Quote from: jhkim on May 02, 2023, 02:53:14 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 02:00:39 PM

Quote from: estar on May 02, 2023, 01:37:12 PM
That is not how it works. As far as physical goods go everything is replicated on demand from basic materials for leisure and living. The only scarcity are people's time and specific locations for use for work, play, or living.

So one could do NOTHING productive or of value to society and still be able to live comfortably, on the work and effort of those who DO work... That's called slavery. Unless you do have to work, in which case it's the company store.

How I portrayed post-scarcity economies in my Star Trek games, in theory everyone could do nothing productive, and everyone could still live comfortably -- because automation is sufficient to handle all tasks including maintenance. There are no menial tasks that are necessary for society to function.

Relevant for the game -- it was part of the Star Fleet mindset that it was easily possible to fully automate starships so that they could run with almost no people except the commander. However, the mindset of officers is that they preferred to go and do things by hand where practical.

Allowed a life of luxury, most people prefer being productive. They got satisfaction from it, and they were rewarded for their efforts in prestige, perks, and gifts.

So AI/Automation is your magic...

Now please tell me, if no one decided to go fight the bad guys what would the federation do? Conscript people by force? Use AI/Robot manned starships?

I'm guessing majority of the federation population is overweight drug addicts right? I mean what else is there to do?

"Allowed a life of luxury, most people prefer being productive. They got satisfaction from it, and they were rewarded for their efforts in prestige, perks, and gifts." The experiment of UBI made in Europe (don't remember the country) proves this false, allowed a life on no effort most people will do jack shit.

If you get off by imagining a socialist utopia more power to you, I'm just raining on the parade of "it's possible!", no it isn't.

Post-scarcity is really interesting to me.  It's handled thoughtlessly often, writers tend to just toss up their hands instead of really burrowing down into the implications.  If post-scarcity is "today, but we all have replicators", then items are basically valueless on a materials basis, but someone still had to design a prototype, and labor and land are still both things to consider.  You can't just wander over and beam a new house onto the middle of the street and call it good; the neighbors would doubtless become ornery about the street being blocked.  In that sort of post-scarcity, I don't believe we'd abandon currency and commerce, it would just shift to cover new bases of the skilled labor to engineer the products that people replicate, and manual labor needed to handle larger productions.  You'd need to pay to license products you replicated, or go with open-source stuff. 

A post-scarcity setup like Iain Banks's Culture series where people literally don't have to do a thing basically has AIs running everything and the humans are essentially their pets, much like the portrayal of humans in Wall-E.  If humanity can sit around getting high with their blowjob robots 24/7, then humanity is no longer an active participant in the machinery of their society.  They're still present, but really have no bearing on anything.  Humans choosing to "work" in such a setup probably aren't actually contributing anything of real value, as the automated systems are doubtless far more efficient at doing things.  Imagine your cat trying to help you with your day job.  Probably adorable, but doubtful that it's actually making much difference.

Some middle-ground things I've seen that seemed feasible to me are setups where mass-produced items are free to all and not held in great esteem, while custom hand-crafted things have value.  So you can get yourself a pile of Wal-Mart-tier t-shirts no problem, but a hand-sewn shirt is hard to come by if you aren't buddies with a good tailor.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 03:07:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 02, 2023, 02:53:14 PM
Allowed a life of luxury, most people prefer being productive. They got satisfaction from it, and they were rewarded for their efforts in prestige, perks, and gifts.

The experiment of UBI made in Europe (don't remember the country) proves this false, allowed a life on no effort most people will do jack shit.

For centuries, there have been a significant number of people who inherit enough money to live comfortably for their whole lives without doing anything. As I would generalize it, plenty of them don't do much -- they're wastrels like the parody Bertie Wooster. However, many of them do try to make a difference. Historically, some have even joined the military and risked their lives. They may work much less hours than those who are poor, but most do at least some productive work, although it is likely to be writing or gardening or such rather than vital jobs.

I think there's a big issue of culture and upbringing. If someone has worked hard for money for forty years and then wins the lottery, they're liable to retire early. Still, a significant percentage of people who win a big lottery still work - sometimes starting their own business or doing volunteer work, and some even staying at their regular jobs.

Inherited wealth and lottery winning seems like a better parallel for post-scarcity than a temporary UBI experiment in a country. Though I'd be interested in seeing what experiment you're thinking of.

