Talk:Post-scarcity economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortening intro[edit]

Might we replace "and intelligence), in conjunction with sophisticated automated systems capable of converting raw materials into finished goods" with simply "and labor)"? It seems to me that intelligence isn't really a "resource" per se, but the combination of intelligence and the ability to process materials could be succinctly defined as "labor", which is certainly a resource (and a much more quantifiable one, at that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.150.137 (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It is conceivable...[edit]

"Even without postulating new technologies, it is conceivable that already there exists enough energy, raw materials and biological resources to provide a comfortable lifestyle for every person on Earth."

Is this really realistic, given civilization's dependency on fossil and nuclear fuels, minerals that aren't completely recycled, topsoil loss because of agriculture, loss of biodiversity, increaing amounts of toxic garbage, and similar problems? Are there sources for this "conceivable" assumption? What to make of it? 92.75.154.64 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Hedonic Treader

Also, if goods are services were "practically free" costing little, would that cause mass-deflation, and we'd be back where we were when people only made cents an hour? The snare (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    It depends on the level of consumption 77.240.251.193 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can prove that it is realistic that this is conceivable, someone wrote that it is conceivable. In other words whoever wrote this in the first place proved that he could conceive of it, he didn't say that it was a realistic future for humans he just said that we can think of it right? If this is not good enough then I might suggest hunting for a citation on religious web pages as a lot of them have talk of some kind of golden age like described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.138.208 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

History[edit]

I would like this article to have a have some historical background. Like who first coined the term. Notable people involved etc. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.59.42 (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Stub[edit]

I would like to this article expanded. Although it currently accurately defines what Post Scarcity I think it could be expanded to include more examples and arguments concerning the subject.--Lzygenius 16:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

Why is there a link to Burning Man at the bottom of this? I'm kind of skeptical about the other external links, too... Brianlucas

Might want to add something about Mark Adlard's books, Interface, Pro-Face and Multiface.

It's worth noting that the information about 'Diamond Age' is a major spoiler and gives away a large portion of the plot, if not the entire thrust of it. Had I not already read the book, I'd be pretty pissed off; is there a way to get the idea across without such a spoiler?

I have slightly tweaked it, as I disagree that it is that much of a major spoiler, but no worries. PS: please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ Ingolfson 13:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Exponential growth[edit]

"For example, if the human population continued to grow indefinitely at its 1994 rate, in 1,900 years the mass of the human population would equal the mass of Earth, and in 6,000 years the mass of the human population would equal the estimated mass of the observable universe"

How is such a sentence written without ending with "so obviously that's gibberish"? Actual estimates of population growth – one where they actually did some work instead of mindlessly extrapolating from an arbitrary figure – have us leveling off around 9 billion. It's already trending towards 0 in every developed society and in some cases has gone negative. There is no food scarcity in these societies. For reproductive purposes these societies are post-scarcity. People can have multiple times more children than they do and nearly universally don't and the net result is a population growth stall. There is a strong inverse correlation between poverty and birth rates.

The spaceships and stellar-scale engineering projects and incredibly speculative in comparison to the fact that even if people are reproducing too much, it is not remotely unprecedented to just pass a law about it like they did in China. In a post scarcity society you have no inverse pyramid concern or economic pressures to grow; social programs to encourage growth (these exist in some European countries) would be abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.67.209.128 (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Replacing zero-point energy with fusion[edit]

I replaced the reference to zero point energy with fusion power as from what is currently known harnessing zero-point energy is not possible. The next best energy source is likely nuclear fusion which is at least known to be theoretically possible (although practically very difficult). - CharlesC 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact - look to the sun - fusion is practically possible, and it has been achieved on Earth already. Just not with a output power/input power ratio >1 yet... MadMaxDog 06:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced[edit]

(Note: Tag not placed by me)

Hhhmmmp. Any fictional concept by nature will include speculation. The placer of the tag does have the right of it in that we have not cited/referenced anything at the moment. So lets see if we can change this. This may mean that we will have to rewrite sections as referring mostly to fictional treatments of post-scarcity as opposed to a general article. Unless we actually can find notable non-fiction references. MadMaxDog 03:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, I hate these tags so much I did it myself immediately after placing the above notice. Excuse the mess of trying to follow the changes, it turned into a major overhaul. Also, please add more references, if you would. MadMaxDog 04:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Good job! CharlesC 17:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In developed societies[edit]

I would but havent put a mention that some highly developed societies are embracing "piracy", that is the treatement of digital objects eg.g mp3s, as non-scarce (which they are) and ignoring any "price" that has been put on them, even though there is no scarcity to manage economically.

That's Sweden, by the way HDI 2008: 6th, and their Pirate Party and Bay.--81.105.243.17 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicts with directing traffic to commercial enterprise ?[edit]

Hibernian (Ross Murphy) you are removing links to Technocracy Incorporated and leaving links to a NET related page Technocracy movement. This would seem like a conflict of interest and an effort to present one view of Technocracy issues only. You are also a user of the Network of European Technocrats website and the Director of that group Andrew Wallace (Isenhand wiki editor here) formed a team to control the wikipedia articles regarding Technocracy issues. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399 Network of European Technocrats - Re:"War" on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum. Also as a registered used on Network of European Technocrats it would appear that you are in a conflict of interest by directing traffic to a commercial site http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=85&Itemid=65 Network of European Technocrats - Ross Murphy of which you are a participant. That site publishes only self published material that is not peer reviewed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

It also tries to direct people to buy a book by another wikipedia editor here Isenhand or Dr. Andrew Wallace http://www.lulu.com/content/750510 Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace (Book) in Engineering. That book and other commercial products (calenders and music C.D.'s were designed as a profit mechanism for NET or Network of European Technocrats.

Here is another example of Andrew Wallace Director of Network of European Technocrats writing a review under his wikipedia name (Isenhand) on a website and making it look as though he is reviewing the book by Andrew Wallace - He is reviewing his own book under a false guise then http://www.sustainabilityblog.org/ SustainabilityBlog.Org If interested parties scroll down a bit they will see this conflict of interest also. skip sievert (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

misnomer[edit]

In the lead it says, "The term post-scarcity economics is somewhat of a misnomer...". While it's sorta supported with a quote, as it stands it's wp:synthesis unless an editor comes up with a quote from someone notable saying it's a misnomer. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As has been noted you appear to be stalking pages that I am editing. I am asking you to stop doing that. skip sievert (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect from Technocracy (Abundance)[edit]

Recent redirect made by Loremaster of Abundance (economics)‎ to post scarcity Also I just redirected here an article Abundance (Technocracy) which was kind of an orphan and was slated to either merge or possibly delete. Post scarcity seems to cover both contents of redirected articles very well. skip sievert (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement[edit]

An organisation that has quite a bit to say about a potential post-scarcity society is The Zeitgeist Movement. Maybe it should be mentioned.--Mátyás (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree --Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I just included The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement to the article. It needs some formating and probably some editing to fit better with the article. I got the text from the main article of each one. --Arthurfragoso (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Post-Scarcity Symbol[edit]

http://singularityblog.singularitysymposium.com/singularity-utopia-post-scarcity-awareness-as-an-antidote-to-despair/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.242.109 (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're linking to a blog about the technological singularity? Post-scarcity has an actual economic meaning - it doesn't have anything relevant to a society, and nothing explicitly relevant to singularity-folk. And even if it did, we're not doing an article on the "International Post-scarcity Society" - we're doing an article on post-scarcity. If there was a subsection on the society (should it be notable), then perhaps the logo would go there. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
That blog is signed "singularity 2045", which is also coincidentally the name of the website that came up with the symbol. To merit inclusion I think you'd need multiple independent (and notable) sources making use of the symbol. Hypnosifl (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

a.k.a "Resource-based economy" ?[edit]

New reader to this article and the concept, having just heard of it from two activists at Occupy Atlanta. When I searched for "Resource-based economy" i was re-directed to this article. But I find that there is no mention of the term. Should it be included somewhere on the page? A Google search brings up a wiki-page on Jacque Fresco where it is mentioned and referenced, as well as scholarly articles from Stanford et al. -Anon98 98.92.184.95 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Done! :) Arthurfragoso (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"unavoidable scarcity"[edit]

