Quite a lot of questions.

Seems oriented towards electronic communication toys.

I would like to observe 'myself' since I have not that much contact with children any more. Less with the 'mainline' users who suck at the tit of demand. Those who started it all ,IMO, the yuppies who 'wanted it all and wanted it right now'.

I did know some of these back in the days when they first surfaced. And I believe that exactly where we are today is the direct result of that unbridled 'wantism?' to coin an ism that might not be extant.

Or its more known as DEMAND. Demand to drive many vehicles recklessly but never able to turn a wrench. Demand to play with those electronic toys but never gain useful intelligence,,such as degrees in those fields and hence its up to other countries citizens to profit by providing those skills to supply the gimmicks/toys/whatever.

I rarely hear of programming except in the dark soul of 'open source' and other Operating Systems..which just happen to be FREE! But we obey the mantra of Microsoft,Playstations,Xboxes and so and Open Source was a very good thing but I think except for some wayward types(ESR for one) its dead and dying.

Then IMO demand will never stop until it does. Until the last Xbox dies and the other countries who supply the knowhow dies as well.

I don't know what a 'shock' to the system means I guess. If it hasn't already been shocked by this attitude and culture then what?

Note songs lyrics and the music scores. Same beat, over and over and over. Booming out of hidden sub-woofers in small pickups and hatchbacks or whatever is in vogue, with tiny tires that I bet never leaves the pavement. So the song lyrics are just one phrase repeated over and over. No real meaning except to trip out those funky brain chems.

So where is the mental intelligence to write meaningful lyrics? Gone?
What the hell is Hip Hop all about? Nothing that I can figure except
"in your face" music. No culture except American Idol,,etc. Can't think for themselves.

What does it result in? Media control. What ever brain chemicals it releases or suppresses it seems to work very well.

Then IMO the youth of today is leading the way. What they become is what we will become. They will surely grow up and perform exactly as they now do. There demands seem to be the rule. Why I have no idea.

I spent most of my life working on electronics and that means back to the first PCs. I have NEVER as yet even went to a FaceBook, nor wouldn't recognize it if I did. Nor do I care much about whatever Twitter is. I can guess. More and more of whatever drives the brains of this generation.

I do repair some of the PCs that become unusable as a result of young adults, children and others who go to these sites.

A few weeks ago my a friend who owed a auto repair shop left his laptop for a newhire to use, ostensibly to look up repair parts etc.

His youngish wife got hold of it and in two days trashed it totally. Took me 12 hours to get it cleaned up. Many are not aware that a knowledgable person who works on them can go to the database file that contains browsing history since the browser was first used on the very first day and saves every site visited and the date/time.

I would be embarrassed to state what some of the sites she went to for hours on end. A lot of that Myspace sites. And also some very bad porn sites. Then realizing the PC was compromised she downloaded a supposed program that would repair the damage but of course this was a trojan in disguise as a 'white hat' and invited huge numbers of trojans and malware, even some that were still 'in the wild'.

This is our youth. Late 20s in age. Killing the toy, fulfilling the need to make a big splash with her friends and utterly destroying a good tool.

Demand like this will take us apart. Its already doing so.

I read a lot. I find lots of reading material on the web. That and worthwhile communications. Some news but not much. I have no TV. Instead rent DVDs of only what interests me.

Seems to me that what we will become will depend on who is growing up right now and their morality.

Am I off base on these questions or just on a rant?

I will wait til others fill in some of the blanks. Maybe my world doesn't have any answers for this generations activities.
Even if I ride a Harley they don't even glance as I motor by. They are lost somewhere, that I can't fathom. And don't wish to anyway.

Airdale-does any of this make sense or am I just dreaming it
or perhaps their brain chemicals are foreign to my brains chemcals for I lost it with them back when the yuppies started up and I already had my farms going...and why do they not JOG any more? Ohhh...to busy with Twitting? What ever that is. And please don't clue me in. Please.And I don't even care if Obamaman has a Facebook, for its not my world out there,,mine is here.

Very provocative questions, Nate.

Regarding the resources questions: I think, even with theoretically "unlimited affordable" resources, the scales would quickly tip in favor of those who enjoy the greatest advantages today. Even in such a utopia, if you don't change human nature, you'd soon see the Bernie Madoffs of the world finding ways to increase their own resources at the expense of others. They'd be able to leverage other resources -- education, connections, ambition, location -- to their advantage.

Next, the story about that 10-year-old makes me sad, but I think it's an apt commentary on our society at large. The amazing proliferation of information and access to information we enjoy today -- mobile phones, hundreds (thousands?) of TV stations, the Internet with its millions of Websites, blogs, news sites, etc. -- hasn't seemed to result in a more educated, better informed population in general. It's just too easy to access a purely Balkanized worldview: reading just the anti-climate-change blogs, watching just Fox News. On a daily basis, I see more and more evidence that we're just moving closer to an "Idiocracy"-style future (and if anyone hasn't seen that brilliant Mike Judge satire film, go out and rent it now -- it's hysterical BUT thought-provoking. The only thing is, I think Judge overestimated us ... he set his film 200 years in the future, but I think we're darned close already.)

1. If we had unlimited affordable resources for everyone, would anything change?

I think we would go nuts. Imagine the whole Earth's population living in enormous mansions with unlimited food, energy, information, entertainment, sex, transportation, etc. Robots would cater to all our needs and whims. Everything new thing we tried would give us less satisfaction than the previous thing we did, leading to permanent boredom.

Many of us would probably seek out risky activities that took us out of our comfort zone, just for the challenge and uncertainty. I believe we have evolved to push against obstacles.

Recently I have turned up some rather puzzling indications...that in those final days before their annihilation...the Krell had been applying their entire racial energies...to a new project...one which they actually seemed to hope... might somehow free them once and for all...from any dependence on physical instrumentalities.

Like you, the Krell forgot one deadly danger...their own subconscious hate and lust for destruction.

The beast. The mindless primitive. Even the Krell must have evolved from that beginning.

And so those mindless beasts of the subconscious... had access to a machine that could never be shut down. The secret devil of every soul on the planet... all set free at once to loot and maim... and take revenge and kill!

My poor Krell! After a million years of shining sanity... they could hardly have understood what power was destroying them.

From Forbidden Planet, of course.

I think this experiment has to a large degree already been performed, due to the misfortune of our discovering oil and other fossil fuels.

The longer the experiment continues, the more extreme the collapse will be, I expect. If any aliens offered miracle energy sources, I'd say we should take a pass.

