Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 502

(Items of limited supply aren't really addressed by the show, like how do they decide who gets to live in the prime waterfront apartment in San Francisco?)

If you had genuinely limitless energy, you'd replicate San Francisco and the bay on an asteroid or something and transport there instantaneously whenever the urge came over you.

People here don't seem to be taking in what "post-scarcity" means. It's not just "you have a basic income that stops you starving and puts aroof over your head". It's "you can have a copy of any material thing you desire".

No one is saying that it's immediately plausible, it's a way of starting speculative thought, just like time travel or alien contact or any other science fiction concept.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 502

But what do you do when civilian Fucknut on a planet says "waaaaah, I want 2 acres of land" when most everybody else lives on 1? What about when he wants 5? 10? Where does reasonable stop? In a capitalist society we self-regulate that. You can have more, but it'll cost you more. What do you do when there's no cost?

That's no longer a post-scarcity planet. So presumably you would have to have some sort of government doling the land out equably (or else locally re-instate capitalism).

The point about being post-scarcity is that you don't have those sort of physical limitations: if someone wants a planet to themselves, replicate them one and wait for them to get bored with it.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 502

Jealousy isn't a basic human behaviour? I think the world over can demonstrate that it is.

The fact that you can't take part in a discussion without coming off as a immature idiot suggests you perhaps shouldn't be taking part at all.

I think you mean envy. And in a post-scarcity world, material envy would be meaningless. If you really wanted a Ferrari, you could have one. It wouldn't be a big deal.

Sexual jealousy would still remain, but I imagine it would be more of a mental health issue than anything.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 502

I can believe most people can be satisifed with "enough." But there will always be some asshole who wants it all.

There will still presumably be crime and punishment (as you can't just let people kill each other willy nilly) so maybe these assholes can get a few years in jail living on bread and water.

Comment Re: No (Score 1) 502

Another premise of Star Trek is a post-religion highly sexually liberated society. In that society, hookers haven't got much of a market because getting laid has become ridiculously easy. Basically - picking somebody up consists "Horny?" and "Yeah/Nay"

Yes, but as long as people can say "nay" there will always be other people who ) are not getting enough sex. Even if everyone was extremely physically attractive you'd still have people with off-putting personalities.

Comment Re:Unlimited Energy (Score 1) 502

Although the "humans are now perfect" theme just made people less interesting, eliminated sources of drama

Eliminating poverty does not make people less interesting. One of the points about being poor is that it severely limits your horizons, interests and so on.

The whole problem with having a small minority of wealthy people and a mass of poor ones is that the former get to do all the interesting stuff, while the latter scrabble around to find enough food to avoid starvation and have no time to do anything else.

Comment Re:Summary fail (Score 1) 63

OpenTTD's interface is absolutely marvellous, it's like a proto-Win95 within itself.

Oh yeah, windows 95. That's the operating system where I had to memorize a bunch of shell commands because the GUI was so incomplete. I can see why you'd draw that comparison, but not why you'd find it to be favorable.

The great thing about Windows 95 was that it wasn't Windows 3.1, in the same way that the great thing about Windows 3.1 was that it wasn't MS-DOS 5.0, and that the great thing about MS-DOS 5.0 was that it wasn't MS-DOS 4.0, and...

At around Windows ME, Microsoft obviously got bored with this idea.

Comment Re:Very Probably Wrong (Score 1) 260

The rate that technology advances has been on an ever increasing curve for far longer than what went on in the 20th Century. The more we learn the faster we develop new technologies. There is no indication that said curve will flatten out.

Alternatively, you can look at (say) Roman civilisation and see that there was a downward slope during the Dark Ages following the fall of the Roamn Empire (in simplistic terms). The point is that human technological progress has certainly not been on a steady upward curve since the Ancient Egyptians.

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan