2008-07-30

Post-scarcity civilizations (like the Culture)

What exactly is a post-scarcity civilization? A post-scarcity civilization is a society in which members of the society do not work in order to sustain themselves (and their families) but because they enjoy the work that they do. I have been fascinated by this idea ever since I started reading Iain Banks' series of novels about the Culture, a galaxy-spanning post-scarcity civilization. While he does not tackle the Culture directly in any of his novels, the underlying structure of the civilization is made clear in each of his books.
And it is beautiful. Like Banks says in a recent CNN interview, it is a sort of a "secular heaven" for social liberals. Generally speaking, everyone has as much of everything that they could possibly want, to the point that nobody really hoards anything anymore. Commercial ventures are created and dissolved based on whim - some member of the Culture may have found it interesting to run such an enterprise for a decade or so and tired of it, dissolving it at his pleasure. The government is generally non-existent. The only things tying the entire Culture together is the common set of ideas regarding way of life and the technology that sustains that way of life. Aside from that, local bureaucratic things are handled by sentient beings who enjoy administering to such things (with trillions of members, it becomes somewhat easier to find individuals willing to take care of the "annoying things"). There are no real trials because there is little crime in the Culture, as there is no real necessity driving criminal behavior. Any crimes that do transpire seem to be handled by social exclusion, exile from the Culture being a social punishment for the crime.
Admittedly, this seems a utopian society. But that is a very plausible state of being for a post-scarcity civilization. What is the need for an overbearing laws and government administrators in a situation where resources are not limited? The major reason for government is the "equitable" distribution of a limited set of resources amongst the population. With the limit lifted, there is no longer a reason for a strong government. To some extent, the idea of economics also evaporates as there are no longer limited resources for which individuals must compete... Thinking about post-scarcity civilizations is a scary thought, but pleasantly so (if that is possible). It opens up the possibility of a society not based on ties of excluding others and defending one's group from outsiders but rather on a common set of ideas, thought structure, and way of life... Some might call it anarchy but if, in this anarchy, everyone gets what they want/need, is an anarchy so bad?

[more info about the Culture at io9]

Aside: In the recent interview, Banks suggest that the path to human inception into the Culture depends largely on genetic modification. Really interesting that somebody comes out in favor of genetic modification. I always thought it was sort of an inevitable part of human future, good or bad, which would, at first, differentiate rich and poor humans even more, but ultimately benefit everyone, but Banks really takes it quite a bit further. [via CNN]

6 comments:

  1. A Utopian concept at least in the present day context, but many social philosophers aspire to this state of being where in a post scarcity culture a cooperative strategy may become the more viable and also the more attractive than an individually competitive one.

    I linked to this post on my blog.
    An interesting take...

    ReplyDelete
  2. i guess only criminals like "the joker" would exist in this culture, eh? :-p

    ReplyDelete
  3. Id It Is, thanks for the link. I feel like you and I are both stuck in a scarcity civilization idea of society; in a post-scarcity situation, I don't think the issue of which strategy is more viable would arise, everyone would have the option of choosing to exist in a situation where they live in a competitive society or a cooperative society (or a blend of the two that is attractive to them). In some sense, that makes such a p-s society fairly loosely bound together, but I feel that such a societal bond, based simply on live-and-let-live, is one that is likely to hold more strongly through millenia than something based on a firmer set of constraint-driven bonds (like ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc.)... But again, I don't live in a p-s civilization, so I really can't say. Hehe

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous,
    Hehe, I thought about that during dinner last night... I almost wonder if he would even be considered a criminal. Even in the imperfect world of The Dark Knight, I couldn't help but think that the Joker was more of an artist and scientist than criminal. After all, there was little gain for him in what he was doing; he was merely trying to show the world for what he thought it was (a bunch of selfish, greedy people no better than the "criminals" they imprison in their jails). So, if the violence could somehow be abstracted away in a p-s society from physical damage to other people (which, in the Culture, is entirely possible and often done), I don't think the Joker would be considered a criminal. But, he would probably still be considered crazy... Hehe. Thought-provoking though...

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is a hint of John Galt's philosophy in the basic idea of a P-S world, those his view was more on the individual pursuit of excellence and choice...an echo of free market, if you will.

    Some of what you wrote are thought provoking. There is a semblence of a P-S world in welfare states such as Norway and Sweden...where the crime rates for material benefits are quite less compared to the average outside it, but, crimes that don't necessarily involve material gains can still not be excluded in the P-S world (crimes of passion, desire etc...) which means we would still need some kind of control mechanism.

    My thoughts...:)

    Good n interesting post...

    Cheers,
    Rahul

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rahul,
    Thanks for the comment. I agree that crimes of passion will remain in a p-s world. However, it is incredibly hard to predict (and, therefore, preempt) such crimes. Furthermore, there is very little disincentive that can be provided to someone to not commit a crime of passion. Since most control mechanisms (ie, police, depts. of correction, etc.) are based on predicting and punishing crime, I guess, in my view, if we actually attain a p-s world, control mechanisms of the sort we are used to will be of very little use... Just my thinking, though; I'd really like to hear what you think

    ReplyDelete