It's really all just a kind of drug addiction. The drugs of choice will be changing; but whether looked at through the eyes of a spider or the eyes of an elephant, the external world will keep inexorably advancing, one second per second, as the bill for overshoot comes due.

ADHD is just one way for brains to be; hard to say whether that will be a pro or con for survival value. The Twitterers may be forming a new sort of anthill mentality. If birds are any indication, the surviving dinosaurs were the twitchy ones.

Question from a long time TOD reader: At what point do the resource restraints our world is facing make all of our electronic devices useless or so expensive or so nonavailable that we have to start doing without them?
5- 10 years? Price of course would ration their availability but would the things we need to make cell phone towers also begin to be limited? Electricity may not be so easily available for electronics plugged in to the grid, either, I know. Would the availability of batteries be limited in any way because of the components/ingredients used in creating them, too?

I think this whenever I see anyone in public using a cell phone/Blackberry, whatever. I have a computer at home and I love the digital photography playthings but I know they may not exist or work much anymore in a few years.

Interesting questions and thoughts here, thanks for them.

I hardly ever post because I'm too busy trying to take in all the ideas that all the smart/knowledgeable people post here!

thanks for TOD.

Hi gang. Another fun topic from Nate. I'm not entirely awake today but the comments to this one aren't coming thick and fast, so just a short ramble so I won't have sat out two saturdays in a row.

Have any of the rest of you folks had the experience of interacting with a student who recently got near-perfect SAT scores, yet is apparently dumb as a box of rocks? Just askin'. We had one visiting who was only 2 points shy of a perfect math score, and did get a perfect verbal. She was talking to my mom and trying to mentally calculate how many years mom had lived with her husband, knowing her current age, and the age at which she was married. She was literally unable to do this in her head, OR using a pencil and paper, and after 5 minutes gave up. And although seemingly sophisticated in some specialized subjects, there were many other disconnects. The kid isn't a drug user, except to the extent that the short-attention-span habit is similar to a drug.

Abrupt subject shift: my wife got a cheap laser pointer for christmas. She found that a young border collie we inherited would go utterly nuts chasing the beam, actually blurred movements, faster than a dog was meant to go and once it was turned off the dog would just stare into space. This is a breed which stares at things anyhow, and the laser just seemed to overload its little doggie mind. My elderly mom finally forbade my wife from using the laser around the dog, because she thought the dog's brains were going to start leaking from its ears. And y'know, I'm not sure she was wrong. The dog wouldn't eat for a long while or play with regular toys, just waited by the spot the glowing red fairy disappeared, staring. (Even now she preferentially catches small flying insects like Dwight Frye's "Renfield", but that's within what passes for normal in border collies. We have created an ADHD wolf via molding its phenotypic plasticity, which may yet outlive its progenitors).

I think that the hyperstimulation of that dog may not be unlike what some people have chosen, and that in the future many of them will be left staring, wondering where the kinetic glowing fairies went.

Personally, I don't "do" video games, don't carry a cel phone, but do have an ADHD italian wife and border collies so have one foot in each world. But in all honesty, I'd say that there are many sorts of hyperstimulation, and I have indulged in some. Even in the absence of external stimuli, a brain may be set to idle higher and react faster, pushing metabolic extremes internally even while the body is immobile. Some of my health problems these days may be due to my too often having slowed down the passage of time in the external world during past decades. It's damaging even if done as an obligation rather than an addiction.

In terms of being stupefied by the pace of modern life, it's a real thing but there are probably varying degrees of susceptibility. People like to react to things; there is some sort of privileged cognitive status for reaction versus conscious initiation of action. Personally, I allow few things to trigger this reactivity, because an entire life can be spent that way, reflexively. (please pause and think about that, and how many things your life is set up to react to). I think that video games, twittering, and much of modern culture is built around supplying stuff to react to, since "reaction" modes come so easily to our brains. But not all will fall under its sway; show a laser to a golden retriever and he'll soon ignore it.

With regards to the questions posed, speaking from a viewpoint which values other species - and the far future of humans - highly, I think that resource bottlenecks may ultimately be the only saving grace, while fearing that they are coming too late.

I doubt that a significant number of rational minds will overcome primal reactive impulses before the overshoot crashes in this century. However, that will mean that there's a lot of low-hanging fruit, in terms of steering the way the world turns out, for those which do.

Mental stimulation isn't, when it comes down to it, necessarily all that aligned with consumption. Surfing, drugs, philosophy, and breadfruit trees can be as stimulating or restful as one might want.

Not a great post on my part, I'll admit; I'm enjoying a low-stimulation day. Cheers.

Imagine for a moment, that a giant umbilical cord stretched from earth into deep space, and through it we received whatever natural resource we wanted, in the quantity and at the time we wanted. At the same time this cord would allow us to expel our waste streams into space. This process would be affordable by everyone. Unlimited means.

I think there is an expression shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations? Maybe ask the piggies in the middle there to ponder those questions? But as to access to that sort of desire satisfaction over generations I would ask Prince Charles, he is, besides being heir to a Realm, also an avid organic gardener.

CBC TV is running a documentary (Porndemic) on the spread internet porn, this as I type. Doesn't seem to be any limits to demand there. Pant, pant!

Nate-

You're much more into psychology than I am. It's very hard for me to even engage your broader question -- it's kinda like if pigs could fly, would they still be pigs?

We do face limits in supply. And that's where I can give an opinion:

4. Will our rational brains ever be strong enough to overcome our more primal impulses?

Yes. But I think it is a matter of the collective brain becoming strong enough, backed up by organization. The collective brain is science. Organization is politics at all levels. Oil, the industrial era, capitalism, globalization, these have molded us into one tribe, humanity. That was the accomplishment. Now we are confronted with the need to start making a global accommodation with the realities of the planet and its biosphere. How many conks on the head it will take before we stabilize I don't know -- I tend to be a little doomerish there. But I remain an optimist in the deeper sense: there's no fundamental reason we cannot use the collecive brain and will power to ultimately stabilize into some kind of sustainable relationship with the planet.

Some days I have trouble lightening up I guess.

I think the key point here is that the magical umbilical cord provides "natural resources", not "finished goods". There are a few natural resources that individuals use, indeed need. Water and air are obvious examples. But providing food, cars, iPhones, etc. would still require large manufacturing organizations, with a few powerful people at their top, large numbers of "factory workers", money as a medium of exchange between one's labor and the goods being produced. In short, not as much change as you might think.
If the question were changed to allow the magical umbilical cord (MUC) to provide finished goods, then you have to specify whether the MUC can provide finished goods that no one has thought of yet. Could one have asked for an iPhone back in 1990, before Apple invented it ? If so, then today the MUC can provide all sorts of de-stabilizing products, e.g., anti-gravity machines, mind reading machines, personal atomic bombs etc. If not, then there is the question of how one gets Apple to build the first iPhone, when the second is free from the MUC.

