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?
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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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 -<p>- to collectively agree that every one of you wants something else?<p>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.
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.
(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.
Ok; I want to improve myself by moving into a big house on the shore of Lake Washington.<p>Oh. It takes money to do that? Well shoot.<p>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 <i>didn't</i> 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!<p>And yet despite that, Deep Space 9 is one of the most beloved Star Trek series.<p>Related to the clip above:<p>(Quark is selling an auction of a 1950s baseball card Jake wants. Jake's convincing Nog, a Ferengi, to help him.)<p>Nog: "It's my money, Jake! If you want to bid at the auction, use your own money."<p>Jake: "I'm Human, I don't have any money."<p>Nog: "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement."<p>Jake: "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity."<p>Nog: "What does that mean exactly?"<p>Jake: "It means... it means we don't need money!"<p>Nog: "Well, if you don't need money, then you certainly don't need mine!"