News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by bitwize on Monday September 10, 2018 @02:31PM (#17953925)
Banks's Culture works in particular because Banks mainly wrote about contact (friendly or otherwise) with non-Culture societies. The general thesis still holds: man is not truly content without conflict and challenge. Hard SF provides a way for utopias to not stagnate and become boring: once humans have secured long life, prosperity, and harmony for themselves, they seek adventure in the big wide universe outside their dominion.

This also applies to conceptions of heaven, the best description of which I found in the movie Defending Your Life, in which the worthy deceased ascend to become "citizens of the universe" and tackle bigger, cosmic challenges with their vastly increased intellect.

Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by arethuza on Monday September 10, 2018 @02:38PM (#17953980)
"The humans of the Culture, having solved all the obvious problems of their shared pasts to be free from hunger, want, disease and the fear of natural disaster and attack, would find it a slightly empty existence only and merely enjoying themselves, and so need the good-works of the Contact section to let them feel vicariously useful."

From A Few Notes on the Culture

Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by RangerScience on Monday September 10, 2018 @03:20PM (#17954329)
> The general thesis still holds: man is not truly content without conflict

This isn't accurate as it applies to the Culture: The vast majority of the Culture does not engage in conflict. It also goes undepicted for the most part; the functioning of that society is hand-waved as a product of the Minds. But, it is also depicted as neither a hedonistic free for all, or a bland, blissful meditation on coexistence.

Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by Someguywhatever on Monday September 10, 2018 @04:05PM (#17954747)
Also Banks culture is run by omniscient AI's, and not by humans, this removes the problem of human corruption, greed etc. I don't think any post scarcity society can exist that is run by humans.
Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by tormeh on Monday September 10, 2018 @06:03PM (#17955603)
I mean, we have enough food for everyone now. We are post scarcity right now with regards to food. Yet people starve. Usually due to war and conflict, not corruption, but still.
Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by Someguywhatever on Tuesday September 11, 2018 @11:10AM (#17960424)
Yes there is enough food in location A but we would have to transport that food to where it is needed. That costs money, there is spoilage etc. Who pays that cost? Obviously only the people with the money to pay it can pay it. So lets say we make people in the west pay (involuntarily) to ship excess food to other places. If you make it voluntary then nobody would pay it, since it is essentially voluntary now and nobody pays it.

All that would happen is those other places would become dependent on the free food we send them, and certain of their domestic industries would be destroyed as they couldn't compete with the cost of free food being dumped into their economy.

Also here domestically excess food would no longer be produced as if you don't produce any excess you don't have to pay the cost of shipping it, or doing anything with it. Everything would become "just in time" or made immediately 1 to 1 with a specific request. So the post scarcity impression we have now would go away pretty fast.

So I don't think we actually are post scarcity with regards to almost anything currently. Efficiency is very high I would say, so high, and we're so productive that we occasionally end up with wasted resources caused by poorly estimating demand.

Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by conanbatt on Monday September 10, 2018 @08:56PM (#17956391)
You still require humans to exert labor in all those steps. Post scarcity would require virtually no labor for them. We are very far away from that
Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by Abekkus on Monday September 10, 2018 @07:06PM (#17955893)
We are post scarcity for food, clothing, and shelter. In our lifetimes, we could easily move education, entertainment, and some definition of basic medicine into a post-scarce realm.

Unfortunately, before any of that happens, security, police, and military will be going post-scarcity, while those in power are pretty selfish.

Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by jp555 on Monday September 10, 2018 @08:23PM (#17956224)
You think modern global society is run by humans? Seems to be mostly algorithms already.
Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by goatlover on Tuesday September 11, 2018 @01:43AM (#17957431)
If the humans disappeared, how long would the algorithms run?
Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by stale2002 on Monday September 10, 2018 @09:09PM (#17956443)
I think that people need to look at the world around them.

Right now, there are tons of goods that are effectively post scarcity.

The amount of free information and entertainment (available online) is insanely higher than anything that existed even 20 years ago.

The post scarcity Utopia is being created right now, by capitalism.

Post scarcity is something that applies on a per good basis. For example nobody has ever had to pay for the air that they breath, because air isnt a scarce good. And post scarcity is being quickly applied to more and more goods.

Re:Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943) by comex on Tuesday September 11, 2018 @12:18AM (#17957139)
> The general thesis still holds: man is not truly content without conflict and challenge.

Well, a reader of fiction is not truly content without conflict and challenge.

But I’m not sure it’s fair to extrapolate from that to a principle about how real societies can operate. After all, fiction always pumps conflict and challenge up to 11 compared to the real world. Pick a popular book or movie at random: what’s the chance that somewhere in its plot, some character tries to murder another character? I’d say pretty high. In real life, the vast majority of people go through their lives without anyone ever trying to kill them, and that’s probably been true for most or all of human history. But that doesn’t make life incurably boring.