-----

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 03:07:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 02, 2023, 02:53:14 PM
How I portrayed post-scarcity economies in my Star Trek games, in theory everyone could do nothing productive, and everyone could still live comfortably -- because automation is sufficient to handle all tasks including maintenance. There are no menial tasks that are necessary for society to function.

Relevant for the game -- it was part of the Star Fleet mindset that it was easily possible to fully automate starships so that they could run with almost no people except the commander. However, the mindset of officers is that they preferred to go and do things by hand where practical.

Allowed a life of luxury, most people prefer being productive. They got satisfaction from it, and they were rewarded for their efforts in prestige, perks, and gifts.

So AI/Automation is your magic...

Now please tell me, if no one decided to go fight the bad guys what would the federation do? Conscript people by force? Use AI/Robot manned starships?

I'm guessing majority of the federation population is overweight drug addicts right? I mean what else is there to do?

Are you calling automation a crazy premise for a far future like Star Trek?? Having a far-future economy over hundreds of worlds and alien species work exactly the same as present-day economy would be silly.

So yes, automation plays a big role. Star Trek war isn't like ground combat where one chews through thousands of bodies with bullets. It's fought with huge ships built largely by automated assembly.

Taking the example of inherited wealthy and lottery winners... Only a small percentage of them join the military, but they do. Star Fleet has a ridiculously tiny number of people given dozens to hundreds of worlds it represents. In the original series, there were only 12 capital ships like the Enterprise (with about 400 personnel each), plus maybe a few hundred smaller ships. In the Next Generation era, it had a few thousand ships but also many more worlds. That's a few hundred people from each world.

Quote from: jhkim on May 02, 2023, 04:30:29 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 03:07:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 02, 2023, 02:53:14 PM
Allowed a life of luxury, most people prefer being productive. They got satisfaction from it, and they were rewarded for their efforts in prestige, perks, and gifts.

The experiment of UBI made in Europe (don't remember the country) proves this false, allowed a life on no effort most people will do jack shit.

For centuries, there have been a significant number of people who inherit enough money to live comfortably for their whole lives without doing anything. As I would generalize it, plenty of them don't do much -- they're wastrels like the parody Bertie Wooster. However, many of them do try to make a difference. Historically, some have even joined the military and risked their lives. They may work much less hours than those who are poor, but most do at least some productive work, although it is likely to be writing or gardening or such rather than vital jobs.

I think there's a big issue of culture and upbringing. If someone has worked hard for money for forty years and then wins the lottery, they're liable to retire early. Still, a significant percentage of people who win a big lottery still work - sometimes starting their own business or doing volunteer work, and some even staying at their regular jobs.

Inherited wealth and lottery winning seems like a better parallel for post-scarcity than a temporary UBI experiment in a country. Though I'd be interested in seeing what experiment you're thinking of.

-----

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 03:07:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 02, 2023, 02:53:14 PM
How I portrayed post-scarcity economies in my Star Trek games, in theory everyone could do nothing productive, and everyone could still live comfortably -- because automation is sufficient to handle all tasks including maintenance. There are no menial tasks that are necessary for society to function.

Relevant for the game -- it was part of the Star Fleet mindset that it was easily possible to fully automate starships so that they could run with almost no people except the commander. However, the mindset of officers is that they preferred to go and do things by hand where practical.

Allowed a life of luxury, most people prefer being productive. They got satisfaction from it, and they were rewarded for their efforts in prestige, perks, and gifts.

So AI/Automation is your magic...

Now please tell me, if no one decided to go fight the bad guys what would the federation do? Conscript people by force? Use AI/Robot manned starships?

I'm guessing majority of the federation population is overweight drug addicts right? I mean what else is there to do?

Are you calling automation a crazy premise for a far future like Star Trek?? Having a far-future economy over hundreds of worlds and alien species work exactly the same as present-day economy would be silly.

So yes, automation plays a big role. Star Trek war isn't like ground combat where one chews through thousands of bodies with bullets. It's fought with huge ships built largely by automated assembly.

Taking the example of inherited wealthy and lottery winners... Only a small percentage of them join the military, but they do. Star Fleet has a ridiculously tiny number of people given dozens to hundreds of worlds it represents. In the original series, there were only 12 capital ships like the Enterprise (with about 400 personnel each), plus maybe a few hundred smaller ships. In the Next Generation era, it had a few thousand ships but also many more worlds. That's a few hundred people from each world.

