Scifi Economies and Money

[Spacescifi]

 

Some have the view that money would or could become obsolete in a scifi universe because of post-scarcity.

I am not convinced that it would... because money is an efficient means of exchange, without which leads to situations that either require benevolence on the part of every individual to work at all.... or an authoritian system that those in western countries would consider a dystopia... or slavery.

Regarding post scarcity, the very idea of building robots to do all our menial work for us is hardly a long term solution and a bad one at that.

Humans NEED to work. Idle hands make for criminal hands if they are not given proper work to do. That is human nature. You would require the same robots to police the freed up time humans, since I guarantee you they would wreck and exploit the robots for selfish ends otherwise.... especially if the robots are dumb and not true AI.

Now it is true in some scifi that aliens may be more rational or perhaps more benevolent than us, leading to weird types of economies that could never work with us. For example communism based economies could in theory work with an alien race that was naturally more altruistic than a human is.... since IRL all commumist nations I am aware of switched to a type of capitalism since their economies suffered without it.

In high school my teacher spent a good deal of time bashing the communist economic model, and went so far as to say the russians made up for backward economy and technology with pure strength in numbers in WW2.

The truth is a bit more forgiving than that, but based on the fact that they use capitalism to this day.... it would seem the other system could only work with aliens or extremely benevolent humans.

 

What are your thoughts about scifi economies?

Edited February 26, 2022 by Spacescifi

[Beamer]

I think we can safely banish the idea of post-scarcity to the realm of myth by now. If crypto/NFTs have shown us anything it's that humans will happily create artificial scarcity if it does not naturally exist And it didn't start there of course, from baseball cards to beany babies, humans seem to crave to be 'special' by owning things that others cannot own. When it comes to aliens it's all speculation of course, anything is possible, but a human economy as portrayed in Star Trek and the likes seems implausible given the human condition.

One might even argue that scarcity is what creates the entire concept of an economy, and thus if there was an alien race that lacked or overcame the human desire for it and also overcame natural scarcity, it might not even have anything that we would recognize as a 'economy' by any definition of the word.

 

[Scotius]

How do you wreck of exploit an automated factory? I'm not talking about rows and rows of human-like androids slaving day and night for human benefit. It's sci-fi setting - this factory is probably one, giant robot. Automatic haulers stuff raw materials in one end, then finished products come out of the other end. There would be little space accessible to humans inside. Why would anyone even want to do something so pointless, when in a post-scarcity society you have absolute freedom to use your time however you want? Travel, socialize, make art, laze all day on the beach or raise guinea pigs. And if you want something, you can have it for no cost - because who will you pay? Mindless machines?

No, I expect in such setting real value would not lie in physical worth of an item as we perceive it - because when you have free access to entire Solar System, what value gold, silver or diamonds could have? I suspect a handmade piece of art, a woven basket or a puppy would be more valuable to a recipient than a solid gold throne.

Anyway, Iain Banks described such society in his "Culture" series of books. I recommend you read them.

[Spacescifi]

57 minutes ago, Scotius said:

How do you wreck of exploit an automated factory? I'm not talking about rows and rows of human-like androids slaving day and night for human benefit. It's sci-fi setting - this factory is probably one, giant robot. Automatic haulers stuff raw materials in one end, then finished products come out of the other end. There would be little space accessible to humans inside. Why would anyone even want to do something so pointless, when in a post-scarcity society you have absolute freedom to use your time however you want? Travel, socialize, make art, laze all day on the beach or raise guinea pigs. And if you want something, you can have it for no cost - because who will you pay? Mindless machines?

No, I expect in such setting real value would not lie in physical worth of an item as we perceive it - because when you have free access to entire Solar System, what value gold, silver or diamonds could have? I suspect a handmade piece of art, a woven basket or a puppy would be more valuable to a recipient than a solid gold throne.

Anyway, Iain Banks described such society in his "Culture" series of books. I recommend you read them.

 

Humans do not like to laze around. Even homeless people 'work' to get their food or do other exploits to get what they cannot pay for.

I was mildly amused when I overheard from a distance a homeless guy commenting to another about a likely valuable item he 'acquired' (that was the exact word he used), because saying exactly what he did to 'acquire' it may be damning for him (probably stole it).

 

One giant robot factory.... is a massive means to hold an entire local population hostage if you do not have your demands met.

 

This is not limited to attacks by foreign nations... even terrorists could pull that off.

 

It's an uncomfortable concept, but why am I thinking robo-police and soldiers would be common in a setting where humans did not go to work?

And again... all a human needs to do is mis-program the bots and once again.... human conquest or exploitation.

 

Humans have being doing it to each other as long as we have been around as a civilization... giving them robot soldiers to do their dirty work for them would lead to war with less consequences beyond economic for the robot side, and likely a lot of collatteral damage since remote drones do that even today.

I doubt robo-soldiers would be much different.

 

Which leads to human unrest, government attempts to put it down... and eventually revolutions and chaos or else dystopias with robot armies funded by the elite.

Rather dark.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Spacescifi

[tomf]

For a classic version of a post money society you should read Iain M Banks's culture, and somewhere online there is an interesting essay on which he explains his reasoning.

[Spacescifi]

14 minutes ago, tomf said:

For a classic version of a post money society you should read Iain M Banks's culture, and somewhere online there is an interesting essay on which he explains his reasoning.

A cursory look reveals it is a dystopia of sorts made to appear to be utopian.

Would you want a an enforced utopia were your own mood was no longer under your control but controlled by the government?

Humans will rail and fight against any attempt to subjugate their free will.

 

In that sense, the Culture is unlikely to take off to the extent shown in the novels and would be more niche.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

Food, clothes, hygiene, medicine, it's all to make the life longer.
And money are the way to get then enough.

When tech level of the civilisation gets post-economical, and the lifetime extendable, no need to distinguish all of that.

So, their low-level currency is the lifetime score points on their personal account, to "pay" the next life prolongation.

***

When the techlevel achieves the pseudo-hive level, the "hives" exchange with resources required for the temporary bodies building.

[tomf]

1 hour ago, Spacescifi said:

 

Would you want a an enforced utopia were your own mood was no longer under your control but controlled by the government?

Humans will rail and fight against any attempt to subjugate their free will

Nowhere in the novels is there any kind of mood control or suppression of free will. The author certainly intended the culture to be a utopia. Almost all the citizens appear to lead happy, healthy and fulfilled lives. The few that don't are the subject to the novels plots of good their society tries to help them.

I'd definitely take that over any other real or fictional society I've heard of.

[KSK]

3 hours ago, Scotius said:

How do you wreck of exploit an automated factory? I'm not talking about rows and rows of human-like androids slaving day and night for human benefit. It's sci-fi setting - this factory is probably one, giant robot. Automatic haulers stuff raw materials in one end, then finished products come out of the other end. There would be little space accessible to humans inside. Why would anyone even want to do something so pointless, when in a post-scarcity society you have absolute freedom to use your time however you want? Travel, socialize, make art, laze all day on the beach or raise guinea pigs. And if you want something, you can have it for no cost - because who will you pay? Mindless machines?

And, more to the point, you lying on the beach all day has zero impact on anybody else. They're not being taxed to support your choice of lifestyle. They may not agree with it, they may not find it particularly fulfilling themselves but neither can they resent you for doing it at their expense. And the same goes for any other activity one could care to mention. 

Much as I like the ideas presented by Banks though, I would argue (and I think this was touched on in the essay that @tomfmentioned), that the Culture only really managed to develop the way it did  though because it's an inherently mobile civilization, with all of its citizens living aboard space vessels of one kind or another. Eliminating material wants is one thing but it doesn't do much about the kind of person who insists on imposing their values on others, or just wants to have power over others for whatever reason. Unless the potentially oppressed have a way of getting away from their oppressor,  then sadly, a Culture-type human post scarcity civilization isn't going to get off the ground.

To quote a wise man 'some people just want to watch the world burn' and eliminating their material wants won't eliminate that particular perversity.

It's interesting to note though, that Banks' Culture was only a post scarcity civilization in respect of material goods. There was still scarcity of - for want of a better term - intellectual property. The technology certainly existed to make as many copies as desired of a work of art, and for those copies to be exact down to the subatomic level. But there was still value in producing that first original work for everyone to copy, and fulfilment to be gained by being recognized as the artist who produced the work.

However, the artist wouldn't be producing their work to exchange for needed material possessions and therefore there was no need for a currency to facilitate that exchange.

Edited February 26, 2022 by KSK

[Nuke]

i figure most people are going to be planet bound peasantry.  people may spend decades to save up for that ticket off world, only to realize they have grown fond of the place and don't want to leave.  the ability to leave planet might be the new bar for the middle class. you are getting off world for bigger opportunities in space. and living on planets might come with some limits to your personal wealth. for example the planetary government wants to keep their planet's ecosystem stable, and there for imposes limits on how locals can spend their money, no fancy cars or private jets.  most of the real estate is owned by somone, much like it is in most cities, except planet scale. so you have a lot of supply limits on what you can buy. scarcity does not apply to land. there is always a finite amount available. so the upper crusts of society might pay the space tax and move off world and buy that asteroid they always wanted. 

planets which are not so good at supporting ecosystems are going to be much more industrialized and there wouldn't be much room for people not working in the factories or mines and little reason for anyone else to live there other than the usual support jobs that tend to follow such industry. leaving would probibly be the first thing on the agenda of anyone born there (humans do what humans do). though they might have the option to buy a ship right off the assembly line once they have earned enough company script from years of factory work. something not as available to those living on more bucolic worlds, who might consider living on a desolate rock an upgrade. despite the grittiness of life on an airless industrial rock, their income would be a lot more significant than on farm world, and their access to space would be more available and a lot cheaper. 

getting your own ship opens you up to a broader economy. you can now run goods, passengers, etc. on your first voyage you might be taking a load of ex factory workers looking to take a cushy administrative job in one of the orbital stations.  cash in your script at the warehouse and take a load of stuff to farm world. this trip would pay for itself a couple times over. pick up a load of grain, meat, and other farmables, while the locals gawk at you for being a rich snob. run it back to your former industrial jobsite. do that a few times and you might be able to expand your trade routes. do that for a couple decades and you might be able to build your own station or at least get a plot on a big ring station. 