Unlimited affordable resources; you mean like N America was 12,000 years ago when the first humans walked in from Siberia?

Is a teenager talking on a mobile phone really using more resources than a hunter gather?

We don't need that umbilical cord, we have all the solar and wind energy, minerals, food most would ever want to use, but we will never have enough national parks and wild places to satisfy even 1% of our present population.

All of these questions really presuppose high-level knowledge of various sorts that few people posses, in whole or part. Attempting to "answer" them is highly presumptuous. An inter-disciplinary team of "experts" may be able to make a few intelligible 30-second comments, but that's about it. With this proviso in mind, I will attempt a comment or two.

1. If we had unlimited affordable resources for everyone, would anything change?

From my observations I would say that everyone would like to have unlimited affordable (preferably free) resources. Those people who manage to achieve them--the rich--still want more, and more, and more.

It is precisely because of our finitude--limitations, like resource constraints--that we are able to make reasonable decisions and select from among options. If every whim, every fancy, every need can not only be met but be met eternally and without end, people would push the limits until they died--people would eat and eat and eat until they literally burst open. Talk about obesity and gluttony!

2. Does the cost/scarcity of goods act as a bottleneck to which of global citizenry has access to them? I.e. if the resources had NO cost (everything free), how would that differ from question #1?

No cost would be even worse than being simply affordable. Everyone would gorge themselves to death--on food, drugs, money, sports, maybe rampant murder, sadism, whatever.

3. Is there a point when we begin decreasing neural returns to technology in humans?

I don't quite understand this. I assume you mean is there a point where the "rewards" of technology start to decline.

I suppose it depends on what your values, needs, wants, desires and so forth are. I like computers, but I value my time over being able to "communicate," so I never turn on my phone except to call out in an emergency; I have no use for phones, so Twitter is a foreign object to me. But other people seem to live for and on instant communication of trivia, so for them phones and Twitter and other such things give them pleasure and meaning.

Again, this is like the first and second questions: If technological means of doing anything were available to everyone and at an affordable price or free, then we'd all be using them all the time. There is probably no limit.

4. Will our rational brains ever be strong enough to overcome our more primal impulses?

As I remember from reading Eccles, our human brains are tripartite and evolved over millions of years, though all three "brains"--the reptilean, mammalisn, and "human"--all share a common "reward" system that rewards us with "pleasure" and the release of the chemical dopamine. By "rational brain" I assume you mean the third brain, the human part of our tripartite brain.

I have no idea what you mean by strong or strong enough. Is it weakness to consciously feel and seek to feel pleasure? If so, then our brains could presumably be "strong" if we were somehow able to extinguish the reward system, leaving us with no real criterion for what we should or should not do, for if nothing gives pleasure, then nothing is really evolutionarily advantageous, so we would presumably just die of boredom.

If by strong you simply mean able to control or dominate the reptilean and mammalian brains--the instincts and the emotions--then I suppose the "strong" person would be the cold, intellectual type--filled with neuroses and suppressed instincts, nonetheless--who could somehow "control" the instincts of automatic life support and basic motor functions, and the basic instincts of territorial acquisition and defense, dominance striving, agonistic threat displays, and mating, as well as the emotional response and evaluation of experiences. I suppose some Yogis are able to do these these, or so they claim, but I'm not sure these "feats" are within the capabilities of most humans.

So, basically, no, our so-called rational brains will never overcome our primal instincts. Maybe if a species of human evolved--a transhuman?--that possessed only the rational brain, and had no emotions or instincts, then maybe.

5a. Are those who 'consume' too much, at greater risk for natural (or manmade) shock to the system?

Give a man a barrel of cocaine and he'll consume it until the body dies or the barrel is empty, whichever one comes first.

So, for the individual system--and that's all we are, a system of cells and functions "glued" together in a "self"--the answer depends on the individual system: some systems are able to imbibe great quantities of liquor, while others, like half of all East Asians, lack a gene or two and one drop of alcohol shocks their system. The same goes for pain endurance, food consumption, and probably any act that humans may perform. We already know that too many openings in the body that allow blood to flow out--as a knife wound or a bullet--will shock the system into a state of death.

Is there a limit to the social system? I'd guess yes, but I wouldn't want to guess where it is: doomers guess one way and others guess another.

5b. If so, wouldn't it behoove us to consume less, and perhaps substitute a unit of time and labor for energy/money, not because we are running out of cheap resources but because it would be better for us as individuals?

Well, gluttony and excess are universally condemned by religions (though Americans have made a religion of gluttony and excess, so I guess that's a false generalization). Both Confucius (in China) and Aristotle advocated the golden mean--moderation in all things, but again, in the West we have made excess a virtue and China has a growing--now 20%--population of obese people. Yes, it would be better for us as a society and as individuals to consume less, but I don't really think that any moral exhortations will get anywhere--only constraints in the environment will "force" us to consume less.

Here are some scenarios for the magic umbilical cord
1) a reborn Enron corporation or their spiritual descendants want to control it
2) thinking themselves rich, aggressor countries bankrupt themselves with pointless and unwinnable wars
3) a fundamentalist group decides it is counter to their beliefs and try to sabotage it
4) h. sapiens breed like rabbits so there are no longer any undisturbed places of solitude
5) a self-appointed ruling class will decide maybe some other classes shouldn't have unlimited resources after all.

Something like this will happen if they invent a cheap safe breeder reactor that comes pre-assembled. I see no end to human conflict and inequity. I guess we'll know in a couple of decades if today's 10 year olds are smart enough to solve these problems.

The over-arching question, by itself, is moot. I have posted this reference before, and here it is again: Read the Isaac Asimov short essay titled 'Fecundity Unlimited'. Asimov works the math to demonstrate that, even waiving almost any and all constraints (travel, food, etc), the date at which it would take to convert the necessary constituent atoms for human beings in the known universe to human bodies would be approximately 11,000 C.E. He calculated this date using a very, very modest growth rate. He simply applied compound interest to the human population growth problem writ large and taken to an absurd finale. One could quibble with his numbers (size and composition of the universe, etc) but the answer would be very close to the same. Basically, in any finite Universe, geometric, unconstrained growth 'wins' and trumps all. Only in an infinite Universe does this not hold true.

