From P2P Foundation
Revision as of 14:48, 23 June 2010 by Guaka (talk | contribs) (* ~~~ is going to [ set up a foundation related to post-scarcity])
Jump to navigation Jump to search


From the Wikipedia at

"Post scarcity or post-scarcity describes a hypothetical form of economy or society, often explored in science fiction, in which things such as goods, services and information are free, or practically free. This would be due to an abundance of fundamental resources (matter, energy and intelligence), in conjunction with sophisticated automated systems capable of converting raw materials into finished goods, allowing manufacturing to be as easy as duplicating software."

See the more extensive discussion in the Wikipedia article.


Paul D. Fernhout:

"I had assumed Murray Bookchin had coined the term post-scarcity with his book "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" book in 1971:

Bookchin's titular "post scarcity anarchism" is an economic system based on social ecology, libertarian municipalism, and an abundance of fundamental resources. Bookchin argues that post-industrial societies are also post-scarcity societies, and can thus imagine "the fulfillment of the social and cultural potentialities latent in a technology of abundance". The self-administration of society is now made possible by technological advancement and, when technology is used in an ecologically sensitive manner, the revolutionary potential of society will be much changed. Bookchin claims that the expanded production made possible by the technological advances of the twentieth century were in the pursuit of market profit and at the expense of the needs of humans and of ecological sustainability. The accumulation of capital can no longer be considered a prerequisite for liberation, and the notion that obstructions such as the state, social hierarchy and vanguard political parties are necessary in the struggle for freedom of the working classes can be dispelled as a myth."

But in Googling yesterday, I see I was mistaken in my assumption. The person who coined the term was apparently "Louis O. Kelso".

"The phrase post-scarcity economy was coined in the 1950s by economist Louis Kelso, but it could have been envisioned any time after the Industrial Revolution. The idea is that automation drives down the price of all goods to effectively zero, money becomes meaningless, and the entire population goes on perpetual vacation. ... For a robot to build more robots from sand and gravel, it must replicate all the arts of ore mining, metal smelting, and machining, to make just the metal parts. There will also be rubber and plastic parts, and probably silicon electronic parts. The "self-replicative robot" probably now occupies several acres, and is really a self-replicating robot factory, producing both robots and more robot factories. In order to accept cheaper less-organized raw materials, the unit of replication needs to be more complex. MNT [nanotechnoly] simplifies matters somewhat. Products are built out of carbon and other common elements, "machining" is done at a molecular level, and no smelting is needed. Putting all the pieces together into one desktop nanofactory becomes feasible. The raw materials are atoms (dirt, air, water), time, energy, and software. Sometimes, what we really want from a post-scarcity economy is self-sufficiency. Complete self-sufficiency means that you can trundle off into the woods, build a log cabin, catch your own food, make your own clothes, and perform your own medical services. A nanofactory will make all that much more practical." (


Tim Boucher on Value Abundance

Tim Boucher proposes to use less negatively charge concepts:

"But language around it needs to be reconsidered so that it becomes positive instead of negative. Both “post” and “scarcity” are negative words, meaning essentially “after lack.” What happens then is certainly a fundamentally important issue. But we should simply think past the terms we need now to terms we’ll need later. How about something like “value abundance” instead of “post-scarcity”? Seems more direct and to the point. I also have been using the phrase “thank you economics” to refer to an abundant gift-giving society." (

Patrick Anderson on 'at cost' production

Patrick Anderson, from the point of view of User Ownership Theory:

Patrick Anderson suggests "At Cost" is more descriptive than "free" or "mostly free" because some costs can never be fully eliminated. Products are naturally "At Cost" when the consumer is a partial collective owner of the Physical Sources in direct proportion to the amount consumed. User Ownership is a volatile state that can be held in place by treating all payments above "At Cost" (what would usually be called profit) as an investment from the consumer that pays it. This means we (initial investors building a P2P business) shouldn't hold Consumer Price "At Cost" directly, but should instead allow consumers to pay as "much as the market will bear" while treating that difference as an investment in more Physical sources for that same consumer so this micro-economy stabilizes toward Post-scarcity (or "value abundance") since products would be indirectly driven toward "At Cost". --Ownut 17:18, 30 October 2007 (PDT)

More Information

Articles on:


  1. The Post-Scarcity Economics/Culture of Abundance Reading List v2.2

See Also