Post-Replicator Society: When Scarcity is Scarce.

More than Space Exploration.

When people think about Star Trek, they might imagine flying in space, discovering strange worlds, and going where no one has ever been.  Probably the most famous quote from the Star Trek universe is (cue the music):

"Space, the final frontier.
These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise.
Its continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before!"

In reality, the show is about so much more than what this quote entails.  Star Trek is about the human condition, our ideals, and our potential.  The most important aspect (though not the central focus) of the Star Trek universe, in my opinion, is an ideal economy.

Removing Scarcity

There exists a particular technology called the replicator, which manipulates subatomic particles to produce atoms, arranges atoms into molecules, and from the molecules forms... well, anything.  It can form the cellular structures of muscle and fat, and even specify their particular chemical state, producing a perfectly cooked stake.  Or it could make you a closet-full of the latest fashionable clothing.  Or, it could produce a rake, a television, a wheel... anything!

In Star Trek, this technology doesn't go unappreciated.  The writers have recognized the significant implications of this technology.  One quote by Captain Jean-Luc Picard demonstrates how society has changed because of this technology.  "A lot has changed in the past 300 years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy."

Voluntary Unemployment

One question that comes up from time to time is, "What will happen to people who refuse to work?"  Once everyone can have all of their needs (and most of their wants) met without any cost to anyone, what is going to keep them working?  I think the origins of this question are in modern capitalist views of communism.  One person, referring to those who are voluntarily unemployed in a post-replicator society, asked it like this:

"Are they considered enemies of the state and punished somehow? (The Australian Penal colonies spring to mind.) Do people have to work to "better humanity"? Or would these people be labelled in some form of poverty?"

However, a few assumptions are made by this question that may be false.

First, the assumption that society needs people to fulfill employment roles.

Population growth is likely to level off, landing the Earth at approximately 8.9 billion in the year 2300 (UN Report). Currently, about 15% of workers are employed in production industry sectors (Bureau of Labor Statistics reports). Current unemployment ranges from 3% to 40% depending on the country (International Labor Organization). I can only guess that the average worldwide unemployment is something like 10%. Adding the current unemployment to the loss of production jobs, then taking into consideration the moderate population growth, I think it seems likely that there will be greater than 25% unemployment in a post-replication technology society.

Of course, there are tons of additional factors, but additional factors could raise or lower unemployment. Without additional information, I think it wouldn't be too irresponsible to say that 25% is a close working unemployment rate. It is at least safe to say that society would easily support a 25% unemployment rate.

Which brings us to another assumption of the "how will we punish lazy people" question... that society will care what you do. Right now, a person doing nothing comes across as lazy. In reality, the unemployed people I know either have serious health problems, or are very sad about their lack of a job. I wonder if, in the future, it will no longer be a shame, and come with less stigma, to have nothing to do, especially if 1 in 4 people will be unemployed.

Consider also that even in a society where there is significant scarcity, world governments have many programs designed to aid those who are unemployed.  It will not simply be "ok" to let people be unemployed, but may actually remove the societal burden of dealing with their circumstances.

Insufficient Work Force?

Some people worry that if nobody has to work, there won't be enough people willing to fill the many necessary jobs.  After all, why would anyone work if they didn't have to?  I disagree!  I don't think we get the best from a person who is being threatened.  I don't think students learn more in a society that threatens their livelihood if they don't meet a teacher's expectations.  I don't think employees work at peak effectiveness for an employer who threatens to fire them if they don't work harder.  And I don't think people make the best occupation choices when they're under the pressure of working or dying.  Work - or you get no food or clothing or shelter!

People take pride in their accomplishments.  People love to get involved.  People want to better humanity.  And most people feel bored and unfulfilled when they can't accomplish anything for long periods of time.  I imagine that people, taken away from the threats of our current labor realities, would be in a better position to apply themselves to their work, and they would be more likely to get involved in projects where they can be of the most use.

Two good examples come to mind.  One: the LDS church, where people are not paid for their labor and contributions.  Instead they gain rewards of a spiritual and emotional nature.  Two: the internet, where people get involved all the time without any expectation of being paid, such as wikipedia, forums, and free software development.  Really great software exists that is non-profit, such as blender, audacity, and gimp.  If, in our scarcity-ridden society, people are willing to put forth the effort to make such exceptional software, won't they be willing to in a post-replicator society?  And what about music, art, and literature?  People love to express themselves and not just for pay!  If anything, I imagine there would be a renaissance in the fine arts.

------------------------

What do you think?  What implications does this post-replicator society have on our own society, or on our future?

Secrets of love, and how my culture is wrong about romance.