If you want to blow your minds, read 'Year Million_Science at the Far Edge of Knowledge',edited by Damien Broderick [Atlas&Co.](I bought it on Amazon). This is a compilation of the most far-our cornucopian scenarios you probably have ever heard of. The first couple of essays start with the relatively tame idea (comparatively speaking) of breaking up all the planets and moons in the Solar System and creating a Dyson Sphere around the sun, then the subsequent essays go way out there.

I would posit to all of you that if humanity could achieve a steady-state (zero population growth) population of one billion (or 100 million, or some other notionally sustainable number in your minds) then we would be a lot less up in arms about how people stimulated their brains. However, science fiction illuminates some unsavory possibilities, for example 'This Perfect Day' and 'Logan's Run' to name just two.

Your last question illuminates the difficulty of the discussion:

- When comes the inflection point where the mentally/physically normal are no longer the majority?

This begs the question of what exactly is the definition of mentally and physically 'normal'? And who gets to write and enforce these definitions? Go back and read 'This Perfect Day' and 'Logan's Run' and others to get a sense of some of the possibilities when TPTB enforce their compliance with their ideas of normalcy 'The Matrix' and 'Gattica' touched on some of these issues as well, as did 'V For Vendetta'.

I have college-age children (two, following my own advice for population stability)...they both engage in video games and Facebook, as well as reading Shakespeare and Jane Austin and books about Greek, Middle Age, Enlightenment, and modern philosophies, and books about ancient civilizations. Scholarly books.

Yes, there are lots of seeming wastes of protoplasm out there who don't read or do anything more challenging than lay in front of the TV and surf porn, but don't make the assumption that anyone who uses a cell phone to text message or uses Facebook (not 'The Facebook') is automatically to be considered an oxygen thief.

I am 44, and I am happy that I have not turned into a calcified old namby-pamby who opens his door in his union suit overalls and yells 'Get Off My Lawn!' and keeps kids balls/Frisbees that fly over the my fence. I have tried Facebook out, and decided that I do not want to be a slave to it. I also have a 5-year old flip phone that suits me fine (and I do not always carry it with me, have it on, or answer it, that is what voicemail is for), and I do NOT want the electronic leash of the corporate Blackberrry. However, I do not cringe in fear and revulsion from those who happen to find these devices and services useful. 'Normal' attitudes and activities...that is a moving, evolving target. 50 years ago, 'Normal' was blacks in the back of the bus...right now, most of the sub-25 generation doesn't bat an eye over the non-issue of gay unions/marriage/etc.

Humans are evolving, both physically, mentally, and socially. Some will want to be Amish, some will want to live in gated communities with golf courses, some will want to bungie jump and play Laser-tag and go to rock concerts (Those darn kids and their satanic Elvis rock and Roll!:), and on and on.

It seems that a lot of folks are bewildered by the pace of change...this phenomenon was accurately described/predicted by Alvin Toffler in his book 'Future Shock'.

From The Wikipedia:

[Toffler argues that society is undergoing an enormous structural change, a revolution from an industrial society to a "super-industrial society". This change will overwhelm people, the accelerated rate of technological and social change leaving them disconnected and suffering from "shattering stress and disorientation" – future shocked. Toffler stated that the majority of social problems were symptoms of the future shock. In his discussion of the components of such shock, he also coined the term information overload.

His analysis of that phenomenon is continued in his later publications, especially The Third Wave and Powershift.]

It seems that the central concern of this site is what happens when fossil fuel supply can't keep up with demand...and in a bigger sense, what happens when demand outstrips resource supplies and sinks (which it already likely is...overshoot). Only within the reality of limited resources does the discussion of prioritizing and judging demands and activities make sense, and even then, there are savvy ways to influence people to change behaviors and then there is the 'Get off my Lawn' technique, which will not achieve your desired effects.

One more set of Science Fiction books ( a trilogy) for you that has avery interesting take on this discussion tonight and also is an interesting twist on the premise of 'Fecundity Unlimited':

By: Roger MacBride Allen //'The Depths of Time' //'The Ocean of Years' // 'The Shores of tomorrow'//

These books cover the material implications of humankind's expansion through the cosmos (Limits to Growth on the Galactic scale) and not so much on the sociological questions of what are 'worthy' pursuits do occupy people's intellects...but they are a good read nonetheless.

Obviously I have read some measure of Science Fiction, as well as an eclectic mix of other fictional and non-fiction topics, mainly in book form...Amazon has been a great thing for me! I have also tended gardens and bent wrenches, but right now my work/home life allows me to pay others to do most of that for me...judge that however you want, I'll join you in the Kibbutz if Mad Max time comes....

I have to drag these out now and then. The 'elephant in the living-room' as far as the limits to exponential growth go. How can we ignore the fact that people are, albeit slowly, limiting their population? It looks like there may be 'voluntary' limits to growth.

Interesting topic, Nate. I believe this "no limits but space" experiment has been run with laboratory rats in the 1950s as Brian Skinner-era psychology experiments. The end results for breeding colonies are not pretty. As I recall, crowding causes many problems, including mother's neglect of their young, so there is at least one built-in negative feedback on growth (nod to post above). But, the salient points are that the crowding leads to a lot of fights and general biting behavior--space competition. Cessation of grooming in the rats, which I do recall for some reason, may indicate depression. Disease vectors can obviously be more effective in a crowded world. What I don't recall is how these experiments ended, or if they just stopped them after awhile. I took the psychology course in 1968, so please forgive my memory.

So, it's not utopia unless the population is controlled, somehow.

So let's say it's a "no limits but space" experiment and the world human population is controlled. Then what? Advanced technology might exploit the planets/comets/dust of the Solar System. OK, then what? Wait for warp drive and even then the nearest stars are way far away. I think a lot of us would like to have the opportunity to figure out this universe and what, if anything, lies beyond it. That ought to be a goal, but I'm not too optimistic that we'll ever achieve it. Meanwhile, we have to get through next week.

Hi Nate

If I look at my own situation and that of those around me then there are already limits to demand. Just taking satisfaction of basic needs, many of us in the West are already at the point of voluntary restriction. For example, I could afford to eat and drink far more than I do but I choose not to for a combination of health and satiety (I want to enjoy the meals I do eat) reasons. Likewise with other 'activities' - I could indulge myself more than I do but at the expense of a loss of enjoyment. I even restrict the size and complexity of material goods I buy (e.g. house, car, tv), not just for cost reasons but for utility and convenience as well. Partly down to a law of diminishing returns I guess? The plateauing of energy consumption per capita in e.g. Europe perhaps illustrates a plateauing in demand as much as supply? Many people still take pleasure in activities such as going for a walk or socialising with friends rather than more naked consumption.

