Jump to content

Talk:Post-scarcity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

added reference

[edit]

To energy accounting, and article by Fezer. [http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate An article on Energy Accounting. This post scarcity concept is drawn out in this essay.

[edit]

External links:

Why is Post Scarcity classed as Utopia

[edit]

Is there not enough evidence that less and less human labour is required to produce all the useful wealth society needs? Janosabel (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this here but it was deleted. Post-scarcity is utopian because the system is designed to impose scarcity in a world of abundance to benefit a few over the many. Viriditas (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the classification is a matter of definition: a project or proposal that can not happen because the prevailing power structure prevents it, or the Wikipedia definition "...an imaginary community or society that possesses highly desirable or near-perfect qualities for its members..."
According to this, post-scarcity is misclassified as utopia (pie in the sky).
I have seen your earlier comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-scarcity&oldid=1184518032#Really_utopian
"...over-production of food is not an example of post-scarcity...", "... when... things are cheap, there is usually a huge government subsidy behind it...", "...We are nowhere near post-scarcity..." and have to disagree. We can achieve impossible feats with science and technology (Mars Ingenuity helicopter, JWST, etc.,), but not the simplest of social problems—eliminating abject poverty?
When things are cheap, profits are at minimum and the "production for profit" dynamics resists and militates against it. See Thorstein Weblen; and Social credit#Economic sabotage.
-------------------------------
A response in good faith, Janosabel (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you completely misunderstood my comments, as I’m in agreement with you. The system will not allow post-scarcity, and we do have the technology. Poverty only exists because people make huge amounts of money from people being poor. I’m sure you are aware of this. In the US, our laws are written by the wealthy and the powerful, for the wealthy, and do not benefit the majority of society. It is probably like this in most of the world. One of my favorite examples in the US is the tax system. Unlike most countries, the U.S. tax system was captured by wealthy corporations. Instead of sending us a bill, we have to file our taxes, which creates an entirely separate vulture economy that preys on the poor. This is one of hundreds of examples. Poverty is a feature, not a bug. Where you and I might disagree is how to bring about post-scarcity. I’m old, and I’m absolutely convinced the problem is psychological, not legal, and certainly not institutional. It’s the way we think and perceive things that is the problem. In other words, it’s a hearts and minds problem. Until people are at peace with themselves, the rest of humanity, and all other living things, you will never achieve post-scarcity, as all the technological innovations and advancements will just be used to oppress others and maintain the status quo. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have misunderstood you.
Maybe I just do not understand the rules of Wikipedia classification. Sometimes I feel Wikipedia editors act as establishment gatekeepers on some social change topics.
The fact is that currently post-scarcity is classed as economic utopia (an imagined condition that can not be made real because the powers that be will not allow it).
PS. I am old as well (87 :-) and below average in digital literacy. Janosabel (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, poverty exists because all human beings are born different, and until proven otherwise, it's inevitable. But if you think that scarcity is somehow intentional, then how can you explain how everything was worse 200 years ago? Incidentally, with the reduction of jobs by robots and AI, it's very easy to weigh in on a universal basic income (which is curiously supported by many rich people and politicians). I think classifying post-scarcity as a "hypothetical economic scenario" is better for now, even if there's no evidence that it's possible. Make the L (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poverty exists because all human beings are born different. Weird, because the people who study poverty have never once come to that conclusion. Poverty exists because we have a system that benefits from haves and have nots and allows poverty to persist which allows others to horde wealth that would otherwise go to the poor. I thought everyone knew this. In countries where there is the least amount of poverty, the problem that is addressed isn’t that people are born different, it’s that they have access to equal opportunities. Also, in studies of people who generate vast amounts of wealth, it’s been shown that many of them (in the US) benefit from government subsidies or programs, such that their wealth is essentially guaranteed by funds that could have gone elsewhere in society. In fact, for every $1 a billionaire donates to charity, taxpayers contribute 74 cents in lost tax revenue alone. In other words, the government, due to corporate lobbying, subsidizes wealth and poverty. UBI is a pipe dream, same as voodoo economics, but updated for a new generation not familiar with the pathological lies of the right. They told us for 40 years that the wealth was going to trickle down from tax cuts for billionaires as they cut funding for democratic society, eliminated the middle class, and robbed the treasury. Every economic expert now says it was a lie and never happened. They still haven’t changed their policies. Now you expect us to embrace the new lie, that UBI will be implemented by the same economic gangsters that refuse to fund child lunch programs? I’m sorry, you must have me mistaken for a fool. The future will look a lot like Elysium and Westworld, with AI oppressing humanity and eliminating its self-determination and individuality, ironically at the behest of self-interested conservatives. If god existed, she would laugh. And in case you are not already aware, Musk knows this, which is why he wants to turn humans into cyborgs, as a survival mechanism. This is what happens when you let the bean counters and tech bros take over. Go read Hacker News for just a moment. They are all fascists. Post-scarcity won’t happen while billionaires rollback the clock on modernity and take us back to feudalism, serfdom, and company towns. The Kochs say we should all move underground to survive the coming climate change and just suck it up and evolve into Morlocks. That’s the product of a century of conservative thought. It’s always been nonsense, a system of self-justifying excuses for the rich to fuck everyone over. The future of humanity looks like a boot stomping on our faces, forever. UBI is the great myth of our time just as voodoo economics was the myth of the 1980s. Time to stop believing in myths and deal with reality. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poverty exists because we have a system that benefits from haves and have nots and" wants poverty to persist. The poor can be exploited, and the "system" is maintained by people who do the exploitation. The general theme is recognised in economics as rent seeking.
However, without specify what kind of poverty we are discussing this is just idle word mongering.
Are we talking about a kind where the subject "goes to bed hungry", or where she/he has to work just to earn a bare living? Absolute(abject) or relative poverty. Janosabel (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the segregation of reality into two different worlds, one for the rich and one for the poor. Emre Ulusoy has said everything that can be said on the topic here: "Elysium as a Social Allegory: At the nexus of Dystopia, Cyberpunk, and Plutocracy". His commentary on the COVID-19 pandemic is enlightening. It's already happening. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above reply does not follow the question what kind of poverty?
I will be more specific:
Post-scarcity = Zero people without food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, shelter.
Why categorise this is utopia, i.e. can not happen? Janosabel (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the entire article I linked. It’s free to download. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the linked page. At firs it did not seem to be relevant
OK, I will look in detail, since you still think I should... Janosabel (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you're a walking jargon, practically a stereotype. I have more to say about your allegations, but I'll make one thing clear: you're confusing poverty with misery, and everything you say sounds exactly like a conspiracy theory, tell me how, for example, Microsoft, a software company, would benefit from misery? If people weren't worried about surviving and had money to spend on what they liked, that would be beneficial to it, and that's the same reasoning that some people have when defending universal basic income. Well, I'd like to go on and on, but I don't want to turn wikipedia into a forum Make the L (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. Let’s look at the facts: I’m saying that the few have always controlled the many since the dawn of time and that hasn’t changed. On the other hand, you’re saying, by some incredible miracle, for the first time in recorded history, the few are going to give up all their power and money and start leveling the playing field, bringing us into a bright, glorious, post-scarcity future brimming with potential. I think it’s pretty clear who is drinking the kool-aid here… Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas, You are saying what is and has always been and it will never change... no? Janosabel (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not holding out any hope for UBI. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serious L, who is the walking jargon and stereotype (lost the thread :-)? Janosabel (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m patiently waiting for my post-scarcity replicator along with my allotment of Federation credits. I’ll be in the holodeck if anyone needs me…. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas, read this as a metaphor, then read about real-world (heterodox) economics: economic sabotage
The "post-scarcity replicator" is here.
It has been functioning fabulously for well over a hundred years but you, I and the rest of the employee class has no free access to it.
It is in a special room called post-industrial productive systems but we have to pay a fee (according to the maximum one can afford) to enter and use it. Janosabel (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like your style, but you're talking about things that I was interested in 30 years ago, things that have turned out to be hogwash. I'm surprised to see that the myths continue to perpetuate themselves. This is like Elon Musk saying he's going to build a city on Mars and terraform the planet. Real soon now. I get it, I really do. Humanity needs a certain kind of optimistic hope to keep people working, marrying, and reproducing so that the 1% can continue to live off of our labor. But these kinds of things are all lies, and I'm tired of it. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article interpreting Elysium. Probably seen the picture. Having read the piece gives me a helpful understanding of the kind of worldview your thinking is patterned on. I live by world view a different and appreciate yours. Hope I can rely on you feeling the same. The question is "where lies truth". Probably all over the place and not with one or other of us.
By the way, I stopped reading science fictionalized scenarios in my late forties and turned to straight sociology and economics.