Does anyone else think that section is nonsense. I mean the entire concept is nonsense, but we have plenty of articles on nonsense. What is problematic is that "unavoidable scarcity" is the reason theoretical "post scarcity" could never happen. Debating the possibility of self-replicating ring worlds and faster than light travel is stupid. stupid. The population size (N) at such a time when the mass of the population equals the mass of the earth would be roughly 8.31x10^22. So when you invent your ship that can travel faster than light, make sure you design it to transport at the very least a few trillion people per trip. In summary, the article ought to discuss the hypotheticals of post scarcity, but the section titled "unavoidable scarcity" shouldn't shy away from the fact that the economic principle of scarcity is, in reality, unavoidable. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the many problems with this article, it really needs a major overhaul. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope this will shed light on your misunderstandings:

(summary, by M. King Hubbert)

During a 4-hour interview with Stephen B Andrews, SbAndrews at worldnet.att.net, on March 8, 1988, Dr. Hubbert handed over a copy of the following, which was the subject of a seminar he taught, or participated in, at MIT Energy Laboratory on Sept 30, 1981.
"The world's present industrial civilization is handicapped by the coexistence of two universal, overlapping, and incompatible intellectual systems: the accumulated knowledge of the last four centuries of the properties and interrelationships of matter and energy; and the associated monetary culture which has evloved from folkways of prehistoric origin.
"The first of these two systems has been responsible for the spectacular rise, principally during the last two centuries, of the present industrial system and is essential for its continuance. The second, an inheritance from the prescientific past, operates by rules of its own having little in common with those of the matter-energy system. Nevertheless, the monetary system, by means of a loose coupling, exercises a general control over the matter-energy system upon which it is super[im]posed.
"Despite their inherent incompatibilities, these two systems during the last two centuries have had one fundamental characteristic in common, namely, exponential growth, which has made a reasonably stable coexistence possible. But, for various reasons, it is impossible for the matter-energy system to sustain exponential growth for more than a few tens of doublings, and this phase is by now almost over. The monetary system has no such constraints, and, according to one of its most fundamental rules, it must continue to grow by compound interest. This disparity between a monetary system which continues to grow exponentially and a physical system which is unable to do so leads to an increase with time in the ratio of money to the output of the physical system. This manifests itself as price inflation. A monetary alternative corresponding to a zero physical growth rate would be a zero interest rate. The result in either case would be large-scale financial instability."
"With such relationships in mind, a review will be made of the evolution of the world's matter-energy system culminating in the present industrial society. Questions will then be considered regarding the future:
  • What are the constraints and possibilities imposed by the matter-energy system? human society sustained at near optimum conditions?
  • Will it be possible to so reform the monetary system that it can serve as a control system to achieve these results?
  • If not, can an accounting and control system of a non-monetary nature be devised that would be approptirate for the management of an advanced industrial system?
"It appears that the stage is now set for a critical examination of this problem, and that out of such inquries, if a catastrophic solution can be avoided, there can hardly fail to emerge what the historian of science, Thomas S. Kuhn, has called a major scientific and intellectual revolution."
The following is from an article entitled "King Hubbert: Science's Don Quixote," in the February 1983 issue of Geophysics magazine, by Robert Dean Clark, assistant editor:
"Hubbert has had serious health problems for several years. Both his eyesight and hearing now give him problems. But neither the ailments nor the recent adulation have eroded his zest for intellectual combat. In recent years, he has assaulted a target--which he labels the culture of money--that is gigantic even by Hubbert standards. His thesis is that society is seriously handicapped because its two most important intellectual underpinnings, the science of matter-energy and the historic system of finance, are incompatible. A reasonable co-existance is possible when both are growing at approximately the same rate. That, Hubbert says, has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution but it is soon going to end because the amount of [that the?] matter-energy system can grow is limited while money's growth is not.
"'I was in New York in the 30s. I had a box seat at the depression,' Hubbert says. 'I can assure you it was a very educational experience. We shut the country down because of monetary reasons. We had manpower and abundant raw materials. Yet we shut the country down. We're doing the same kind of thing now but with a different material outlook. We are not in the position we were in 1929-30 with regard to the future. Then the physical system was ready to roll. This time it's not. We are in a crisis in the evolution of human socienty. It's unique to both human and geologic history. It has never happened before and it can't possibly happen again. You can only use oil once. You can only use metals once. Soon all the oil is going to be burned and all the metals mined and scattered.'
"That is obviously a scenario of catastrophe, a possibility Hubbert concedes. But it is not one he forecasts. The man known to many as a pessimist is, in this case, quite hopeful. In fact, he could be the ultimate utopian. We have, he says, the necessary technology. All we have to do is completely overhaul our culture and find an alternative to money.
"'We are not starting from zero,' he emphasizes. 'We have an enormous amount of existing technical knowledge. It's just a matter of putting it all together. We still have great flexibility but our maneuverability will diminish with time.'
"A non-catastrophic solution is impossible, Hubbert feels, unless society is made stable. This means abandoning two axioms of our culture...the work ethic and the idea that growth is the normal state of life...."
During his interview with Dr. Hubbert, Mr. Andrews asked him for his updated perspective, five years later, about his comments as quoted in the article above. He said:
"our window of opportunity is slowly closing...at the same time, it probably requires a spiral of adversity. In other words, things have to get worse before they can get better. The most important thing is to get a clear picture of the situation we're in, and the outlook for the future--exhaustion of oil and gas, that kind of thing...and an appraisal of where we are and what the time scale is. And the time scale is not centuries, it's decades."

--Newuser2011 (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Technocracy Inc[edit]

The "Technocracy Incorporated" organization is not notable as far as I can see, and does not have it's own article, and seems hardly to exist. Noting this non-organisations support for post scarcity hence is also not notable. The organisations support for post-scarcity ideas is also not sourced. I'm removing these additions. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does have several articles actually: Technocracy and Technocracy movement. You'd be hard pressed to find more notable people than Marion King Hubbert, co-founder of Technocracy Incorporated and co-author of the Technocracy Study Course, as well as the founding members of the Technical Alliance. All this is very well documented. Fresco was a former volunteer illustrator who contributed to a few Technocracy Incorporated publications but who later had a falling out with the Technocracy leadership and decided to go his own way to promote his architectural designs and views concerning creating a change in societal "values".Newuser2011 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The idea of technocracy is not the same as the movement, which is not the same as Technocracy Incorporated. Your claim is about Technocracy Incorporated, which seems to be a non-notable organisation. The claim that Technocracy Incorporated, or for that matter the technocracy movement, supports post scarcity is still unsourced. As such your addition violates two Wikipedia policies: WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Please remove your additions. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I want to understand what is going on here, we have to make it clear, we are suffering from misunderstanding. I read the document that Newuser2011 added to the references [1]. And I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, the reason why some says it advocates a Post-Scarcity is because it says we can achieve abundance.
"The production problem has been solved, but people must now solve the problem of distributing abundance. (We do not dispute that large numbers of people today are going without, but from a Technocratic perspective, we contend this deprivation needs to be addressed by discarding our “Price System.”)"
And I think the point that is making the confusion whether it is a post-scarcity or not, is the 'distribution'. The one's who says it's not about post-scarcity, points that the Energy Distribution Card makes a limitation on the purchasing power. ("The Energy Distribution Card represents equal, though not identical, purchasing power for every adult living on this continent.")
But from what I understood, the one's who says Technocracy is about post-scarcity, is basing themselves that it eliminates the exchange method, people get things from "the abundant system", but they need to use the Energy Distribution Card to get it. (that limits them)
"The Price System is simply a method of erratic The Energy Distribution Card exchange, in scarcity, it sufficed well enough as an exchange method; with enough to go around, it cannot even do that."
Let me know if I'm wrong, and where I went wrong. Let's make it clear.
I don't know if we will describe Technocracy as being a post-scarcity or not, but I think, even in the case of it not being considered a post-scarcity, we can put it somewhere in the article, explaining the differences. From what I understood, it is somewhat connected with the concepts of post-scarcity.
--Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not up to us to decide if it is post-scarcity or not. It is up to reliable sources to do so. The link does not mention post-scarcity. So the problems remain:
1. We have no reliable source claiming either the technocracy ideology, the technocracy movement or Technocracy Incorporated supports post scarcity. As such the section is unsourced.
2. Most of the section is about Technocracy Inc, not their possibly support of Post Scarcity.
3. Technocracy Inc is apparently not notable, and the section therefore gives undue wight to a non-notable minority position.
Since Newuser2011 appears to want to engage in edit wars over this, I'm again asking him/her to self revert to show good faith.
--OpenFuture (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, Technocracy was the first ever "post-scarcity" advocator in the world. They where the first to realize that North America had more than 50% of the world's resources, and most of the installed industrial equipment and trained technical personnel in the world. Therefore, according to the Technocrats, there were or should be no scarce commodities on the North American Continent. This means the Continental Technate could distribute an abundance of goods and services to all North American Citizens without price, with responsible concern they do not waste their natural resources so as to ensure continued operation into the indefinite future. The Technate would provide goods to every North American Citizen well over his physical ability to consume. The Universal Identity Card, also known as the Distribution Certificate, is an accounting mechanism only, which the citizens would not even have to worry about. All this is made clear in any Technocracy literature. Some quotes among many:

GEARED TO SCARCITY

The Price System is geared to scarcity—can operate only with scarcity. If waste is necessary to maintain scarcity, then there will be as much waste as can be managed. But the development of extraneous energy, through first steam and then electricity, harnessed to the machines created by man's inventive genius, has made any necessity for scarcity

on the North American Continent forever a thing of the past. North Americans must learn to use the abundance they can create, or go down to defeat and chaos. To use it they must establish a complete distribution on a scientific basis forever divorced from price and profit.
— Lucy L. Barnes, 12247-3, "Wasted Kilowatts", The Northwest Technocrat, August 1945, p. 15.