The real problem for the Worlds resources is that this is a very West-centric viewpoint and much of the developed World has some way to go to reach the point at which satiety is an issue. 3 billion Asians getting to Western energy consumption levels is the issue, not whether the West can consume even more. So if the question is 'are there limits to demand?' then yes I think there are. But if the question is 'can the Worlds resources satisfy the limits for the Global population?' then the answrer is probably 'no'.

TW

You can observe how humans behave with respect to plenty by looking at file sharing. Digital information tends to the infinite; that is, there is as much as you can handle.

Nate - I sometimes struggle to understand some of your posts, including this one, and I think that's only partly due to faults in myself!
You seem to get an impressively large quantity of stuff done, and I suspect that is what causes a somewhat lowering of quality at some points.

Partly it may be that you incline to work in more abstract levels than the norm here. But also I suspect you are not allocating enough time to clarifying your ideas and their presentation.
Psycho/brain has to be the most complicated of subjects and we struggle to usefully contain it within the articles of this length.

As one who has also studied psychology, I find a number of dubiouses in your writing. For reason just mentioned I don't expect to get to grips with it all here now.

- If we had unlimited affordable resources for everyone, would anything change?
Including unlimited physical space? (as per above leading to rat aggro).

- Is there a point when we begin decreasing neural returns to technology in humans?
People can only read/think/learn so much per hour or lifetime. I grew up in a house with just the local weekly paper, two bbc radio channels, and the books in the house plus library visits. Nowadays everyone is bombarded with vastly more than they can ever take in, and this increases the pressure for authoritarian corner-cutting as per www.zazz.fsnet.co.uk/decadenc.htm (elaborated at p44 of http://www.lulu.com/content/140930 ).
Also as others mention, people just follow their particular niche thread rather than engage with an unfiltered holistic local experience. The ignorance of the energy crisis is one example of this inadequacy.

- Will our rational brains ever be strong enough to overcome our more primal impulses?

False dichotomy of rational brains/impulses? Brains are not rational calculators, rather survival devices. The rational (more accurately theorising) function is employed entirely in the service of primal drives (including curiosity, quest to understand and classify). There is a failsafe fallback to the more primitive associative system (phobias, addictions, stereotype kneejerks), and this has been the subject of endless interaction under the title of neurosis for about as long as there have been mammals let alone humans.

- When comes the inflection point where the mentally/physically normal are no longer the majority?

What do you mean by "mentally normal"? Are you specifically meaning about a dimension of non-addict to addict? And in any dimension there is usually no clear divide of ab/normal, just relative degrees. If normal is defined as "usual" then it will always be the majority. Nate, I suspect you (sometimes!) need to spend more time thinking and less time writing. (But please don't disappear from here entirely....

Man is not developing itself, but instead loses more and more of itself, transferring its capabilities to external electronic gadgets. The fact is that individual capabilities are diminishing.
I am thinking of Disney's Wall-E movie, without the "fairy tale" solution: people would go on lost in their electronic communication apparatus indifferent to physical stimulus and they would be physically unable to stand.

But thank God, there are limits to utopias.

I walk to work. Even if Star-Trek style
"transporters" were available to whisk me instantly to and from work, I would still walk. I need the exercise, it helps clear my mind, and I like getting out in the fresh air and connecting with nature each day.

I grow some of my own food, and cook most of it from scratch. Even if we had the type of devices they have on Star-Trek where I could simply say "Tea, Earl Grey, hot", I wouldn't care for that. There is something primal in my blood that needs to connect with the soil. There is something satisfying about growing and fixing and eating "real food". Maybe that is all in my mind, but that doesn't make it any less real than the virtual reality in which most people now live.

I could go on, but the point is that what modern technology has on offer is not necessarilly what some of us find healthy or attractive or satisfying. Some of us just perfer the old ways. Call it a "lifestyle choice" if you will; that does not alter the fact that some are making that choice rather than following the corporate-led herd.

Economics is based on scarcity. In a world of abundance, one possible outcome is a gift economy. Valuable goods and services are given freely without quid pro quo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

- If we had unlimited affordable resources for everyone, would anything change?

The main change would be a "class struggle" depending on how much people allocated to themselves.

1. Satisfied / stable. Some people would avoid anhedonia altogether. On amassing wealth equal to (say) $1 million U. S., would say, "that's it, I'm out of here," and their consumption would stabilize. They would read whatever books they wanted, play whatever video games they wanted, meditate whenever they wanted, etc., and not make further resource demands. This level would vary; some would max out at $2 million, $18 billion, or $50,000. Some people would sink into anhedonia, get help, and get off whatever addictions they're on, and stabilize at some level of resource use as previously.

2. Satisfied / increasing consumption. A second class would increase their consumption cautiously, not so much that they would go into anhedonia, but always increasing it. I am not sure whether this could be maintained indefinitely given the number of neurons in the brain. I suspect not, so that eventually they would be forced into the first class above or the third class below.

3. "Hungry ghosts." Some people would sink into anhedonia, would not get help, and would not emerge. Since there are infinite resources, they would sink further and further into suffering -- sort of like the "hungry ghosts" in Buddhism, with small mouths but huge stomachs.

Now would this change anything? Obviously we have to make assumptions -- population control, or an infinite universe; people can defend themselves against those seeking a nuclear holocaust, etc.

But how is this so different from our current situation in our resource-constrained world? The main difference is that the constraint on pleasurable activities in the real world is resource limits. The constraint on pleasurable activities in Star Trek world is anhedonia. You would have a different set of things to seek / avoid, but they're still there.

The main difference to society, though, is that in our current real world, the people in an economic "anhedonia" are those controlling the economy.

- Does the cost/scarcity of goods act as a bottleneck to which of global citizenry has access to them? I.e. if the resources had NO cost (everything free), how would that differ from above?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I think the answer is that obviously cost/scarcity is a bottleneck; some will get the goods, others won't. Getting goods would not be a problem if resources had no cost. Getting pleasure, however, WOULD be a problem (see above).

- Is there a point when we begin decreasing neural returns to technology in humans?

Obviously, yes. There are only so many neurons in the brain. Since the answer seems obvious, I'm not sure I have understood the question.

- Will our rational brains ever be strong enough to overcome our more primal impulses?

Maybe, maybe not. The deciding factor is whether some who have avoided the anhedonia problem in this "Star Trek" type scenario, or resource constraint issues in the real world, can help those who are trapped as "hungry ghosts."