there might also be a whole subset of people who get to the top by swinging stocks and other financial vehicles all without turning a single screw or picking a single ear of corn. they are the ones who buys a ship and then hires a crew, mostly to sit around in space dock until its owner wants to go on a pleasure cruise. in all cases your wealth really is represented by your upward mobility, taken literally.  every planet will get to a point where it just cannot support any more population and people will start taking a hit to their quality of life as the available resources get split up more and more. so being planet bound will be a strong hallmark for poverty. each planet may have its fare share of rejects who never advance much further than the most menial of jobs, and everyone will still have a homeless problem.  living outdoors may be an option on farmworld. but on industrial worlds they might be rounded up for "airlock maintenance" as there is no room for those unwilling to pull their own weight. corporate may be unwilling to pay for their air or even opt to ship them off world and sell them to slavers in some backwater.  but for most, life is what it is now. 

[KSK]

Culture essay here.

http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm
 

 

[Spacescifi]

6 hours ago, tomf said:

Nowhere in the novels is there any kind of mood control or suppression of free will. The author certainly intended the culture to be a utopia. Almost all the citizens appear to lead happy, healthy and fulfilled lives. The few that don't are the subject to the novels plots of good their society tries to help them.

I'd definitely take that over any other real or fictional society I've heard of.

 

I read online that the culture uses drugs that can induce or inhibit certain emotions so as to keep all but the most stubborn happy.

There is even a gruesome account of the culture sending an semi-sentient weapon disguised as a pretty female to eliminate an assassin.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Spacescifi

[KSK]

You’re cherry picking stuff that you’ve read online without having read any of the books first for context.

Culture citizens have drug glands and yes, those drugs are mood altering (although not addictive).  Use of those glands is entirely up to the individual - there is no coercion involved or imposition of mental state on one citizen by another.

Edit.  Also, if you read the essay I linked (which was written by the author so can be taken as canon), there’s a comment in there about the drug glands being a useful feedback mechanism  for guiding Culture development. In a nutshell, if citizens of a civilization chose to spend their days stoned out of their eyeballs, then clearly that was an indication that there was something wrong with that civilization.

The assassin thing sounds plausible but without context it’s a pretty meaningless comment on the Culture. Not to mention that the Culture is big enough and heterogenous enough that there’s probably a significant number of Culture citizens who would be vehemently opposed to such cliched prehistoric spy movie tactics.

Edited February 27, 2022 by KSK

[tomf]

Derailing the thread somewhat but here we go.

The assassination at the end of look to windward is much discussed as evidence that the culture is not perfectly benign. It is an act of revenge against an attempt to kill billions of culture citizens and although fairly well targeted against those responsible it is gratuitously spectacularly overkill as a deliberate message.

The series illustrates a point that people have tried to make several times before. Banks doesn't care how his FTL travel works, or the details of weaponry used. The best way to create great sci-fi is to create engaging characters and relatable situations.

[KSK]

Agreed. I couldn't remember which book that assassination appeared in but it did sound very Special Circumstances.

As to how benign the Culture is, that very much depends on where you stand on various issues and has done pretty much all through the books, as I recall.  Contact may think they're being benign and by Cultural norms they probably are, but the other side may or may not agree, just as the reader may or may not agree. For that matter, the reader could quite reasonably take a rather Idiran attitude to the whole concept of Minds and how benign they are.  One thing the Culture is most certainly not, is pacifistic (at least not uniformly so) - just ask the Idirans about that. 

And Banks may not care about the plausibility of his future tech but the man did space opera scale weaponry with the best of them. I give you nova level Gridfire, for example.  

[magnemoe]

On 2/26/2022 at 8:50 PM, kerbiloid said:

Food, clothes, hygiene, medicine, it's all to make the life longer.
And money are the way to get then enough.

When tech level of the civilisation gets post-economical, and the lifetime extendable, no need to distinguish all of that.

So, their low-level currency is the lifetime score points on their personal account, to "pay" the next life prolongation.

***

When the techlevel achieves the pseudo-hive level, the "hives" exchange with resources required for the temporary bodies building.

An civilization would not get post economical. Economic is still very relevant for selecting the most economic thing to do, no you often select not to do that for loads of reasons but cost and income is an factor. 
Its as important as environmental protection and a but related. 
Some aliens might drop it for their personal life but its still an factor at large scale or you end up with lots of wasteful or even harmful projects. 
Now this might well limit them in the long run, it happens pretty often in bureaucracy 

Humans well we want status symbols. Hunter gatherers during the ice age had it, we found nice looking seashells in Siberia and very labor intense decorations to show others you and your tribe was rich. 
We see it today where most on this forum is post-scarcity as anybody 300 years before would see it. 
Still we want more, often not to make our life better or more fun but to get status, I feel poor because I don't have an space program only an private jet.  

This will just go on, in an K2 civilization people will pay for an 1g to turnover to see the rings of Saturn or visiting some places and do the same going back because they can.