There is a fairly definite limit to how many goods and services a single individual can consume, bearing in mind the fact that he lives only 24 hours a day, one-third of which he sleeps, and a considerable part of the remainder of which he works, loafs, plays, or indulges in other pursuits many of which do not involve a great physical consumption of goods. Let us recall that every individual in the society must be supplied, young and old alike. Since it is possible to set arbitrarily the rate of production at a quite high figure, it is entirely likely that the average potential consuming power per adult can be set higher than the average adult's rate of physical consumption. Since this is so, there is no point in introducing a differentiation in adult incomes in a manner characteristic of economies of scarcity.

From the point of view of simplicity of record-keeping, moreover, enormous simplification can be effected by making all adult incomes, male and female alike, equal. Thus, all adults above the age of 25 years would receive a large income, quite probably larger than they would find it convenient to spend. This income would continue without interruption until the death of the recipient.
— Marion King Hubbert, Howard Scott, Technocracy Inc., "Income", Technocracy Study Course, New York, 1st Edition, 1934; 5th Edition, 1940, 4th printing, July 1945, p. 236.

Each individual tells the Technate what shall be made, and the Functional Control says how it shall be made.

— Technocracy Incorporated, Technocracy in plain terms, 1939, p. 13.
Fresco got some of the central concepts of his information from his experience in Technocracy, and Zeitgeist in turn got their ideas from Fresco. Guess which one of the three is way more notable? And yes obviously "Technocracy" and "Technocracy movement" and "Technical Alliance" and "Technocracy Incorporated" are all the same thing. OpenFuture you better do some more research before you ever set foot here again. Have a nice day. --Newuser2011 (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Fresco's ideas simply are technocracy with pretty pictures. But neither me, nor you are reliable sources. Please learn more about Wikipedia policies, as linked to above. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Fresco's ideas and Technocracy are worlds apart. While some of his information is from Technocracy a lot of it is very much at odds with what Technocracy is talking about. Both advocate "post-scarcity" however, that is obvious, and is not even up to debate. There are already hundreds of both first, second, and third party sources about Technocracy, with coverage spanning almost a century. This is not even up to debate. A lot more then either two of the other groups, which have no sources at all. Immediately take the tags off this group and put them on the other two if you have a minimum of integrity. Otherwise it is apparent you have an axe to grind against Technocracy and "post-scarcity". Anyways you asked for it, here are a couple quotations and some sources, right off the bat, obviously there being thousands of them it would be impossible to list them all here. I know all about Wikipedia policies. I couldn't care less what you have to say though, because you obviously don't really care about Wikipedia policy at all or anything else for that matter. Now go away please.

Technocracy:

Out of America's fascination with technology came another eccentric "reform" movement known as Technocracy. Founded in 1918 by a California patent attorney it would briefly flare as a serious intellectual movement centered around Columbia University; although as a mass-movement its real center was California where it claimed half a million members in 1934. Technocracy counted among its admirers such men as the novelist H.G. Wells, the author Theodore Dreiser and the economist Thorstein Veblen.

Technocracy held that all politics and all economic arrangements based on the "Price System" (i.e., based on traditional economic theory) were antiquated and that the only hope of building a successful modern world was to let engineers and other technology experts run the country on engineering principles. Technocracy's rallying cry was "production for use," which was meant as a contrast to production for profit in the capitalist system. Production for use became a slogan for many of the radical-left movements of the era. Upton Sinclair, among others, affirmed his belief in "production for use" and the Technocrats briefly made common cause with Sinclair, and even Huey Long, in California. But the Technocrats were not of the political left, as they held every political and economic system, from the left to the right, to be unsound.

The Technocrats believed that the solution to all problems of economic security were the same, the rigorous application of engineering principles in a system freed from the Price System. They conceived of retirement as being made possible at age 45 for everyone due to the vast prosperity the new age of Technocracy would usher in. Rejecting all forms of traditional political science, the Technocrats refused to even use standard geographical maps because their boundaries were political, so they would refer to states only by their geographical coordinates. Names, too, were suspect for some reason so members of the movement in California were designated only by numbers. A speaker at one California rally was introduced only as 1x1809x56!

Oddly enough, alone among this collection of radical movements of the 1930s, the Technocracy movement survives, if not quite thrives, into the present day.

Technocracy is a uniquely North American movement which had its inception in 1919 in New York City. It was founded by Howard Scott, an American engineer, who along with a number of other scientists and engineers, impressed by the results of the mobilization of resources and production during the First World War, organized a group known as the Technical Alliance. The Technical Alliance proposed to study the working of the entire social system, and elected Howard Scott to serve as Chief Engineer. They conducted a survey of North American energy and natural resources, and studied the corresponding industrial evolution that unfolded post-World War One. The group’s aim was to design a new system of production and distribution for continental North America that would provide a better standard of living while conserving non-renewable resources, ensuring ‘an economy of abundance’. The Technical Alliance was renamed Technocracy in 1930 and in 1932 its basic findings were published. In the fall of 1933, Technocracy was incorporated in New York State as a “nonsectarian, educational-research membership organization” (Technocracy Digest, No. 231, pp 4). American engineer W.H. Smith is credited with coining the term ‘technocracy’ which is derived from Greek language roots to convey the concept of ‘government by science’. Technocracy uses the Monad, an ancient generic symbol signifying balance, as its symbol.

Thus the importance of what the technocrats had to say was matched and even surpassed by the effect they had on public debates and on scientists, engineers, and businessmen. Although the majority of these people rejected the technocrats' ideas, they nevertheless were prodded by the popularity of the movement to explain their positions on technological unemployment and the decreasing need to work. One story is illustrative of the way the technocrats, despite their radicalism, did have a powerful effect in clarifying issues and forcing those around them to take a stand. Albert Einstein, the nation's adopted guru of mystic science, was visiting California at the time the technocrats were gaining celebrity status. The press approached the great man, hoping to tie two headline stories together in some way. But those who expected all scientists to speak with one voice about economic matters were disappointed; newspapermen were not able to proclaim Einstein a technocrat. Instead, his few words about technocracy were given relatively small play in the newspapers. What he did answer to reporters' questions spoke volumes and set the tone for how other scientists would respond. Einstein simply replied that "power as applied to production must not be halted, but at the same time, men must have work." These few words sum up the characteristic response of engineers, scientific managers, and orthodox economists. The ideas they expressed were reiterated time and again by technocracy's critics; but while elaborated in more complex detail, they were never expressed with such eloquent simplicity.

— Benjamin Hunnicutt, Work Without End: Abandoning Shorter Hours for the Right to Work, Temple University Press, 1990, p. 287.

The popularity of their movement was transient, but the Technocrats’ vision of reducing society to a single energy dial, to be adjusted objectively by social engineers, would recur in the field of ecology.