- Are those who 'consume' too much, at greater risk for natural (or man-made) shock to the system?

Yes. That's the problem with the U. S. A. We will suffer the greatest "shock" from peak oil because we have the furthest to fall. But if we can recover, because of still-undepleted natural resources, the U. S. could still be the best place to be post-peak.

- If so, wouldn't it behoove us to consume less, and perhaps substitute a unit of time and labor for energy/money, not because we are running out of cheap resources but because it would be better for us as individuals?

Absolutely. See Jesus, Buddha, etc. on "simple living," who saw this whole issue thousands of years before peak oil.

- When comes the inflection point where the mentally/physically normal are no longer the majority?

Wild guess: I think we've passed it, probably in the 1930's or 1940's, though I'm not sure. Obviously, we'd need a definition of "normal" here which does not depend on just averaging the human condition and declaring it normal. This is a tough question even armed with such a definition, so I'm not sure how I'd answer the question.

Are there limits to demand? By rights we should define our terms etc., but here's a quick and dirty answer.

IMHO, for most individuals (not all), it depends a great deal on the social system. Western governments, in partnership with economics departments around the world, brainwash their citizens to compete and consume. See:

< http://adamcurtisfilms.blogspot.com >
THE CENTURY OF SELF first, (advertising),
THE TRAP, (economics),
THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES (neo cons)

If consumption weren't promoted by the state AND people felt SECURE in their lives -- were "provisioned" (health care, retirement, etc.) by the state -- most would choose activities other than simply earning and consuming.

If we had unlimited affordable resources for everyone, would anything change?

Many generations ago that was indeed the situation. Then the instinct to go forth and multiply moved us on.

?!

Limits: The largest biomass (50%+) on the planet seems to be: Ants.
No exponential growth here... at least for many millions of years.

Real exponential growth: Cancer. Grows until host incapable of supporting further cell division.

The real world? What have we here?
Mentally defective children who can neither read nor write either their native tongue nor any of the hundreds of others on the planet.

Neither have they actually been anywhere nor accomplished anything. Can they understand how their toys work? No. Nor are they able to repair anything. Like perhaps a car or bike or plane or boat. Magic Carpets all...

Put them in a real situation and they vaporize. (Try putting them in a small aircraft and ask them to go to Tierra Del Fuego...)
Or
Put them on a modest sailboat on the East Coast and ask that they meet you in Greece... Or perhaps Tahiti... The real world beckons.

Pathetic. The formula for extinction... like all the extinct breeds before them.

What I see Nate asking is essentially a theological question. A core concept of Christianity is an afterlife. The details of this afterlife is open to debate. In the Middle Ages the afterlife meant that we would joyfully sing the praises of God for ever and ever. Mormon theology says that those worthy of celestial glory would become the god of their own planet and along with their wives would propagate their genes forever on that planet. On the one extreme we no longer need to work for our daily bread and on the other we need to manage the natural resources of our own planet and find our joy in the work of earning our daily bread.
Maslow claimed that once our biological and security needs are satisfied we go on to satisfying our esteem needs. He used the vague term of self realization which mostly involved some sort of artistic creativity or some sort of charitable work. Essentially he claimed that demand for physical resources would indeed peak unless you were severely obsessive compulsive about piling up possessions. I agree with Maslow and believe that the demand for goods would peak for most folks. Psychopaths, especially those on Wall St, are the big threat.

Nate, I have an improbable goal set...several difficult goals.
Probability I suceed is less than 1 in a billion...and that is just a WAG as I cannot calculate the difficulty.

Anyway, here is one of my goals.

1. Terraform thousands of planets.
2. Build and terraform many structures similar to Dyson spheres but not around stars. Around artificial light sources and total structure diameter of 1000 to 100000 miles. Even if I could build a Dyson Sphere it is likely I would not because I would not trust it to last millions or billions of years due to gravitationall instability.
3. Manufacture 5000 cubic miles of synthetic crude and other fuel supplies. Synthetic crude would be very high purity and thus vastly less poluting of heavy metals and sulfer and ? The crude would be randomly distributed in terraformed locations. Coal, NG, and Thorium also. ZERO radioactives besides Thorium.
4. Figure out some way to transport anyone who wants to colonize these locations. Dimensional Gates are better than spaceships for this.
I would do this as a gift to humanity. I would do something else for income. Not being poor would be nice.

20 years ago I figured something out; I spent the last 20 years trying to decide if I would use my unusual insight. I decided less than a month ago to go ahead and try. Success is very unlikely though.

Drizzt

Endless (mindless) "hot air" about "greenhouse gasses".

What, exactly, do "greenhouse gasses" have to do with anything the brainless, cretinous lawyers in congress need to address?

Except CO2, of course, without which there would be no food, no plants, no trees, nothing except deserts...

Thanks for the interesting, thought-provoking question.

I think that in order to produce a good answer, we have to look beyond individuals and look at how people work in groups. It seems, roughly speaking, that there are two responses on the individual level: anhedonia brought about by endless, voracious consumption, and a conscious decision to limit that consumption before the point of addiction.

But what happens in groups? Historically, and especially in resource-rich societies, it is the former group that controls the media and public policy. In developed countries, marketing is completely dominant in public discourse. But what marketing does is it uses the levers of social pressure to pull more people into the realm of anhedonia.

Policy decisions (and not necessarily at the governmental level) further that trend. Consider how, once upon a time, only the wealthiest of Americans could afford automobiles. Then Henry Ford figured out mass production and very large numbers could afford cars. Bonanza! But after a number of years of this, American cities changed their appearance in such a way that a car became a necessity in order to carry out basic functions. I would argue that the process was more intentional than accidental. So, even many people who may have resisted automobile ownership may have been felt forced into it by the people who embraced auto ownership.

The same is true for these social networking services. I am in my late 20's and single. I don't like the idea of using Facebook and whatnot to find a girlfriend, but it is increasingly difficult to meet people through non-electronic fora because people my age are generally unable to interact without an electronic medium. Therefore, if I ever want to find romance, it is likely that I will either have to wait until the post-acocalyptic world of economic collapse, or go into Facebook or match.com against my desire to do so. Another example of people who choose consumption ultimately forcing their choice on those who choose non-consumption.

I imagine the hypothetical world without resource constraints would be filled with people who are unhappy with the consumerism, but would feel trapped due to all social structures being under the control of a consumerist system. I imagine that it would be a truly hellish place.

