Post Scarcity Economies?

[rdubwiley]

[Ravajava]

1. Nice as always

I just wonder if an economy without energy scarcity is possible in a capitalist system. I think energy companies will do a lot in the name of self preservation that may keep this from happening.

[rdubwiley]

2. Well

I don't think it's truly possible, as you'd expect we would still need an energy company to provide us energy. However, as this energy becomes cheaper, you'd expect more competition in the energy market.

So, the cost of energy would not be zero, but be close to the cost of getting the energy to you.

[Ravajava]

5. Exactly

I just think we'll be using fossil fuels a lot longer then we need to.

[rdubwiley]

6. Yeah

The problem with fossil fuels is that there's an externality, so people aren't paying for destroying the planet. Hopefully we develop alternative fuels so we don't kill ourselves.

[AustinSanders]

3. Interesting

Maybe I should start styling my hair like his. Lol

[rdubwiley]

4. Lol

It's just hair gel.

[cprise]

7. I think that assumption is bizarrely out of touch.

Scarcity is decreasing?

If anything, solar energy places limits on the quantities and times we can consume energy. Not necessarily a bad thing, IMHO. But definitely not a recipe for reducing scarcity-- unless you think solar should only be added to sources like coal instead of replacing them.

The true bright side of solar is that it shifts real power from the hands of a few into the hands of many; It makes power more diffuse and democratic instead of ultra-concentrated and oligarchic the way it is still is today.

The "post-scarcity" theme is out of place here, along with exhortations about a cushy capitalist future (as if we were about to experience a repeat of the mid-late 20th century's prosperity). Its been amply and repeatedly demonstrated over the past 5 years that competition is mainly reserved for middle and lower classes while the upper class are propped up and considered "too big to fail". So you can stick a fork in capitalism, 'cause its done... that is not the kind of society we live in anymore.

[rdubwiley]

8. I don't know about that

The trend of history has been toward more prosperity for all. Maybe things will change, but I don't know that things are going to be worse.

[cprise]

9. We expanded into new physical frontiers

That added prosperity has been built upon 3 new continents being discovered, plus the dawn of modern science and the resulting boom in engineering (the kind that relied on externalizing its wastes... i.e. polluting).

But that is over... where are we going to go? Your answer: Use solar.

Capitalist history synopsis:

1. First they struggle in the shadows of the feudal system, eking out business at the margins. The power source is solar (mainly plants).

2. Then they get hold of coal and find ways to mechanize that power

3. More coal, enough for capitalists to grow and become the benchmark for credibility

4. Yet more coal... they overturn feudal rule

5. Add coal's cousins, oil and gas... the revolution in mobility sparks global conflict then consumerism -- BBC docu.

6. Rinse & repeat, ad infinitum

People espousing the growth mantra ought to take a step back and reevaluate what they have been brought up to regard as a good and healthy system. As far as I can tell, capitalists are fossil fuel junkies who dream about nuclear setting them free (much as heroin was hailed as a cure for opium addiction a century ago); This contributes to making them ruthless in getting what they want... its an addiction to concentrated power.

In any case, the fuel fixation that created their success (and which should be almost synonymous with capitalist identity) is not sustainable. Not even in the mid-term. The easy acquisition of new land and breakthrough discoveries abated long ago.

IMO, solar fits into the oligarchy (or 'too big to fail capitalism') the way coal and oil fit into feudal society -- it doesn't.