— Peter J. Taylor. Technocratic Optimism, H.T. Odum, and the Partial Transformation of Ecological Metaphor after World War II, "Journal of the History of Biology", Vol. 21, No. 2, June 1988, p. 214.
  • Adair (David), The Technocrats 1919-1967: A Case Study of Conflict and Change in a Social Movement, Simon Fraser University, January, 1970

http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/bitstream/1892/5072/1/b13876442.pdf

  • Armytage (W. H. G.), Yesterday's Tomorrows: A Historical Survey of Future Societies, Routledge & K. Paul, 1968

http://www.abebooks.com/9780710060549/Yesterdays-Tomorrows-Historical-Survey-Future-0710060548/plp

  • Barnes (Harry Elmer), Encyclopedia Americana, 1939, 1940
  • Berndt (Ernst R.), “From Technocracy To Net Energy Analysis: Engineers, Economists And Recurring Energy Theories Of Value”, Studies in Energy and the American Economy, Discussion Paper No. 11, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Revised September 1982

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/2023/SWP-1353-09057784.pdf

  • Blake (Trevor) “R. Buckminster Fuller and Technocracy Incorporated”, synchronofile.com, April 16, 2010

http://synchronofile.com/r-buckminster-fuller-and-technocracy-incorporated/

  • Board of Economic Warfare, Letters and Hearing regarding Hubbert's involvement with Technocracy, January 10, 1943 through August 23, 1943.

http://www.oilcrisis.com/hubbert/Technocracy1943.pdf

  • Brickell (Herschel), “The Literary Landscape”, The North American Review, Vol. CCXXXV, New York, 1933, p. 279-280

http://www.archive.org/details/northamreview235miscrich

  • Chase (Stuart), The Tragedy of Waste, The Macmillan Company, New York, NY, 1925

http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-tragedy-of-waste-by-stuart-chase.jsp

  • Chu (Hsiao-yun), Trujillo (Roberto G.), New views on R. Buckminster Fuller, Stanford University Press, 2009

http://books.google.com/books?id=bWScoJc9Od0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

  • Cimbleris (Borisas), Economy and Thermodynamics, Emeritus Professor, Federal University of Minas Gerais, revised Sunday, 13 December 1998

http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm

  • Ciotola (Mark), “Howard Scott”, Encyclopedia of Human Thermodynamics, Human Chemistry, and Human Physics, Jul 29 2010

http://www.eoht.info/page/Howard+Scott

  • Cleveland (Cutler J.) [Lead Author], Costanza (Robert) [Topic Editor], “Biophysical economics”. In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth May 26, 2010; Last revised Date May 26, 2010; Retrieved August 31, 2011

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics

  • Cochet (Yves), “Pic de pétrole et décroissance”, Conférence d’Yves Cochet pour le Collectif Parisien pour la Décroissance, Paris, le 22 mai 2008

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5t2hi_pic-de-petrole-et-decroissance-16_news

  • Creese (Walter L.), TVA's Public Planning: The Vision, the Reality, Univ. of Tennessee Press, 2003

http://books.google.com/books?id=5I2-B4F7AQkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

  • Dusek (Val), Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing, 2006

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53264128/Val-Dusek-Philosophy-of-Technology-An-Introduction-2006

  • Energy Accounting as a Policy Analysis Tool, Serial CC, Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development and Demonstration of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 94th Congress, Second Session, June 1976

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL5014806M/Energy_accounting_as_a_policy_analysis_tool

  • Guerrero (Omar), “Tecnocracia Inc.”, Ochoa (Haydée), El poder de los expertos, Universidad del Zulia, 2006

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56454651/Haydee-Ochoa-El-poder-de-los-expertos-Para-compender-la-Tecnocracia-Alternativa-a-la-falsa-democracia

  • Interview of Marion King Hubbert by Ronald Doel on January 17, 1989, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD USA

http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/5031_4.html

  • Hubbert (Marion King), “M. King Hubbert on the Nature of Growth”, National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1974, Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Environment of the committee on Interior and Insular Affairs House of Representatives. June 6, 1974

http://web.archive.org/web/20010701231438/http://www.technocracy.org/articles/hub-gro.html

  • Hubbert (Marion King), “Two Intellectual Systems: Matter-energy and the Monetary Culture”, During a 4-hour interview with Stephen B Andrews, SbAndrews at worldnet.att.net, on March 8, 1988, Dr. Hubbert handed over a copy of the following, which was the subject of a seminar he taught, or participated in, at MIT Energy Laboratory on Sept 30, 1981

http://www.oilcrisis.com/hubbert/monetary.htm

  • Hughes (Rupert), “Technocracy to the Rescue” Liberty Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 7, February 18, 1933

http://web.archive.org/web/20010519213705/http://www.technocracy.org/articles/rescue.html

  • Hunnicutt (Benjamin), Work Without End: Abandoning Shorter Hours for the Right to Work, Temple University Press, 1990

http://books.google.com/books?id=_hJhH4gltXIC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

  • “Heaping Treasure Together for the Last Days - Howard Scott, Technologist, Says Data Already Compiled Shows Machine Age Menace. Holds New System Vital.”, The Herald of Christ's Kingdom, VOL. XV., No. 18, November, 1932

http://www.heraldmag.org/archives/1932_11.htm

  • Ivie (Wilton), “L'Ecologia Dell'Uomo”, Titolo originale “The Ecology of Man”, Tradotto dagli Amici di Beppe Grillo di Roma (Leonora Faccio - Dario Tamburrano – Erica Giuliani), Traduzione dall'articolo originale in inglese del 1948, Versione traduzione 24 settembre 2009

http://www.indipendenzaenergetica.it/doc/The.Ecology.of.Man_(Tecnocracy-Inc.1948-ITA).pdf http://www.scribd.com/doc/52636930/The-ecology-of-Man-Tecnocracy-Inc-1948-ITA

  • Jones (John), “Technocracy”, SFU School of Engineering Science, 03 Dec 2003

http://www.ensc.sfu.ca/~jones/ENSC100/Unit18/lecture18.html

  • Krishnan (Rajaram), Harris (Jonathan M.), Goodwin (Neva R.), A survey of ecological economics, Island Press, 1995

http://books.google.com/books?id=pM0KVmJulNMC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

  • Kuykendall (Chris), “Hubbert Bibliography Compilation Project”, ASPO-USA Denver World Oil Conference, November 4, 2005

http://www.oilcrisis.com/hubbert/Bibliography.htm

  • Llorens (Eduardo), “¿Qué es la tecnocracia?”, Madrid, Revista de Derecho Privado, 1933

http://books.google.com/books?id=-Io5HAAACAAJ

  • Martinez-Alier (Juan), Schlupmann (Klaus), “Energy-related Issues in Early Economic Literature”, Energy Research Group Manuscript Reports, International Development Research Center and the United Nations University Energy Research Group, March 1986

http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/7278/1/67694.pdf

  • New Scientist, Vol. 64, No. 922, Reed Business Information, Nov 7, 1974

http://books.google.com/books?id=L-SSHIVt30cC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

  • “RCMP Secret Intelligence Bulletin - Technocracy Inc. — An Enemy of Democracy”, War Series, No. 20, p. 170

http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/RCMP/article/download/9628/9683

  • Richard C. Tolman and Albert Einstein standing in front of blackboard at California Institute of Technology in 1932. Handwriting on negative states “Dr. Richard Tolman & Dr. Einstein”, Published January 9, 1932, (29 November 2008 (original upload date))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tolman_%26_Einstein.jpg

  • Robinson (James Harvey), The Mind In The Making: The Relation Of Intelligence To Social Reform, Harper Collins, January 1921

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8077

  • Roussy de Sales (Compte Raoul de), “Un mouvement nouveau aux Etats-Unis: La Technocratie”, Revue de Paris, 1933/03 (A40,T2)-1933/04, p.432-443

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k176502/f432 http://www.archive.org/details/LaTechnocratie

  • Sann (Paul), “Technocracy: $20,000 per ...”, American Panorama, ISBN: 0-517-537737, 1980

http://thewebfairy.com/technocracy/

  • “Science Notes: Energy Accounting and Balance”, Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology, Carnegie Mellon University, 2003

http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml

  • Sheldon (John), “Letters to the editors”, Life, Vol. 66, N° 4, Time Inc., ISSN 0024-3019, 31 janv. 1969

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZVIEAAAAMBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

  • Sheldon (John), “On Technocrats”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33, N° 5, Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc., ISSN 0096-3402, mai 1977

http://books.google.com/books?id=fwsAAAAAMBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

  • Sheldon (John), “What’s in a name?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 36, N° 8, oct. 1980

http://books.google.com/books?id=swoAAAAAMBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

  • Sheridan (William), “Howard Scott: An Authentic American Radical”

http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/hotlist/free/licence/information/radical.htm http://www.archive.org/details/HowardScott-AnAuthenticAmericanRadical-WilliamSheridan

  • Soddy (Frederick), Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt, the Solution of the Economic Paradox, New York, E. P. Dutton & Co., 1926, 320 pages (See also: Fox Movietone Newsreel – Soddy on Technocracy)

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/wvwd/

  • Taylor (Peter J.), Technocratic Optimism, H. T. Odum, and the Partial Transformation of Ecological Metaphor after World War II, Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, California, 94720, Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 21, No. 2, Summer, 1988