Have you read the page I linked to and the earlier Thorstein Veblen recommendation? Both engage with the concept of economic sabotage which underwrites the obscene economic equality. We do agree that is is oscine but you seem to argue that the situation is unchangeable. I think I am more realistic not just an optimist: They are 1, we are 99. It is only our stupidity that lets this extreme imbalance persist. Janosabel (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your measured response and attempt to meet me halfway. You are obviously a reasonable person. I think the thing you are missing the most about Elysium is that I'm not treating it as "science fictionalized scenarios" per se, but rather as a simulation or model of real world problems. If you've stopped reading science fiction, then you are missing out on the nature of modeling ideas, which the author of the article you read explains in detail, particularly in terms of class warfare and real world scenarios like the COVID-19 pandemic. I find it interesting that you target stupidity, and that certainly has a role to play, but I think the real problem is self-awareness. Most people don't think deeply about most things at all, and think modern convenience is more important than anything else. This explains more than 50% of our problems. I'm currently working on an article about a book by Gary Lachman. In an interview, he made the following statement: "Personally I've never thought working toward utopia was a good idea. The road to hell, we know, is paved with good intentions, and pretty much every attempt to force or impose a "better world" on the one we have now has ended in creating more suffering than anything else. I place my bets on the individual. Any real change has to start with you or me becoming more conscious, more awake, more alert, and getting a tighter grasp on reality. It's depending on us. Times of disruption also bring opportunities. We need to be prepared for them." This is what I meant by self-awareness. Economics, unfortunately, is mostly bullshit. That James M. Buchanan won the Nobel Prize speaks volumes about the utter, decrepit rot in the system. Virtually every word Buchanan wrote was wrong. "Buchanan has been broadsided by accusations that his public choice theory benefits only the rich and elite and even has racist motivation." Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick response. Would like to hear in due course about what you make of Gary Lachman's ideas. I see he often writes about mysticism and occultism This gives me another possible clue about your background. (nothing sinister :-) here. It merely contributes to more effective communication. I am also intrigued by the quote, In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law. Janosabel (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lachman has really nothing to do with this subject, just wanted to share his quote about the futility of utopian thinking. He writes about the occult, and I just created an article about his book which focuses on the "meme magick" used by the alt right. I write about many different topics, from science to religion. As for love and hatred, it’s a complex topic that is off-topic here, but shares many qualities with the act of creation and destruction. One wonders, for example, if post-scarcity can be reached through creation (as many techno-utopians continue to claim), or through destruction, as those on both the extreme right and extreme left seem to think. The answer, I believe, is in changing the way we see the world and our place in it. Many of the fascists I refer to in this discussion are social darwinists, and they believe the strong should rule over the weak, the rich over the poor. They believe this is the true nature of the world and will never change. You misinterpreted this up above as me thinking it would never change. You need to get past that kind of thought process to get to post-scarcity. Technological innovation alone won’t do it, as it will just be used to oppress the weak and the poor. So the problem is purely psychological, not technological, IMO. John Lennon once said, "War is over, if you want it". I don’t think most people truly understood what that meant or entails. It means that beyond the past (nostalgia) and the future (utopianism), there is a present where we can choose to do this or that, now. That’s the answer, and a lot of people are truly afraid of it. It involves completely changing the way you see reality, and that’s something beyond what most people are willing to do. That’s why it is so difficult. The only known solution is to produce a new generation of children who grow up with a value system that supports and promotes post-scarcity. Conservatives have known this since the 1960s, which is why they have made every attempt to undermine education and infuse it with pro-scarcity values. And while it’s quite easy for me to put all the blame on the right, the left has squandered the last fifty years promoting archaic political ideas and doing just about nothing faced with the repeated successes and societal takeover by the right. This is why I believe the left-right paradigm has run its course and should be tossed in the rubbish bin. As you can imagine, this position doesn’t win many people over to my side. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Too many interesting statements. So have to pick one and try to stick to the here and now stark reality.
...The answer... is in changing the way we see the world and our place in it...
I see this answer often in my discussions, and this is my problem—nailing it down to one instance: Hundreds of people die unnecessarily while we are exchanging viewpoints; and it bothers me greatly. Then I get "Since you can not change that, why let it upset you?" implying what you said above; highly unsatisfactory to me.
So I can "change the way I see the world" by saying post-scarcity must not be dismissed as utopian because it will ensure that every individual's basic needs of food, clothing, shelter will be guaranteed by a social dividend.
I see an exchange/discussion like this as a means to uncovering "where truth lies", not a means of establishing a winning position. I hope you see it in the same way (assuming good faith).
This is not off-topic since the question is why Post-scarcity should not be categorized as a utopian notion.
Labeling is, for better or worse, a powerful mind altering practice. Janosabel (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part that you are missing is that the practice of changing our views necessitates changing the world. It also requires eliminating labeling altogether, which is difficult because the human brain is hardwired to put things into categories, stereotypes, etc. What is troubling to me at a high level of abstraction, is that we are prisoners of these categories because they were given to us by older generations and imprinted on to our minds as children in school. This means, in a very real way, in 2024, most of our ideas have been out of date for a century. This is rarely discussed in any serious way, but I would invite you think about it. Even more troubling, and honestly, this has kept me up at night more than any other, the contemporary values we associate with modern civilization fly in the face of our ancient, biological imperatives. So we are constantly at war with ourselves, not just the world around us. How can you possibly change the world with a head full of old ideas and biological imperatives that predate human culture itself? This problem requires serious attention! This is not a matter of "you can not change that, why let it upset you", but rather the understanding that we can only change ourselves, and by so doing, change the world. Of course, this isn't the only answer. Mario Savio famously spoke of two means of civil disobedience in 1964 on the steps of Sproul Hall. The first is in knowingly not following an unjust law. The second way comes about when the first can't be achieved, which he referred to as putting your "bodies upon the gears", to stop the machine. But he was very clear that this could be interpreted as non-violent refusal in a myriad of ways, most notably by "learning by doing". This is essentially, changing one's views to change the world without firing a single bullet. Savio's call to arms was for the creation of a countercultural community in the human mind, first and foremost, that expresses itself in our own individual personal lives. I think a lot of people missed this. To bring this back on topic, I will continue to maintain that you can't get there from here through philosophy, economics, engineering, or technology. Because each time you try to do that, recrudescence of human nature sets us back, again and again. That's why we have to fundamentally change who we are to get to where we want to be. To conclude, a post-scarcity future is only achievable by a kind of post-humanity. What that is or amounts to is anyone's guess, but I would like to suggest that it does not necessarily entail technological enhancement as is widely believed, but rather a kind of psychological advancement attained through a lasting and permanent cognitive shift in awareness. I suspect many will think that's borderline insane and outlandish, but history is replete with examples. Think about what kind of adversity the first abolitionists faced trying to shift the paradigm from pro-slavery to anti. Consider how terribly women were treated for so long, bereft of the most basic human rights; we are still working on this issue even today, because the rest of the world is so slow to shift to this new paradigm. Think about how vegetarianism and veganism was exported from India and elsewhere to become one of the dominant philosophies in the world today that impacts economies and generates billions in revenue. Think about how just 50 years ago, very few scientists would admit that animals had conscious lives and were befitting of rights in and of themselves. Today, that is the default position. In the 1970s, it was considered fringe. These cognitive shifts happen all the time, and it's going to be a cumulative shift in perception, in our views, in our understanding of the world that will make post-scarcity happen, and when it does, we will no longer be truly human. More to the point, we will share very little in common with the values of our ancestors. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Informative, thank you. I will be cogitating for a while... Janosabel (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remembering the topic of this thread, it is misleading to class post-scarcity as utopian (can never happen) in this practical sense: Post-scarcity does not mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all goods and services but that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met... Janosabel (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Viriditas,
It seems to me that the statement: "Changing our views necessitates changing our world" is the crux of our discussion.
If you have time and are interested we can explore this; There are so many issues raised in your post that the medium here would make it tedious to do justice to them here.
But I am not up for a debate but an exploration of "cognitive shifts" that may happen while one encounters own world views while encountering those of others'.
I am an engineer by training but a thinker only by self education, (probably showing in what follows).
:We can only change ourselves, and by doing so, change the world.
Again, just to be doubly sure, I am not looking for an argument bur for an exploration to see where "truths" (like nuggets of precious substances) lie.
So, I have reached a cognitive shift from belief in scarcity to post-scarcity;
that is a "subjective achievement" but it will not lead to eliminating abject poverty everywhere unless I take some action in the objective world (write an article, for example)... Janosabel (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to stick with the topic by way of a recent cognitive shift I've seen play out on the fringes in your field, namely spaceflight and engineering. When I grew up, it was assumed that we were destined for Mars, and it was only a hop, skip, and a jump to the fourth stone from the sun. There was a general opinion (very wrong, now that I think of it), that if Apollo had not been cut after the original program, and the eventual Mars mission had continued, we would have a permanent base there by now. I think that's now an unbelievable proposition. Over time, opinion has changed. In spite of Elon Musk's push to become an interplanetary species (which I and others think is mainly a PR front for military programs using the hope and promise of human exploration to push the envelope and increase public support), many people now believe we should leave the exploring, in large part, to robotic probes and machines given the known human health hazards and exorbitant costs. Hacker News, which is mostly a forum for engineers (in large part), discusses this problem at least once a month. Their latest iteration of this discussion took place a day or so ago. In the ten years or so I've been monitoring the discussion on that site (much, much longer elsewhere on the internet), I've noticed a huge sea-change against sending humans to Mars. And this change has occurred in a very short time-frame. My guess is that this happened due to a confluence of factors, namely 1) new data about human health hazards, 2) new data about the difficulty of living on Mars, 3) new data about the superiority and simplicity of sending machines instead of humans, and 4) figuring out how to solve our problems here at home first. This is a cognitive shift in planetary engineering. Of course, it hasn't stopped Musk, but it's something I'm seeing play out in real time, not just in engineering discussions, but also in the planetary science community as well, which came to a head in 2017-2018, which was when I first saw planetary scientists saying, "You know what, this might not work". In regards to post-scarcity, I don't see the same thing playing out in social science anywhere. There is no cognitive shift in bringing people to post-scarcity solutions in the mainstream. This is what I'm talking about. So to wrap this up: there is "evidence" (I put that in quotes since we are not going to agree on this and I say "we" to refer to the usual suspects) that less and less human labour is required to produce all the useful wealth society needs. But it is still considered utopian, because the current, dominant economic, governmental, and industrial paradigm is out of sync (and out of date by at least a century) with the competing paradigm of post-scarcity (which arose post-WWII and only gained prominence in the 1990s). Due to this mismatch between what evidence and theory tells us, and how the economy, government, and industry functions at a practical level, post-scarcity remains a utopian pipe dream at this time. The only way to bridge the gap between theory and practice is through a cognitive shift. I want to say one last thing, and it's something I've been giving a lot of thought to in the last month or so in particular, but also something I keep coming back to decade after decade and I can't escape it, almost as if it is an obsession. I think the one thing that prevents us from experiencing a cognitive shift is our inability to escape our prison of perceptual illusion. I realize that's a silly and convoluted way to describe it, but imagine how much of our thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and concepts are constrained by illusions. I like to say that we are all living in an Ames room of sorts. The only way to realize this is to leave the room and see it from outside. This is the key to all kinds of cognitive shifts, in other words, to see ourselves from outside of ourselves. If you want to get to post-scarcity, you have to give everyone that experience. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, we will not agree here and can amicably agree to disagree.
But I am kept semi-despondent by the though that while we, relatively well-off, wait for the future to unfold itself, millions suffer and die with the obvious remedy in sight. The only obstacle to making remedy available is the acceptance that the political obstacles can not be cleared unless enough people with the necessary abilities wake up.
...but it is still considered utopian, because (my emphasis) the current, dominant economic, governmental, and industrial paradigm is out of sync (and out of date by at least a century) with the competing paradigm of post-scarcity...
Saying that Post-scarcity is utopian is in itself an act of labelling. Some people consider it so, others don’t, depending, as always, on our particular set of accumulated viewpoints.
If I may offer a chronological correction: Post-scarcity society has been a well aired topic since the 1920s, vid. the writings of Alfred Korzybski, Stuart Chase , the Technocracy movement, etc.,. And even earlier, Thorstein Veblen exposed the business classes’ antagonism to production engineering to protect profit margins from the threat of abundance. Janosabel (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the chronological correction is needed, however, what I was referring to was not the classical idea of post-scarcity society, but its resurgence in the technological, nascent information technology, pre-internet adoption age of the late 1980s, particularly with works like Engines of Creation by K. Eric Drexler, followed by its more public discussion in the 1990s with books like The End of Work by Jeremy Rifkin. None of these things have come to pass. Instead, what we have seen worldwide, is a rise in unemployment (wouldn't know it if you read the US news), a rise in wealth inequality, and what I call backsliding ("Since c. 2010, the number of countries autocratizing has been higher than those democratizing") from post-Enlightenment values to what is now seen as a return to feudualism-like values, a decline in democracy across the board, a rise in authoritarianism, and a return to religious superstition and fear-based discourse (the atheist community continues to ignore or deny this, instead pointing to the rise of "nones" as a success; it isn't, it's a misreading of the data). We are going entirely backwards as a human civilization, not forward, and anyone who sees post-scarcity as happening or occurring has lost the plot. This is why I used the Mars colonization analogy up above; it's the same pipe-dream with different data points (and the denial is just as strong; just recently, an anonymous editor, who appears to work in the space industry, deleted any mention of the new studies showing major human health hazards to mars colonization in multiple Mars-related articles). This all reminds me of ecologist Edward F. Ricketts, who before he died, wrote a lot about what I was discussing up above, in terms of the cognitive shift that is required. This eventually became known as deep ecology. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you must find writing easy. Was this always so? I envy you.
This is just a quick acknowledgement.
As usual I will probably take days to say something in reply. Janosabel (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-scarcity&oldid=1250074970"