Inherited wealth and lottery winning: Guess you don't know how fast they get poor again, inherited wealth tends to last about 3 generations, lottery winnings not even a lifetime.

No, AI/Automation isn't a fantasy, what's a fantasy is the fallout of humans not being needed to produce things anymore, you think it leads to utopia (because you're a leftist so you don't understand human nature), I think it doesn't.

Yes, ships, I asked who makes war to the barbarians at the gates?

When a culture becomes indulgent and decadent (the only possible outcome of humans that do not need to work) there's always a virile culture that comes a knocking and conquers the decadent fucks.

If you're going to play Sci-Fi you should have a little of science in it, which includes evolutionary psychology and some understanding of history.

Valatar's examples are a much better interpretation/take, because they don't need a new type of human replacing the previous ones with people without vices or that choose not to get high 24/7 while their gynoid gives them a BJ. The only way to prevent this is to have a totalitarian state with an ever looking eye on it's citizens 24/7, must be why leftists love to imagine such a world, they (correctly) imagine the federation forcing people to exercise and not do drugs and indulge on all their vices.

Not to mention that when dealing with "primitive" cultures the federation has to resort to the much more advanced bartering system... They have progressed back several thousand years...

On the other hand the libertarian Starship Troopers is wrongly characterized as fascist.

Must be why I have played SW and Troopers but never Star Trek. I can't find people to play it with some degree of believability.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 05:22:04 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 02, 2023, 04:30:29 PM
For centuries, there have been a significant number of people who inherit enough money to live comfortably for their whole lives without doing anything. As I would generalize it, plenty of them don't do much -- they're wastrels like the parody Bertie Wooster. However, many of them do try to make a difference. Historically, some have even joined the military and risked their lives. They may work much less hours than those who are poor, but most do at least some productive work, although it is likely to be writing or gardening or such rather than vital jobs.

I think there's a big issue of culture and upbringing. If someone has worked hard for money for forty years and then wins the lottery, they're liable to retire early. Still, a significant percentage of people who win a big lottery still work - sometimes starting their own business or doing volunteer work, and some even staying at their regular jobs.

Inherited wealth and lottery winning seems like a better parallel for post-scarcity than a temporary UBI experiment in a country.

Inherited wealth and lottery winning: Guess you don't know how fast they get poor again, inherited wealth tends to last about 3 generations, lottery winnings not even a lifetime.

I don't see how that disagrees with my point. There are a bunch of families that have stayed wealthy for 5, 10, 20 generations. If everyone who inherits wealth does nothing with their lives, then such families are unicorns who can't possibly exist. While they aren't the norm, there are a significant number of families of this sort.

You imply that lottery winners and wealthy heirs are all overweight drug addicts. I would say that it is common but far from universal. Picking some numbers out of the air -- I might say 50% of people would be idle loungers if given sufficient money (though not all idle people are overweight drug addicts), and 40% would be light workers doing easy and/or part-time work, and 10% would still work full-time.

But those aren't purely random. They depend on cultural values. The families whose wealth lasts 10+ generations instill cultural values to keep working and pursuing more wealth, even if it isn't necessary to live.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 05:22:04 PM
When a culture becomes indulgent and decadent (the only possible outcome of humans that do not need to work) there's always a virile culture that comes a knocking and conquers the decadent fucks.

If you're going to play Sci-Fi you should have a little of science in it, which includes evolutionary psychology and some understanding of history.

Star Trek has never been hard science in any sense of the term. There is more believable sci-fi, but much of it faces this same problem. I don't see how any species can become an interstellar culture without already having sufficient technology to sustain them comfortably on their own planet. Inherently, going out to other star systems will require motivation beyond simply filling their bellies.

It makes no sense for a planet to construct starships to go light years away to bring back food or other necessities. The travel effort clearly outstrips any possible living need.

So the cultures that create interstellar networks are motivated by cultures that have the drive to go and do things beyond what is necessary to fill their bellies. They might believe in a higher cause, or simply value discovery and exploration. But it's not just paying the bills or putting food on the table.

Quote from: jhkim on May 02, 2023, 06:35:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 05:22:04 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 02, 2023, 04:30:29 PM
For centuries, there have been a significant number of people who inherit enough money to live comfortably for their whole lives without doing anything. As I would generalize it, plenty of them don't do much -- they're wastrels like the parody Bertie Wooster. However, many of them do try to make a difference. Historically, some have even joined the military and risked their lives. They may work much less hours than those who are poor, but most do at least some productive work, although it is likely to be writing or gardening or such rather than vital jobs.