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4331051

  • “Technocracy”, Historical Background and Development of Social Security, U.S. Social Security Administration Online, 2011

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

  • Technocracy, Technocracy Fonds, 1933-1995, 7.3 m of textual records, University of Alberta Archives

http://archive1.macs.ualberta.ca/FindingAids/Technocracy/technocracy.html

  • Teichrib (Carl), “Engineering a New World: Technocracy and Transformation - Part 1”, Forcing Change, Volume 1, Issue 8, July 2010

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/010/7-technocracy-1.htm

  • Teichrib (Carl), “Engineering a New World - Part 2 - Great Scott! The Rise of the Soviet Technicians” Forcing Change, Volume 4, Issue 8, August 2010

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/010/8-technocracy-2.htm

  • Veblen (Thorstein), Engineers and the Price System, Transaction Publishers, 1963

http://books.google.com/books?id=PZJR9mMwNxQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

  • Waring (John), Scheel (Lois M.), “The Technical Alliance Profiles” Section 3 Newsletter, #91, March 1991

http://www.technocracy.org/technical-alliancetn/the-beginning/241-waringscheel

  • Watts (Jim), “If scientists ruled the world”, New Scientist, Vol. 64, No. 922, Reed Business Information, Nov 7, 1974, p. 438

http://books.google.com/books?id=L-SSHIVt30cC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

  • Weishaar (Wayne), “Technocracy: An Appraisal”, The North American Review, Vol. CCXXXV, New York, 1933, p. 121-128

http://www.archive.org/details/northamreview235miscrich

  • Wood (Patrick), Editor of August Forecast & Review http://www.augustreview.com presents a 40 minute presentation on “Technocracy” at the Eagle Forum Convention, Saturday June 18, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul5oQ3wbstQ

--Newuser2011 (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You still don't understand how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter if I agree with you or not, so convincing me is pointless. You need to find reliable sources that support your additions, and you also need to find reliable sources to support Technocracy Internationals notability. You also need to write what your sources claim. Hence, if the source claims Technocracy International supports post-scarcity, then the article must claim that. If the source claims technocracy, as in the ideology, supports it, them we must state that. You do not have the power to decide that technocracy and Technocracy International are the same thing (a patently absurd statement in any case).
Is there anything unclear with this? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Technocracy International" or "Technocracy Internationals". I just gave you more reliable sources then you could ever read in your lifetime. These quotes randomly picked from the reliable sources above state what Technocracy is (a post-scarcity "government by science" divorced from the Price System, devised by Howard Scott and the original Technical Alliance), that Technocracy was legally incorporated in the state of New York in 1933 (hence the name of the research and education membership movement advocating Technocracy; Technocracy Incorporated), and why it is notable, all the other sources will confirm that, I will not repeat them again. Now for the last time go away and stay away, I will not be answering you again, your not an admin and never will be. --Newuser2011 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Technocracy:

Out of America's fascination with technology came another eccentric "reform" movement known as Technocracy. Founded in 1918 by a California patent attorney it would briefly flare as a serious intellectual movement centered around Columbia University; although as a mass-movement its real center was California where it claimed half a million members in 1934. Technocracy counted among its admirers such men as the novelist H.G. Wells, the author Theodore Dreiser and the economist Thorstein Veblen.

Technocracy held that all politics and all economic arrangements based on the "Price System" (i.e., based on traditional economic theory) were antiquated and that the only hope of building a successful modern world was to let engineers and other technology experts run the country on engineering principles. Technocracy's rallying cry was "production for use," which was meant as a contrast to production for profit in the capitalist system. Production for use became a slogan for many of the radical-left movements of the era. Upton Sinclair, among others, affirmed his belief in "production for use" and the Technocrats briefly made common cause with Sinclair, and even Huey Long, in California. But the Technocrats were not of the political left, as they held every political and economic system, from the left to the right, to be unsound.

The Technocrats believed that the solution to all problems of economic security were the same, the rigorous application of engineering principles in a system freed from the Price System. They conceived of retirement as being made possible at age 45 for everyone due to the vast prosperity the new age of Technocracy would usher in. Rejecting all forms of traditional political science, the Technocrats refused to even use standard geographical maps because their boundaries were political, so they would refer to states only by their geographical coordinates. Names, too, were suspect for some reason so members of the movement in California were designated only by numbers. A speaker at one California rally was introduced only as 1x1809x56!

Oddly enough, alone among this collection of radical movements of the 1930s, the Technocracy movement survives, if not quite thrives, into the present day.

Technocracy is a uniquely North American movement which had its inception in 1919 in New York City. It was founded by Howard Scott, an American engineer, who along with a number of other scientists and engineers, impressed by the results of the mobilization of resources and production during the First World War, organized a group known as the Technical Alliance. The Technical Alliance proposed to study the working of the entire social system, and elected Howard Scott to serve as Chief Engineer. They conducted a survey of North American energy and natural resources, and studied the corresponding industrial evolution that unfolded post-World War One. The group’s aim was to design a new system of production and distribution for continental North America that would provide a better standard of living while conserving non-renewable resources, ensuring ‘an economy of abundance’. The Technical Alliance was renamed Technocracy in 1930 and in 1932 its basic findings were published. In the fall of 1933, Technocracy was incorporated in New York State as a “nonsectarian, educational-research membership organization” (Technocracy Digest, No. 231, pp 4). American engineer W.H. Smith is credited with coining the term ‘technocracy’ which is derived from Greek language roots to convey the concept of ‘government by science’. Technocracy uses the Monad, an ancient generic symbol signifying balance, as its symbol.

Thus the importance of what the technocrats had to say was matched and even surpassed by the effect they had on public debates and on scientists, engineers, and businessmen. Although the majority of these people rejected the technocrats' ideas, they nevertheless were prodded by the popularity of the movement to explain their positions on technological unemployment and the decreasing need to work. One story is illustrative of the way the technocrats, despite their radicalism, did have a powerful effect in clarifying issues and forcing those around them to take a stand. Albert Einstein, the nation's adopted guru of mystic science, was visiting California at the time the technocrats were gaining celebrity status. The press approached the great man, hoping to tie two headline stories together in some way. But those who expected all scientists to speak with one voice about economic matters were disappointed; newspapermen were not able to proclaim Einstein a technocrat. Instead, his few words about technocracy were given relatively small play in the newspapers. What he did answer to reporters' questions spoke volumes and set the tone for how other scientists would respond. Einstein simply replied that "power as applied to production must not be halted, but at the same time, men must have work." These few words sum up the characteristic response of engineers, scientific managers, and orthodox economists. The ideas they expressed were reiterated time and again by technocracy's critics; but while elaborated in more complex detail, they were never expressed with such eloquent simplicity.

— Benjamin Hunnicutt, Work Without End: Abandoning Shorter Hours for the Right to Work, Temple University Press, 1990, p. 287.

The popularity of their movement was transient, but the Technocrats’ vision of reducing society to a single energy dial, to be adjusted objectively by social engineers, would recur in the field of ecology.

— Peter J. Taylor. Technocratic Optimism, H.T. Odum, and the Partial Transformation of Ecological Metaphor after World War II, "Journal of the History of Biology", Vol. 21, No. 2, June 1988, p. 214.
Your continued violating of Wikipedia policies make discussion pointless, as you are not engaging in constructive discussion, but instead edit-warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm also seeing the edit-war, but I'm also trying to understand this. I have some questions, OpenFuture, you wrote before:
- "We have no reliable source claiming either the technocracy ideology, the technocracy movement or Technocracy Incorporated supports post scarcity. As such the section is unsourced." --OpenFuture
would this be a reliable source?
"Technocracy is a proposal for a steady-state, post-scarcity economic system. It is intended for industrialized nations with sufficient natural, technological, and human resources to produce an economic abundance. Primarily this refers to the continent of North America, but may also apply to other areas today as well if they have achieved certain minimum criteria."[2]
or: technocracy.org -> Nature: Moving Toward Resource-Based Economy
if it's not a reliable source, why would you claim it's not? --Arthurfragoso (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
See WP:RS. We don't know who wrote it or published the first text, it's published on a random webpage on the net. Anyone can set up a website claiming anything. So no, it's not a reliable source. The second text is much better, but doesn't support the claim. OpenFuture (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we write: "Some (sources) says Technocracy is a Post-scarcity <ref>...</ref>" ? or something similar? --Arthurfragoso (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
No, we need reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Advocators section[edit]

The "Advocators" section is just describing the advocators. I don't see how that is relevant for the article at all, and suggest we remove it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

