⬐ UK-AL

Money easily allows you trade-off various needs and desires, and focus on the ones you really want.

⬐ aiNohY6g

If you need money to prioritize your desires, money is just a workaround for your lack of judgment. If you go this way: the things you really want are the ones that probably a lot of people want too. Then enters the offer/demand relation, and the price you have to pay for it is consequently not connected anymore with its cost. In the end, you pay much more.

I do agree we we need to think at the individual level first. I means we have to think out of social/collective convention during this first step. Money is one of it. Desire is not. Let's start with desire, then figure out what we can do with money?

⬐ icebraining

If you need money to prioritize your desires

No, one needs money to prioritize one's desires relative to the availability of resources. Two persons might have the same order of preferences (A > B > C), but one person might rather have (A) alone, while the other prefers to have (B, C). By having an universal credits system, the two can bid on stuff and come out with a good compromise.

So many tech firms these days seem to satisfy some tiny facet of a group's demands to have/do stuff. The bigger the group's economic footprint the more the opportunity for business. But it seems to rely on "hierarchies" of social, economic status. But, basically if you have money you can avail a vast majority of today's tech firm's "products".

Sad part is that as far as I could read economies promoting this kind of behavior are the only ones doing well, yet even here(in the US) it seems things have worked out at best "average" for a vast majority of people. The ones that actually tried to do better for everyone failed spectacularly(read collectivism and socialism).

I always wondered why truly bettering ones self in every way(health, furthering ones own knowledge, exploration, helping others) are goals available only to the select few and not made available to more people more easily? Why are economic efforts geared towards these dwarf in front of more consumerist ones? Why do economics and behavior align in a way that makes it impossible to do better than a narrow predefined narrative someone set for me(or go through immense pain to achieve the one I want)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilY4hRgfC2Q For example, I was looking at the simple task of affording a house with wife and kids and the only narrative available to have all this are "Zipcode", "School Districts" and "Zoning laws" which puts me in debt for life to get a decent thing choice for those options.

Why do smaller economies seem to do better than larger ones(like in europe). It always seems to me that the bigger the group of people that try to align towards a common goal(be it insurance premiums or world peace) the harder it becomes. Why is this so?

And yet, in the end, by and far large my experience of living in 3 vastly varied countries in the last 20 or so years still makes US a better place to be. But things could be a bit easier/simple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJRcDHKrSqw

⬐ linkregister

I'm interested in your resources but I don't want to make the time investment of watching the Youtube videos you linked. Can you give a short synopsis of them?