I think there's a big issue of culture and upbringing. If someone has worked hard for money for forty years and then wins the lottery, they're liable to retire early. Still, a significant percentage of people who win a big lottery still work - sometimes starting their own business or doing volunteer work, and some even staying at their regular jobs.

Inherited wealth and lottery winning seems like a better parallel for post-scarcity than a temporary UBI experiment in a country.

Inherited wealth and lottery winning: Guess you don't know how fast they get poor again, inherited wealth tends to last about 3 generations, lottery winnings not even a lifetime.

I don't see how that disagrees with my point. There are a bunch of families that have stayed wealthy for 5, 10, 20 generations. If everyone who inherits wealth does nothing with their lives, then such families are unicorns who can't possibly exist. While they aren't the norm, there are a significant number of families of this sort.

You imply that lottery winners and wealthy heirs are all overweight drug addicts. I would say that it is common but far from universal. Picking some numbers out of the air -- I might say 50% of people would be idle loungers if given sufficient money (though not all idle people are overweight drug addicts), and 40% would be light workers doing easy and/or part-time work, and 10% would still work full-time.

But those aren't purely random. They depend on cultural values. The families whose wealth lasts 10+ generations instill cultural values to keep working and pursuing more wealth, even if it isn't necessary to live.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 05:22:04 PM
When a culture becomes indulgent and decadent (the only possible outcome of humans that do not need to work) there's always a virile culture that comes a knocking and conquers the decadent fucks.

If you're going to play Sci-Fi you should have a little of science in it, which includes evolutionary psychology and some understanding of history.

Star Trek has never been hard science in any sense of the term. There is more believable sci-fi, but much of it faces this same problem. I don't see how any species can become an interstellar culture without already having sufficient technology to sustain them comfortably on their own planet. Inherently, going out to other star systems will require motivation beyond simply filling their bellies.

It makes no sense for a planet to construct starships to go light years away to bring back food or other necessities. The travel effort clearly outstrips any possible living need.

So the cultures that create interstellar networks are motivated by cultures that have the drive to go and do things beyond what is necessary to fill their bellies. They might believe in a higher cause, or simply value discovery and exploration. But it's not just paying the bills or putting food on the table.

"A small percentage of people are born without legs, ergo you can't say humans have two."

QuoteYou imply that lottery winners and wealthy heirs are all overweight drug addicts.

WHERE!?

Where do I say ST was hard science fiction? I said no such thing but good luck in beating that strawman.

Where do I say anything about building starships to go get food?

Nice job dodging my points tho. You're boring and obviously not interested in a honest discussion, so here: You win.

I've always figured that Star Trek has huge swaths of housing complexes on dozens of worlds where unproductive slobs are packed in like matchsticks in free apartments just wasting their lives.  They just never get shown, because why would they?  The people we see opting to do real, dangerous day jobs are probably an extreme outlier by their standards, the majority of dolists probably consider them to be insane.

Quote from: Valatar on May 02, 2023, 09:03:42 PM
I've always figured that Star Trek has huge swaths of housing complexes on dozens of worlds where unproductive slobs are packed in like matchsticks in free apartments just wasting their lives.  They just never get shown, because why would they?  The people we see opting to do real, dangerous day jobs are probably an extreme outlier by their standards, the majority of dolists probably consider them to be insane.

I agree that the series don't show the typical unproductive Federation citizen, any more than modern-day adventure movies show the lives of typical office workers. I think it's inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the series for them to be packed in like matchsticks, though.

Through most of history, humans have generally needed less work hours even while standards of living have gone up. Lots of First World people today could lead idle lives if they were willing to be packed in like matchsticks in some backwater. They work in order to have a more luxurious First World lifestyle, with spacious houses and modern conveniences.

---

As I ran my Star Trek series, there were many worlds that never developed starships because their technology plateaued as they reached levels where the daily grind became insignficant, or destroyed themselves in war. However, humanity was able to push past that through some combination of grit and luck. There was a small percentage of humans who kept pushing the boundaries, even after idleness became possible.