After reading Talk:Post_scarcity#The_Zeitgeist_Movement, I thought we should show how other groups relates with a post-scarcity. I couldn't think about a better word to describe those groups, so I though, if I used the word "Advocators", someone else could change it to a better word that would fit it better. You can change that word, or we can edit each small section of each group to show it better how each group relate with a post-scarcity. If you decide to remove the section, we should at least write somewhere else in the article that The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project is related with the post-scarcity (aka. Resource-Based Economy) --Arthurfragoso (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Showing that they are related can be as simple as "See also" links. We could also just mention Zeitgeist and TVP in the lead. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The thing that is strange about all this is that, if you go to the article Resource-based economy or Resource based economy you will be redirected to Post-scarcity. I'm not sure, but from what I know, Jacque Fresco was the one who came up with the term "Resource-based economy", and he talks so much about it to the article. And then we are redirected to a article called "Post-scarcity" that doesn't even mention "Resource-based economy" nor Fresco, so I had to add it. I think if we keep the redirect to post-scarcity, we should at least mention RBE and Fresco. Otherwise I think we should remove the redirect and have a article for RBE, but it's the same thing. RBE = Post-scarcity. Isn't it? From what I see, there is a little difference on how we see each term. Maybe another point on removing the redirect is that the term RBE is getting more popular then Post-scarcity. What are your thoughts on it? --Arthurfragoso (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think RBE should be redirected to The Venus Project, as those are the ones using the term as far as I can ascertain. Fresco doesn't really explain what RBE is, he just uses it as a magical buzzword, but it's clear that it is some form of post-scarcity, that doesn't use money but energy tokens (ie money). --OpenFuture (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
From what I understood the RBE that fresco talks about doesn't use energy tokens. [3] from what I understood, who uses energy tokens was the technocratics... I think rather than redirect to The Venus Project, I think it should have an independent article, because we could have a RBE different then the models from TVP, and because now The Zeitgeist Movement advocates the same thing even being separated from TVP. Also the Spanish, French, and Russian articles names that are linked to post-scarcity is RBE. I think it should have a separated article to don't make too much confusion. --Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
If you can find other notable meanings of RBE, then sure, there should be a separate article. As long as it is something used only by TVP/ZG (separate or not) a separate article from TVP is not needed, especially since TVP does not adequately define RBE in a meaningful or consistent way. I'm pretty sure I've seen references to energy tokens is some other TVP writings, but it's unimportant. It could get it's own article even if only TVP uses it, if you can find some sort of actual description of what it means and how it should work, which is not just loose blabbering about not using money. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Other sources talking about a RBE before TVP became famous makes me question if it's used only by TVP and TZM. Technocracy - Nature: Moving Toward Resource-Based Economy(1994) I'd like to see what other wikipedia users have to say about the "Advocators" section and/or about the making or not Resource Based Economy an independent article. I think if we decide to leave RBE redirecting to Post-scarcity, we could remove the Advocators section and add a line like: "The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project advocates a Resource Based Economy (Post-scarcity) <ref>...</ref>" or something like this somewhere in the article. --Arthurfragoso (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice. It still of course, as all of these resources, fail in explaining what RBE is, but at least it does mean that an independent article is starting to make more sense. You don't happen to have any resource that explain what RBE is, as opposed to just complain about the perceived shortcomings of any other system? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the best writer to make a whole new article, but I may get it started if you agree. maybe some sources could be: “A resource-based economy is a society without money, barter or trade, with the awareness that Humanity is One family and where technology, science and spirituality is used to it’s fullest to develop and manage the planet’s resources to provide abundance for everyone in the most sustainable way.[4] and The Venus Project FAQ, I think we can get other sources, and with some time more people will contribute. --Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The first source is yet again an (anonymously?) self-published source, and can't be used. The Venus project FAQ doesn't explain what RBE is, except in the sort of language you use above, which is only a string of nice-sounding words chained together. There is no explanation of how it will work, or how their ideas of not having money would result in this utopia they describe. The description is a "negational" one in that it only explains what RBE is not, but fails to explain what it is.
I think however, that we can make a disambiguation page, as the term is sometimes used to mean the economy of a country whose main production comes from natural resources. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Said and done: Resource-based economy. If this is acceptable we should as a second step redirect all other versions, such as Resource-Based Economy to that disambiguation page. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Great Job! I redirected all the other pages to that disambiguation page. Now we need to decide about the "Advocators" section, should we just remove it and just let them in the "See also"? --Arthurfragoso (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Works for me. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


Requested move[edit]

Post scarcityPost-scarcity – Better English and WP:COMMONNAME --OpenFuture (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Post-scarcity economy. Favonian (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


Post scarcityPost-scarcity economy – Post-scarcity is a compound word and should have a hyphen. "Economy" should be added to make the word a proper noun. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, though "Post-scarcity economy" is not (nor should it be) a proper noun. Powers T 12:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hehe right, I meant "real noun". :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Nouns generally preferable to adjectives when possible. Though I wonder if "society" would be equally appropriate. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Scarcity is an economic concept, not a social one. There may be social effects from the post-scarcity economy, but the basic concept involves economic theory. Powers T 14:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of links from 'See also'[edit]

This comment is regarding the recent removal of two links from the 'See also' section.

Please refer to the WP policy on 'See also':

Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. {{Portal}} and {{Wikipedia-Books}} links are usually placed in this section. Consider using {{Columns-list}} if the list is lengthy.

Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section.

The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages.


OpenFuture's recent removal of Arthurfragoso's two links are in clear violation of this policy.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for calling this section "Censorship". That's exactly what it is. I am a part of the select group of powerful people who decide what goes on Wikipedia, and what does not, and we do indeed censor Wikipedia to make sure The Truth does not come to public attention, as the public couldn't not handle The Truth as it would litelly convert their brains into sugar-cotton. No Wikipedia policies have however been violated in this process, as you can see. Us censors would never violate Wikipedia policy. After all, we wrote it. Since we have the power to censor Wikipedia, we obviously have the power to write the policies, that's self-evident.
Now if you want to discuss the issue without ridiculous hyperbole, personal attacks and unfounded claims about policy, you are welcome. But you already on other articles have declared that you refuse to have constructive discussions with anyone who disagrees with you, so I don't have much hope of that. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

OpenFuture, we'd appreciate a short explanation as to why you removed the links. Ijon, you're citing a style guideline, not a policy, and even if it were policy, it has not been violated. As it says, See also links are a matter of editorial judgment. If us editors disagree on what links to keep, we discuss it. And it was really inappropriate to call this censorship, you're not going to win any points for being overly dramatic. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's good feedback Jeraphine. In response to your feedback, I've changed the title of this section.
You've mentioned that if we disagree on what links to keep, we discuss it. Yes, I fully agree with you on this. Please note that there was no discussion on this talk page before the links were removed. It is my understanding that WP policies, rules, guidelines and regulations make it very clear that, in the vast majority of cases, it is much preferred to discuss first before deleting, not the other way around.
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Any edits can be made without discussion, including any removals of content. Discussion should happen when it's clear that editors disagree with each other. OpenFuture said in their last edit summary that the links are not related to post-scarcity. I'm not sure right now what my own opinion is. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed the links for the reason stated in the edit summary: Those articles bear no relation to this subject whatsoever as far as I can see. This article is about a hypothetical economical model (which most economics agree is simply impossible), the other is a workgroup and a report on what the current environmental issues can have for impact on society. I completely fail to see how they are relevant to each other. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

As stated in this very article, "post-scarcity economy" is an oxymoron. Rename the article to just "post-scarcity", as it used to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.76.160 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In Fiction: Dune as post-scarcity dystopia?[edit]

I question the inclusion of Dune as a post-scarcity dystopian society. The "Duniverse" is neither. There are phenomenally rich individuals and families, who own entire planets or systems, but the great majority of people in the fictional universe live what we would consider "normal" lives, working for a living in every imaginable social stratum. There is no assurance of plenty for any but the very wealthy. And the most important resource, spice, is indeed scarce. It is also not a dystopia. Most of society is very functional, and there is, as in the real world, a mixture of positive and negative factors in most individuals' lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.166.202 (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I was about to post the same thing. Its not post-scarcity, even if it is docile and declining. The universe was post-scarcity and then their machines rebelled and now the rebellious humans have become docile of their own accord. The entire book is specifically about a manipulation of a crucial and limited supply of spice, and of water.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


Why were External Links removed? I found them of use[edit]

External links:

Edited the Economics Section to properly reflect Communist Economics[edit]

