Richard Poynder asked me an interesting question:
“What are your views on artificial scarcity in virtual environments
like Second Life (which now has its own patent office)? Does this
imply that in a world of molecular manufacturing we will see the same
thing? That we will never realise a post-scarcity economy?”
My reply is the following:
“I think we carefully need to distinguish between the material world, where we need to re-fund for depleting rival goods, and the immaterial world, where such is not necessary, and in in my view, counterproductive.
But the key is that we have to ensure the freedom to share and cooperate. This does not preclude anyone from voluntary creating markets such as in Second Life, as an extra option. Similarly, the Creative Commons approach guarantees freedom to share, not an obligation. Only through such freedom to chose, can we unite people around the need for more openness/participation etc …
The situation re molecular manufacturing would depend on how big the need is for refueling the raw material, and the cost involved, I suspect that it is a material process, and therefore involving some form of scarcity, and in any case, before we get to true abundance in that field, it is safe to assume that we are dealing with scarcity.
Making the same assumption for second life is mistaken however, there the artificial scarcity is simply a voluntary capitalist game in a context which does not ‘need’ it, but as it has the advantage of creating some form of monetary economy around it, it is naturally that it will be attempted, even though it will slow down the sharing mechanisms.
From a peer to peer point of view, I am heartened by any form of distribution of any means of production, for example social lending, but if they insist on keeping the same usage of for-profit practices, then progress is only very partial, as it then simply replicates existing processes. Note that the wikipedia, though operating in abundance, has similarly chosen to opt for scarcity, i.e. the deletionist movement, with poisonous effect on the community, which has stopped growing, and with deleterious effect on the content quality, which can only use approved academic material …”
So to reply to the main question:
1) the post-scarcity economy is already there in the immaterial economy, no need to reach it
2) in the material economy, it is a long long way off, if ever it materializes
3) therefore the more interesting question is how the two logics will intersect
In this context, the practices of the emerging open design movements are interesting to observe, as they are tackling with that very intersection.
Thanks for this Michel. Can you expand on your point about Wikipedia and the deletionist movement?
I would also be interested in your views on what the practices of the emerging open design movements tell us about the way that things would be likely to develop were molecular manufacturing to prove viable, and viable in a way that promised some kind of post-scarcity economy? I.e. what do we learn from these movements in this regard?
Richard
Hi Richard,
Concerning Wikipedia.
1)I see a first contradiction between accepting all contributions, but outlawing quotes from websites and wiki’s; granted that these are not scientifically peer reviewed facts, but they are documentary evidence about opinions and receptions of topics and ideas. This is a first scarcity.
2) the neutral point of view is something that not really exists, and a recognition of different perspectives, which have to be fairly represented, would have been better. This is a second scarcity
As a result of pressure from mass media last year, the community decided to focus on quality, but unfortunately this gave rise to deletionists who patrol pages and slap codes and regulations on them, arguing for their removal; from a low treshold activity, this turn writing in a political battle of wills requiring mobilisation, which only the most fanatic will muster, and I believe that this is one of the key reasons why it stopped growing and why the fundraising is stalling in certain communities that were traditionally supportive.
As for your second query. The open design communities are emerging, and benefit from the same kind of trends towards distribution/miniaturisation that made the internet possible, i.e. desktop manufacturing, personal fabrication (3d printing, etc..), multi-purpose machinery, rapid manufacturing and rapid tooling. However, remember it took 10 years for Linux to mature, and most open design communities are just 2-3 years old at the maximum while they have to solve harder physical problems (contrary to software, there is more iteration with physical reality necessary_). A crucial issue is the connection between non-reciprocal (voluntary) open design, and the necessity of a return in physical production. This has rarely been solved yet I think.
Molecular manufacturing will probably face the same downward trend in the physical cost of capital, resulting in increasing possiblities for small scale and local production. In a world after peak oil, and high raw material and environmental costs, it is likely that there will be much more incentives for a relocalization of production.
You should perhaps read Christian Siefkes proposals for physical peer production in his book, From Exchange to Contributions.