Earth culture has standards that push the value of in-person work. Hand-crafted items are particularly valued. Starships are designed to have modern conveniences - like automatic cleaning and food processing - so no cooks or janitors. Still, they intentionally don't incorporate robots even though those are easily possible. Earth culture has AI in the sense of natural language processing and smart devices, like self-repairing and self-cleaning devices or self-driving cars. However, they intentionally don't make true AIs because they don't want to do so. They would respect true AIs as people, but they don't try to make more of them. For related reasons, Earth also doesn't allow transhumanism / genetic enhancement.

Earth citizens can live idle lives, and such people would have lives similar to modern First World median -- a three bedroom suburban house, convenient food, and so forth. i.e. They're not packed in like matchsticks. People work, though, to get to do the more amazing things - like time in a holodeck or space travel.

Oy Vey!!
Simple question I had - and it got answered

Enough with the 'Socialist' crap.

For the umpteenth time - my campaign is set in the 2260s version of "Star Trek" and the Federation - that is where joyful Capitalism is going on, Captains ask their first officers "How much did Starfleet invest in opur training?", a Helmsman in charge of the bridge mentions credits as a currency, and oh yeah - Uhura and Chekjov are at a bar when a merchant and a bartender are HAGGLING over the price of objects in units of currency called 'credits'.

This Is NOT that 24th century bullshit. of unbelievable and not realistic 'utopias'.

The is the Captain Pike and Captain Kirk era of the 2260s - they Boldly Go to places - including stores, and purrchase things enthusiastically with MONEY , called 'credits'.

-Ed C.

P.S. After thought: Also if the 24th century Federation is supposedly 'socialist' then they would never have resisted the Borg - they would have cheerfully joined them to lose their annoying individuality.

Quote from: Koltar on May 02, 2023, 11:20:34 PM
For the umpteenth time - my campaign is set in the 2260s version of "Star Trek" and the Federation - that is where joyful Capitalism is going on, Captains ask their first officers "How much did Starfleet invest in opur training?", a Helmsman in charge of the bridge mentions credits as a currency, and oh yeah - Uhura and Chekjov are at a bar when a merchant and a bartender are HAGGLING over the price of objects in units of currency called 'credits'.

This Is NOT that 24th century bullshit. of unbelievable and not realistic 'utopias'.

This isn't a difference between TOS and TNG. Both TOS and TNG have characters paying for goods and services to non-Federation establishments, like Quark's bar. On the other hand, both series have characters say at various points that society doesn't use money. When 20th century Gillian asks Kirk, "Don't' tell me they don't use money in the twenty-third century." - he answers "Well, they don't."

My navigation between these keeps that Star Fleet officers are paid and in general that there is private property, while giving some lip service to the idea that there is no money.

One could imagine that, as the Federation deals with non-Federation groups, a currency is maintained for times when someone is off dealing with some aliens that want money, but there's nothing to spend it on within the Federation, so they are living moneyless lives most of the time.  That would reconcile dialogue implying that the crew is paid and times you see them shopping/gambling in DS9, and other dialogue where they talk about not needing money.  With that setup they do have money and do get paid, they just have no need for the money besides some fringe scenarios.

Quote from: jhkim on May 03, 2023, 12:14:24 AM

This isn't a difference between TOS and TNG. Both TOS and TNG have characters paying for goods and services to non-Federation establishments, like Quark's bar. On the other hand, both series have characters say at various points that society doesn't use money. When 20th century Gillian asks Kirk, "Don't' tell me they don't use money in the twenty-third century." - he answers "Well, they don't."

My navigation between these keeps that Star Fleet officers are paid and in general that there is private property, while giving some lip service to the idea that there is no money.

That was not in the " 2260s " of the original show - that was in the ' 2280s ' of the movies. Also for years that line was interpreted to mean that Kirk in the furure uses some kind of high-tech 'credit card' , but not 'hard currency' - not meaning that they fricking 'socialist'. They still use moiney  - but its chips, and transaction devices - what we currently call credit cards.

If you seperate out "TOS" from the later movies and "Next Gen" - they were very pro 'fair trade' going on in the background.
Hell, Kirk was authorized to pay those dilithium miners money when they were desperate to resstock their crystals.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar on May 02, 2023, 11:20:34 PM
Oy Vey!!
Simple question I had - and it got answered

Enough with the 'Socialist' crap.

For the umpteenth time - my campaign is set in the 2260s version of "Star Trek" and the Federation - that is where joyful Capitalism is going on, Captains ask their first officers "How much did Starfleet invest in opur training?", a Helmsman in charge of the bridge mentions credits as a currency, and oh yeah - Uhura and Chekjov are at a bar when a merchant and a bartender are HAGGLING over the price of objects in units of currency called 'credits'.

This Is NOT that 24th century bullshit. of unbelievable and not realistic 'utopias'.

The is the Captain Pike and Captain Kirk era of the 2260s - they Boldly Go to places - including stores, and purrchase things enthusiastically with MONEY , called 'credits'.

-Ed C.

P.S. After thought: Also if the 24th century Federation is supposedly 'socialist' then they would never have resisted the Borg - they would have cheerfully joined them to lose their annoying individuality.

Now, that's a game I would play in.

Quote from: Koltar on May 03, 2023, 12:41:22 AM

Quote from: jhkim on May 03, 2023, 12:14:24 AM
This isn't a difference between TOS and TNG. Both TOS and TNG have characters paying for goods and services to non-Federation establishments, like Quark's bar. On the other hand, both series have characters say at various points that society doesn't use money. When 20th century Gillian asks Kirk, "Don't' tell me they don't use money in the twenty-third century." - he answers "Well, they don't."

That was not in the " 2260s " of the original show - that was in the ' 2280s ' of the movies. Also for years that line was interpreted to mean that Kirk in the furure uses some kind of high-tech 'credit card' , but not 'hard currency' - not meaning that they fricking 'socialist'. They still use moiney  - but its chips, and transaction devices - what we currently call credit cards.

It was always a part of Roddenberry's vision from start that the Federation was semi-utopian. Not perfect, but a definitely better system than 20th century Earth government - representing the best positive values of mankind. It is intentionally non-specific about the details of that system. It is definitely not intended to be anything like the Soviets, but also not the same as current-day U.S. government and economics.

Now, obviously one can do whatever one wants in one's home games. One can make a dystopian Federation where behind the scenes where citizens are drugged up and living in packed-in block housing, or slaving away in factories under the thumb of megacorporations, or other similar. Star Trek: Picard seems to be taking that view.

I think it's thoroughly against the spirit of the original series, though.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 03:07:18 PM
So AI/Automation is your magic...

It is not magic it is happening right now in many industries including the one I work in, HVAC. And it impacted book publishing including the RPG hobby.

And it not going to be some magic AI thinking for itself. Rather it is tools that augment human productivity.

quote author=GeekyBugle link=topic=46233.msg1252751#msg1252751 date=1683054438]
Now please tell me, if no one decided to go fight the bad guys what would the federation do? Conscript people by force? Use AI/Robot manned starships?[/quote] Again none of this is a result of ideology but a result of what a person can do with technology.  The result will depend on how much it takes to mount an effective defense against an existential crisis you can't ignore.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 03:07:18 PM
I'm guessing majority of the federation population is overweight drug addicts right? I mean what else is there to do?

Humanity has dealt with situations of extreme abundance before especially during the Neolithic when hunter gatherers were able to occupy the most productive regions for thousands of years before being pushed out by agriculturalists. In the Americas this phase existed up to European contact. For example the Calusa culture in West Florida.

Recent archeological research has found that there was way more variety than previously imagined. For example, cultures that explicitly rejected agriculture after having adopted it. Cultures that built huge monuments that were only worked in the off season along with large towns that were only inhabited during the off-season. Like the Hopewell culture of Ohio or early Egypt.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 03:07:18 PM
"Allowed a life of luxury, most people prefer being productive. They got satisfaction from it, and they were rewarded for their efforts in prestige, perks, and gifts." The experiment of UBI made in Europe (don't remember the country) proves this false, allowed a life on no effort most people will do jack shit.

I would point out that the behavior of the top 10% of wealth with a focus on those who inherited their wealth is a more valid data point. These people lived with abundance all their lives. And likewise the folks of Star Trek's Federation also have lived with abundance all their lives.

While UBI experiments are basically dumped onto people out of the blue. And quickly run into hard limits because we are not at point of being productive enough to support UBI.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 02, 2023, 03:07:18 PM
If you get off by imagining a socialist utopia more power to you, I'm just raining on the parade of "it's possible!", no it isn't.

Actually I am more of a libertarian but again ideology has nothing to do with this. This has to do with the impact of technology on productivity.