The economic section was labouring under a popular understanding of communism, I have changed it to fit an understanding shared by actual communists. I removed the reference to socialism because it was irrelevant and even a brief look-over the socialism wiki page would lead one to see the errors in the previous description of it. That said, if anyone has any problems with my actions I am happy to reconsider should that be necessary.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits rely on primary sources and original research. Moreover, the concept of "Bourgeois socialism" articulated by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto defines it as essentially elements of the bourgeois who seek social reform (he goes on to list humanitarians, charity workers, etc.). Nowhere does the source indicate that "bourgeois socialism" is associated with the concept of post-scarcity and that "actual" Communists reject post-scarcity. The Marxist view of upper-stage communism implies a "superabundance" of goods and services, which makes possible the social relations of free access and distribution based on needs. While you are correct to note that post-scarcity is NOT the definition of a communist society, post-scarcity (or "abundance") is a necessary feature of Marx's concept of upper-stage communism.
The removed secondary source cited, Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century, clearly stated that the Marxist concept of communism entailed: "Communism, the highest stage of social and economic development, would be characterized by the absence of markets and money and by abundance, distribution according to need, and the withering away of the state…". Therefore I have restored the material that was removed from this section and removed original research pertaining to "bourgeois socialism". -Battlecry 04:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I have removed it, because the source doesn't actually support that position. bobrayner (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Marxian economics is an economic paradigm that supports the concept of the possibility of post-scarcity, therefore it deserves mention in an economics section of this article (as does any other economic school of thought that calls for or analyzes post-scarcity). Also, how does the source not support the position?
It is well known in the economics profession that the hypothetical communist system is predicated upon superabundance and overcoming scarcity (consequently that is why the vision of communism is shunned by mainstream economists who reject the very possibility of post-scarcity). -Battlecry 23:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Information original research[edit]

Removed a bunch of original research and tagged uncited un sourced information from the article. This article needs to be reorganized and more cited information used. It was reading as a speculative blog and is still so needs further cutting of information and putting better cited information in. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The diff is here, in case anybody can ref the info.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Original Research is Needed![edit]

As this Post-scarcity economy article is about the future, it should contain the most likely baseline scenarios for the Next 100+ Years. I suggest the following six alternatives stand out:

         1) Scarcity with large population growth.
         2) Scarcity with moderate population growth.
         3) Scarcity with negative population growth.
         4) Abundance with large population growth.
         5) Abundance with moderate population growth.
         6) Abundance with negative population growth.         

In the past, Scarcity has been the major paradigm driving economic theory. In the future, accelerating technological and scientific breakthroughs may make a paradigm of Abundance possible. Because it is uncertain as to which scenario is most likely to occur it is necessary to delineate some of the forces of change that will affect these alternative futures. Although Automation has now been with us for many years, in scenarios 1 – 3, the major force of change will likely be advanced technology in the form of Singularity, Artificial Intelligent Robots and Nanotechnology. (Large standing armies and navies may well become a thing of the past.) In the short-term (30–80 years) hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of unemployable individuals – those ill-equipped for a high-tech economy – may be the norm. In scenario 3, in the long-term (2100-2400), the problem of vast unemployment might be ameliorated due to population decline. The likely driving force for this decline would be Demographic Transition, in particular: (A) increasing urbanization, (B) the effect of the direction and magnitude of intergenerational wealth flows, and (C) the effect of widespread family planning programs in underdeveloped countries, which could include the increase in contraceptive technology. If under Demographic Transition, the world's fertility rate approached 1.0 per female by the end of the 21st century, then by 2400 the population of the world would be about the size it was in 1800. Before the present generation the direction of the flow of wealth was from children to parents, that is from the younger generation to the older generation. Wealth being defined here as money, goods, and resources. In scenarios 1 – 3 the future flow will likely be from parents to children. Demographic Transition is more likely to occur in scarcity scenarios 1 – 3; in abundance scenarios, fertility rates might increase significantly. In scenarios 4 – 6 the major forces of change will also be advanced technology including Singularity and Artificial Intelligent Robots, but in addition will likely have reached the level where Nanotechnology Factories, Molecular Assemblers, Fusion Power Generators, Wireless Energy Transfer, and Solar Power Satellites may be in use throughout the world. As in scenarios 1-3, in the short-term (30 – 80 years) world-wide unemployment may initially be a major problem, but will be less so as scarcity diminishes. This Post-scarcity paradigm might place less value on energy, natural resources, food and material objects; thereby placing greater value on an individual's interests, status, and reputation. In scenarios 4 – 6 (abundance economics), what might happen to monetary systems and the value of real estate will differ greatly according to an increase or decrease in the total population of the world. In all six scenarios, the major conundrum needing to be addressed may likely be that of massive worldwide unemployment in the middle to late years of the 21st century, until lower fertility rates and/or abundance occur.

    Now, how does the above find its way into the Article?  

It was written by: Donald Prell

Dbprell (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept original research, it requires everything in an article to be referenced with a 'reliable' source, for more information see WP:OR.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Jonpatterns, you are stating the obvious!!! The real problem is that this article needs 'original thinking'. Therefore is there a place where this kind of thinking can be PUBLISHED, say in an article on the INTERNET, and then be considered as a 'reliable source'? Maybe someone needs to create a WebSite for: Wikipedia Original Thinking. Then what I have written above can be vetted and if it stands the test, it is then from a 'reliable source'. It may sound weird, but WIKIPEDIA could create such a Website, for original articles to be vetted by so-called experts. (By the way, did you take the time to read what I wrote, or was your note only a knee-jerk reaction) Dbprell (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure there would be enough volunteers with the time and expertise to fact check a Wikipedia journal. Why not get published in a peer reviewed journal, or write a book and become a notable author. Note, however, it is not recommend that editors work on articles that they are associated with.Jonpatterns (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and all I can say is that it needs WP:TNT. The Scarcity article isn't much better.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of content[edit]

@Earl King Jr. & Jonpatterns: The content on Marx's concept of a post-scarcity is well-sourced and well understood by the economics profession. There is no reason to exclude Marx's notion of communism from this article when it is clearly predicated upon the notion of superabundance and ending scarcity. -Battlecry 09:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the inclusion. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Then its better you find some evidence rather opinion. This would have to be sourced to something. Post scarcity has no bearing to Marx unless a super stretch is given of original research. Lets see some documented sources, citations that agree? Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The sources I have provided in the article[1] clearly state that Marx envisioned post-scarcity and superabundance to be feasible given future developments in the productive forces (which refers to technology applied to production) and considers this condition to be a characteristic of a communist society. --Battlecry 07:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jessop and Wheatley, Bob and Russell (1999). Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Volume 6. Routledge. p. 9. ISBN 9780415193283. Marx in the Grundrisse speaks of a time when systematic automation will be developed to the point where direct human labor power will be a source of wealth. The preconditions will be created by capitalism itself. It will be an age of true mastery of nature, a post-scarcity age, when men can turn from alienating and dehumanizing labor to the free use of leisure in the pursuit of the sciences and arts. 

Drexler citations[edit]

CLOSED:

Consensus, policies, and guidelines are clear. Engines of Creation is a reliable source regardless of its author's website. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I removed a couple because its doubtful his and his wife's personal website is a good source for anything. It would be different if someone wrote about him in context of the subject, what his views were etc. It could well be a self published book??, if it is his own version of his book on his own webpage it is not a good source. The site [5] I left one other source to Drexler in the article from that site but I think it should also be removed. Drexler seems like an interesting guy and his information looks compatible with the article but not from his personal website. Not a good source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's clearly from his famous book, and not self-published. Look, you shouldn't be editing this topic area with a mistake that big. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Drexler is a pretty huge deal in the history of nanotechnology--if you've read his wiki article along with the one on Engines of Creation and don't see enough evidence of his notability, try this Nature article. Hypnosifl (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Read his Wiki article? Wiki articles do not count. At all. Not a reliable source. Also what I did read says, An updated version of the book, Engines of Creation 2.0, which includes more recent papers and publications, was published as a free ebook on February 8, 2007. That means you are trying to use a free Ebook which is self published apparently. That is not a good idea. Apparently Drexler is an academic with fans but also people that are not fans and do not like his approach.
The book and the theories it presents have been the subject of some controversy. Scientists such as Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley and renowned chemist George M. Whitesides have been particularly critical. Smalley has engaged in open debate with Drexler, attacking the views presented for what he considered both the dubious nature of the science behind them, and the misleading effect on the public's view of nanotechnology. That from the wiki article. So Unless some better version like a third party version of people commenting on Drexler or critiquing Drexler is used then this link is not suitable. Its a self published book. His wifes email address is at the end of the book and his email. Its a personal website. It appears that it is not the actual book in its original form. Drexler is not just some authority that should be used because of the previous book, or at least use the previous book and not the self published webpage. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you are completely wrong about every single point up above. I'm extremely busy at the moment, but if you don't start to correct your false assumptions up above by doing some basic research, I'm going to haul your ignorant, lazy ass to the noticeboards, where you will be immediately schooled in your arrogant stupidity. Now you either get off your lazy ass and figure out why and how you are wrong or you take these articles off of your watchlist and better hope I never run into you again. I've seen some stupidity in my time but yours sir, takes the cake. Viriditas (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You did not address anything. So be it. The link is a personal webpage put out by the author. How can that be good. It does not look as though its a copy of his famous book, assuming it is famous. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Here you go. (Personal attack removed) Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, while Earl may be ignorant of the history of nanotechnology, ignorance of a technical subject shouldn't be a reason to insult someone--maybe there is some history between you two I don't know about, but in any case I'd recommend keeping in mind the Wikipedia:Civility policies. Hypnosifl (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen the guy before. What I'm upset about is that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of editors like this, deleting legitimate content on a daily basis for trivial reasons, such as the formatting of a reference to point to a print version. It upsets me to no end to think of how these editors contribute to the entropic state of the encyclopedia, until one day there will be nothing left but vandalism and blank pages. First, do no harm, that's the general rule. But no, these guys think they know better, so they remove Drexler from an article about post-scarcity, a topic he influenced greatly. Sorry, but I can only take so much until it drives me crazy. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Earl, I didn't direct you to read the wiki article because the article itself is a reliable source, but rather because it contains plenty of sourced information about his being a major figure in nanotechnology circles, and Engines of Creation being an important book, one which you can see clearly on the page was not self-published (it may be that the updated Engines of Creation 2.0 was self-published, but the references in the post-scarcity article link to the original 1986 text of the book, not the 2.0 version). As for others like Smalley being critical of his views on what nanotechnology can do, what of it? The wiki article is clearly talking about what advocates of the post-scarcity idea believe, and he is a major figure in this regard, discussing views of advocates of an idea does not constitute endorsement of their views (in any case, nothing in that section of the post-scarcity article really depends on whether the self-replicating machines in question are nanotechnology, or larger self-replicating robot factories, what Drexler likes to call clanking replicators--I don't think Drexler's critics like Smalley have ever claimed that such larger self-replicators are impossible). Hypnosifl (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The book is not self-published. The author may have released versions of the book he wrote to the public -- many authors do as a public service -- but that doesn't make it self-published. Distinctions like this go right over King's head, so you are wasting precious oxygen here. The link up above lists 49 international print editions, and it's been available in print around the world for decades. King is just completely ignorant and that's the way he likes it. Viriditas (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Hypno. I would say that possibly Drexler is a good person to have in the article though his thoughts might have to be qualified. I know just about nothing about him though I have heard of him in this context of the subject. I would also say that a blog source by the author of the information is not a good source for the article and urge you to revert and possibly also take out the other citation that I mentioned to his blog and yes its a blog and that is not considered a good source on Wikipedia [6]
I think the blog aspect of a personal blog website is a problem. Not encyclopedic, and he also seems controversial so his information has some baggage if not qualified, like other who disagree with him for instance. It may not be fun but perhaps someone can get a summation or critique of Drexler for a non blog source for sourcing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, why are you editing an article you know nothing about, and removing sources you aren't familiar with? Is this some kind of new editing style? I asked you to do research, and you still haven't done it! But you continue to talk about the subject...I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. And tell me, what "blog" do you keep referring to here? The material is from his book and is reliable per RS. More so because it is hosted by the author. Do you understand that many famous authors host copies of reliable sources on their personal website? Because it sounds like you have not seen this before. It's very common and there's nothing wrong with it. The author is doing the reader a favor. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Where do you get the idea it's a "blog"? It's the exact same text that was in the published book, and this is made clear on the site. There's nothing wrong with linking to online copies of printed books (or of sections of printed books), wikipedia references include links to online copies of text found on google books all the time for example. The references in the article already say "Anchor Books, 1986" making clear that the reference is to the original printed book, and the link to the site is just there for reference. (would it help if the isbn was added to the reference as well?) Hypnosifl (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we are looking at two different things but the links I removed went to Eric Drexler's blog [7] and the copy said it was a different version than the original book, an updated version 2.0. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No, we are looking at the same thing. The book has been published for decades by the largest and most reliable publishers on the planet, from Random House to Oxford University, in every major language. Authors routinely release updates to their books on their websites, but the site in question cites material from the print version. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You can see the section you edited out in the edit history here--the reference you removed did not contain any link to that "about the author" page on his blog at [8], rather it included links to the text of the original book at [9] and [10] along with wikilinks on Drexler and Engines of Creation. Hypnosifl (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Puzzling to me that you continue to say that site is not his blog. It is. At the bottom of the page on one of the links it says © Copyright 1986, K. Eric Drexler, all rights reserved. Original web version prepared and links added by Russell Whitaker. Maybe you could find an actual version of the book that is not a part of the guys blogging home site with his name as the web address. Why is having this guys blog website important? This is the blog website of Drexler. Its his site http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Table_of_Contents.html Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The book is echoed on the web page. Blogs of experts are not forbidden. People copyright lotsa stuff besides blogs. Copies of books can be linked wherever they are found. The real puzzle is why you object to the link. 16:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
He has posted an exact copy of the text of the published book on his personal website--do you disagree with this basic point, yes or no? There is no wikipedia rule that says you are only allowed to link to a copy of the text of a published book if it's on some official corporate site like google books or the publisher's website, the author's personal promotional site is just fine. A personal website is in any case not the same thing as a "blog", a blog is a site which someone regularly updates with short text pieces--"posts"--which they have written specifically for the blog, Drexler's personal website does include a blog but the copy of Engines of Creation is on a separate section of the website. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Earl King, you should not continue to edit any article on Wikipedia until you begin to show competency and understanding about our basic sourcing and citation guidelines concerning reliable sources and links to hosting websites. Viriditas (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Competent, informed, and courteous are the basic attributes of a Wikipedia editor. Deleting another editor's good-faith work is the height of discourtesy. Deleting good material from the Encyclopedia is just WP:sneaky vandalism. King's repeated violations have been the subject of a number complaints to the admin noticeboards, and he has come within a whisker of being suspended. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
That is not vandalism. There's an explanation of what "vandalism" means on Wikipedia at WP:VANDALISM, especially WP:NOT VANDALISM. Please do not dilute the term. There's too much of that going on at Wikipedia already.
Even though Drexler seems to have a lot of people that like him, I don't think its a good idea to list his personal website as a citation. The book did not have internet links in it. Its not really the same book if it was edited to the internet. The first book is pre internet so its a mistake to call it exactly the same book. It can't be. Internet Archive or whereever its available for free. Assuming he has made it available outside of his personal control on his personal web-site beyond buying it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Competence is required, Earl. It's been explained to you many times that the citation goes to material covered in a reliable print source, and the material in question is appropriately hosted on the author's website. Since multiple editors have corrected you on this point and there is consensus for the link and the material, I am going to ask you to stop commenting on this subject. In the meantime, please review WP:IDHT to understand why you have now breached the boundary between constructive editing and disruption which is blockable. If I have to explain this again, I will ask the community to take steps to prevent you from editing Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding, but this discussion is now over. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You are right on that, Earl King; your actions are better described as "disruptive editing" rather than vandalism. Thank you for the lesson in WP policy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Wikistalking, Sfarney and disruptive editing, Viriditus, its a waste of time. My response. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drexler and post scarcity[edit]

This article is about other people also but there is a lot of information on Drexler and it seems well done. Any opinions about it as a citation source? [11]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Post-scarcity[edit]

Post-scarcity redirects here. Perhaps it would be better to have an article called 'Post-scarcity' with economics as a section, as post-scarcity would affect many areas of society. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

But those effects are just speculation as of yet. Possibly we can have some text here on how different notable economists think it will affect society. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@OpenFuture: Per: WP:SPECULATION (relevant parts are highlighted):
It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.
I also kind of support Jonpatterns' suggestion to move this to Post-scarcity as this concept doesn't just have an economic dimension: however one could also say that the article is about the economy itself, the driving model of the prognosticated era, including its speculated effects on culture & society. I do think that some proper coverage about the discussion on social aspects such as potential causes, hindrances and effects would be appropriate. --Fixuture (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's tough making articles on fiction that people believe. .-) Upon further pondersing of this I have no strong opinions on the article naming. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Post-scarcity economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)