Rate Limits

Another issue regarding growth limits, though discussed, is not given the high priority it should get: Rate Limits or the limits to recoverable resources. A few good examples of such essential resources would include ground water, trees, and nutrient rich farmland. Easter Island is a popular example of this type of resource limit. Not only do Rate Limits need to considered along with the limits of finite resources such as fossil fuels, but it should also be emphasized that such naturally recovering resources can be irreversibly damaged or even destroyed if they are drawn down too far and/or too rapidly.

I am not sure if this is the place to put this comment but I find it amazing that TOD seems to be not giving it much play.

It is about limits and demand but not quite the area I believe this topic is about.

But.....

I read some post a while back that listed two articles by NPR about the agriculture situation in India. They took my breath away to put it mildly.

Seems that our green revolution from back in the past has literally destroyed their agriculture. Mostly I guess in the Punjab where their best soil is,,or was. That the crops are dying.The cost of I-N,P,K are too heavy. That the need to irrigate has lowered their water levels from what were about 4 feet down to now around 200 ft and the water is loaded with salts and other crop destroying chemicals.

The other article was that they have to keep redrilling and no longer can get loans or afford the heavier costs for drilling over and over each year and deeper and deeper.

Does this not sound ominous in the extreme? That the second most populated nation in the world is on a rapid agricultural decline?
One wonders just how bad it is and will get? And what will explode out of this country?

Demand for food. Lose of ability to raise it. This to me is what we are sowing the seeds of in this the USA. The destruction. I see it around me. Its not visible unless you drive by it day after day.

Again amazing that this seems to not be banner headlines.

Demand say hello to limits. Crash ahead

SO when then will the younger generation wake up to this?
Like the hippies of past who cried out for the land? Yeah I know they took drugs and moved on. But this time it seems like way way forever and no returning or quick fixes.

Is not the question of Demand and Limits moot then,
When we face death by technology gone mad?

Airdale

Great questions, Nate! And I really like the photo. Let's see: for whom are we at war for oil? For whom WILL WE BE, so long as the oil lasts?

I agree with Thomas DePlume that your questions are variations on a theological question: are we meant to be gods? If not, what ought to be our relationship with Earth's limits - and each other?

They are fundamentally questions of scale: with what kinds of social arrangements and technological powers are compatible with human nature?

These questions come down to human needs. I would highly recommend reading what Manfred Max Neef had to say about them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs

Consider how grotesque our educational system has become in it's mission to stamp out products that function smoothly in the economy. We are to believe that healthy, vital young men with testosterone boiling in their blood should be "educated" to spend heir working hours sitting at a desk, standing behind a counter, punching buttons on an automatic machine. We have convinced ourselves that Our Economy cannot "afford" to employ these young men in useful work that involves wholesome sweat and physical labor. It is a crime.

Consider how centuries of rising productivity have severed most people in "advanced" economies not only from self-sufficiency but also from livelihoods associated with the provision of real human needs. This explains the crisis of employment: we have done our level best to destroy our needs for each other. As consumers we demand the lowest prices. As investors we demand the highest rates of return. No surprise, any producer or supplier foolish enough to not embrace the latest labor-saving device is swiftly crushed.

Look around. We have plenty of employment for gasoline, diesel, coal, nuclear power, even renewables like hydro and nuclear and wind. We have plenty of employment for machines and computers. Consumers snap up anything that has a motor or engine. And we're surprised we have unemployment for people? We're surprised that we're fat and out-of shape? My god, we've all but made our legs useless for anything other than pressing accelerator pedals.

I can't believe how stupid this country is.

When comes the inflection point where the normal are no longer the majority?

In the recent past, a community of people, those who shared a country,religion,language,and any other subgrouping, like educational background, economic status, hobby etc,usually meant that you could count on some level of comfort, similarity in thought patterns etc.
Generally you found these folks in your day to day life. But people may have already become so fragmented that they do not have much to say to each other, excepting in the role they meet in. Boss and subordinate, doctor patient, bartender customer etc.

If some people see everyone as crazy, it is one thing, maybe they are the social misfit, if everyone sees everyone as crazy, then that is the end of that society. Is too much specialization killing chances of longterm bonds from forming. Of course one can still say that all this leads to meeting interesting people with vibrantly different backgrounds. But we are also turning into mere radio transmitters of other peoples ideas found on the web/TV etc. A country full of boring self absorbed people, increasingly stressed out by the complex world.
The debt we are passing along is not only the trillions of dollars, but also the mind boggling level of complexity, that has to be maintained. Multiple scientific technologies, from agriculture, mining, geology,telecom switches, to chemical processing, the house of cards of computer systems, to health care technologies, finance taxation, legal, to music and literature langauge, history...
The last few seem luxuries but actually provide the continuity, the community and create meaning on this orb hurtling thru the vastness of space and time.

I read some alien abduction stuff once. From what people remembered under hypnoisis of life on the spaceships, to obtain stability of a higher lifeform more or less permanently I would recommend sterilization of the population, extension of life span to ca. 1000 years and external births from test tube under controlled conditions(incubators,etc.). Of course population size would be strictly limited and all births artificial.

Then of course leaving earth for long travel would be no problem. Deliberate manipulation of the species for mental evolution would be necessary so we all look like "greys" with big heads and long arms. We would be very cold emotionally and logical, scientific, telepathic and peaceful beings. Whether happy or not is another matter altogether as I never met an alien personally to "ask" this question. These beings seem the modern equivalents of angels or devas in Hindu mythology.

If we could detach ourslves from our lower primal selves even by such a physical mechanism of changing our packaging is a good question. Presuming a soul, external to body, one could imagine transferring consciousness into such a being, or their consciousness into a human or into any other life form (also inanimate objects?) or even sppliting consciousness into several life forms if the consciousness were too developed (say 2-3 humans per alien, 2-3 dogs per human, etc.). I recall stories about how they needed to import / abduct young women for the sole purpose of nannying, as humans are so much more natural and spontaneous. The gift of love to the alien/ mixed children was difficult to give by such a race raised in test tubes. Also lack of genetic diversity and survival instinct was a problem as well. So no happiness and no will to live. Animal spirits, primal urges, unpredictability seem to be important.

Whether the books I read were true or good fiction posing as truth is beside the point. Perhaps it is better if one believes it, if only temporarily or partially as opposed to reading obvious sci-fi (suspension of disbelief).

I recall the discussions with one holy man from Southern India. He was dying and his followers were sad but he just replied that he would always be there as "where could he go". The premise of course being that this is all illusory. We are. We will be. We were. Time, space, all just an illusion. So "maya"/illusion. In normal life we imagine a state of bliss and chase it. This is a joke. Nothing changes.

Of course we live mentally in a lot of ideologies and are hopefully in the process of tearing down a lot of these illusions(thanks to TOD, internet, etc.), based on advertising, indoctrination, etc. The worst preconceived notions are often things we just take for granted but which someone else around us or in another country or era would have not understood at all. The biggest illusion is bodily existence the guru in India discusses but then it gets down to our basic human/aninmal nature. Language controls how we see things, feel things. Try learning and living in a foreign culture. At first it will take some getting used to before you get back to "normal" where the new culture fits without being weird. Try swtiching handedness. Great fun that one. Some actors have to do a lot of weird things to get in other people's skins, like becoming "blind" or "becoming" opposite sex for a role or by being a hobo or taking on a strange job to get the feel of it. Authors do a lot of practical research in this direction to write detective novels, film scripts etc. more genuinely.

Novels, storytelling, movies, allow us to expand our consciousness without danger. Dreams are a personal screening of personal desires, fears and perhaps connectivity to others in an extended astral existence beyond our pure corporeal existence.

I recall an Indian fariy tale where a prince got his builder to build a castle with which he was never satisfied and had to keep adding rooms. So the builder cries out to Vishnu in distress. Vishnu appears as a young boy to the Maharaj and shows him a row of marching ants. "who are they?", he asks, "your predeccessor and his servants in their current incarnation." So he immediately gets scared, seeing his future, and wants to go become a yogic hermit and is only with difficulty persuaded from this plan as his Dharma(duty) requires his presence as king.

PO should "put the fear of God" into modern man like that prince in India experienced.

I just saw article in New Yorker on college students and non-medical Adderall use.

Plato complained that writing would make ppl stop thinking things out and would destroy their memory. Jumping a great leap forward to our times, practically all ‘new’ transport and communication methods have been considered dangerous, either physically or as an effect on cognition, thinking habits, society, etc. Many exs. can be called up.

The exception seem to be: mathematics - always considered a useful tool; the Post, the telephone (though no doubt one could dig up some objections about its rudeness, intrusiveness, modern nouveau rich aspect), the telegraph, and the photocopy machine. These last (like all other methods) were only repressed and controlled by those in power to limit their use by the suspect, ordinary ppl, etc.

--I remember visiting Poland before the fall of the Wall and having to fill in multiple forms with carbon copies to obtain permission to ...use the photocopy machine!--

Even today, cheap calculators are forbidden in classrooms because they might make children ‘lazy.’

The latest scares are about television and visual perception and brain processing. There may be something to it - probably there is - but the ultimate cause of whatever difficulties, ‘abnormalities’, are due to general social change rather than one shoddy input channel, in its form, setting aside the content. (TV as a free babysitter, women at work, destruction of the family unit, etc.)

Human beings are very adaptable and their brains are impressively plastic. Also, ppl who have no useful work to do (because of over-production) and no social role to play get bored, distracted, jittery, and turn to gadgets, mind numbing, crime, etc. Money/labor can then be extracted from them, often indirectly.

Our main problem has two faces:

one is political (socio-economico-political) and the other is that we have pillaged the past (fossil fuels), can’t turn the clock back, and now face a very uncertain future. Quick example: a family farm in 1925 in the US ran on sunlight and human labor, with diverse plants, livestock, crop rotation, etc. It was supposedly ‘renewable', at least set up to be 'long-lastin'..

A corn farm in Iowa today is big agri biz that produces a commodity, cheap raw materials for industry, and it runs on fossil fuels, like a factory.

To finally turn to the question, demand is shaped by various forces, culture (fashion, say), leaders, taxes, laws, monetary arrangements, and so on. As an abstract construct (Eco 101), or even a rough and ready concept used to bundle up diverse factors, ideas, considerations, it stinks. Demand is, ultimately, what happens (how many Barbies are sold, etc.) and nothing more; so it is not demand. Ergo, there are no limits, thresholds, or end point for ‘demand’..

> bit long and elliptical but the drift is clear i hope

Everyone seems to think that we would not be productive if we didn't "work" to pay for our living expenses...why is this ? The majority of people I know do some sort of unpaid work; would we stop doing this if we did not have to "work" to obtain the necessities in life? No I don't think so. Would people stop inventing things because they weren't paid to invent ? No I don't think so. Would we all just sit in front of the TV 20 hrs a day if we didn't have to go to work ? No I don't think so, we would be empowered to create and achieve many things we now can't do now, simply because we have to go sit in an office for 9hrs a day and don't have time...

Isn't the question you are asking really, "would a Resource Based Economy function much better than the current profit/debt based economy ?"

YES it would :)

But only if as much as is possible is mechanised/automated as quickly as possible (food and housing production for example) and no decisions are made that are not scientifically peer reviewed/proven before they are implemented. When implemented this better idea will be available for all.

I know this is far fetched, but the more I read up on a RBE the more it seems like the only way forward. And to put this point much better than me I will leave it upto Mr. Jacques Fresco from the Zeitgeist Movement: (in the technology section of the site)

"At the beginning of the Industrial Age, a great majority of people worked in factories. Today, automation comprises 90% of nearly all factories. This has displaced humans and created a large, artificial "service" industry in order to keep humans in employment for money.

This pattern is very revealing. The implication is that machine automation is constantly challenging the role of general human labor. This doesn't mean that humans will have "nothing to do" as time moves on. Quite the contrary... this implication denotes the freeing of humanity from jobs which humans do not care to engage in, so they will have time to pursue what they choose to. As an aside, it is important to point out that society today assumes a very negative posture towards humanity, retaining the belief that if human beings were not "required" to do something, they would just sit around, be lazy, and do nothing. This is absurd propaganda.

The notion of "leisure" is a monetary invention, created because of the oppressive, fascist basis of the employment institution itself. Laziness is, in fact, a form of rejection of the system. It is a quality that only exists due to the oppression and required servitude.

In a true society, there would be no such thing as the separation of "work and "leisure", for humans should be allowed to pursue whatever they feel is relevant. To put it a different way, consider the curiosity and interest of a child. He or she doesn't even know what money is...Do they need to be motivated by money to go out and explore/create? No. They have a personal interest and they pursue it without reward. In fact, the greatest contributors to our society, such as Einstein, Newton or Galileo, pursued what they did without any regard to money. They did it because they wanted to. The act of doing and contributing was their reward.

The point here is that money is not a true incentive for anything and to think as such is to assume that humans are inherently lazy and corrupt. Laziness and corruption are products of the conditioning our social system creates."