If I could talk to my younger self

I've considered the advice that I might share with someone who is concerned about love. I think many people wonder who they'll marry. And I think many people feel that they lack wisdom when they approach love. Some of us are foolish when it comes to love, and others are clueless. As I look back at my life, I recognize that I have grown significantly, and my views are quite different from back when I was a teenager, or even in my early 20s. I believe that I would have benefited from listening to the advice of a future, and more experienced me. Well, until time travel is invented, I'll just share my thoughts with whoever is reading.

What is Love?

About romance, before I married Sarah, Victor (my older brother) once told me, "It isn't about knowing they're the one. It's about being really excited to be with them." Of all the emotions one might experience, I think his choice to focus on excitement was poignant.  I think he may also have been getting at the fact that nobody really has a Hollywood romance. I'd go so far as to say that "magical romance" is a very modern, and very skewed view of love. Most cultures for most of history did not believe in romantic love.

In the LDS church, I think we sway slightly toward the pop-cultural norm. I remember when I was about 16 or so, a newlywed member of my church gave a presentation about having a fairy tale marriage. In response to that, let me transcribe what my grandfather, Carlfred Broderick, said as it is written in his postmortem publication The Uses of Adversity.

While I was serving as a stake president, I was once sitting on the stand at a combined meeting of the stake Primary board and stake Young Women's board where they were jointly introducing from the Primary into the Young Women's organization the eleven-year-old girls who that year had made the big step. They had a lovely program. It was one of those fantastic, beautiful presentations -- a take-off on The Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy, an eleven-year-old girl, was coming down the yellow brick road together with the Tin Woodman, the Cowardly Lion, and the Scarecrow. They were singing altered lyrics about the gospel. And Oz, which was one wall of the cultural hall, looked very much like the Los Angeles Temple. They really took off down that road. There were no weeds on that road; there were no Munchkins; there were no misplaced tiles; there was no Wicked Witch of the West. That was one antiseptic yellow brick road, and it was very, very clear that once they got to Oz, they had it made. It was all sewed up.

Following that beautiful presentation with all the snappy tunes and skipping and so on, came a sister who I swear was sent over from Hollywood central casting. (I do not believe she was in my stake; I never saw her before in my life.) She looked as if she had come right off the cover of a fashion magazine -- every hair in place -- with a photogenic returned missionary husband who looked like he came out of a central casting and two or three, or heaven knows how many, photogenic children, all of whom came out of central casting or Kleenex ads or whatever. She enthused over her temple marriage and how wonderful life was with her charming husband and her perfect children and promised that the young women too could look like her and have a husband like him and children like them if they would stick to the yellow brick road and live in Oz. It was a lovely, sort of tear-jerking, event.

After the event was nearly over, the stake Primary president, who was conducting, made a grave strategic error. She turned to me and, pro forma, said, "President Broderick, is there anything you would like to add to this lovely evening?"

I said, "Yes, there is," and I don't think she has ever forgiven me. What I said was this: "Girls, this has been a beautiful program. I commend the gospel with all of its auxiliaries and the temple to you, but I do not want you to believe for one minute that if you keep all the commandments and live as close to the Lord as you can and do everything right and fight off the entire priests quorum one by one and wait chastely for your missionary to return and pay your tithing and attend your meetings, accept calls from the bishop, and have a temple marriage, I do not want you to believe that bad things will not happen to you. And when that happens, I do not want you to say that God was not true. Or to say, 'They promised me in Primary, they promised me when I was a Mia Maid, they promised me from the pulpit that if I were very, very good, I would be blessed. But the boy I want doesn't know I exist, or the missionary I've waited for and kept chaste for so we both could go to the temple turned out to be a flake.' or far worse things than any of the above. Sad things -- children who are sick or developmentally handicapped, husbands who are not faithful, illnesses that can cripple, or violence, betrayals, hurts, deaths, losses -- when those things happen, do not say God is not keeping his promises to me. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not insurance against pain. It is resource in event of pain, and when that pain comes (and it will come because we came here on earth to have pain among other things), when it comes, rejoice that you have resource to deal with your pain."

The book goes on, obviously, but every time I think back to that "fairy tale wedding" presentation by the newlywed girl, I recall this passage from my grandpa's book. "Magical romance" is so distinctly disconnected from the reality of life. In contrast, kindness, compassion, trust, sacrifice, forgiveness - these are the aspects of love that fit into the reality of life and marriage. I think Victor is far closer to understanding love than Hollywood is. Being excited about being with a person is the passion that we seek. Hearts thumping, sexual intrigue, yearning for a person -- these things happen, but aren't the crux of a truly (non-magical) romantic relationship.

How can I be sure I've chosen the right person?

Imagine you were to marry a close friend. You'd have exciting times, fun times, romantic times, sacred times, intimate times, celebratory times. You'd have terrifying times, challenging times, arguments, angry times, sad times, and times that felt downright hopeless. You could, if you chose to, look back and say, "I wish I'd married so-and-so." or "I wish he'd/she'd be more <insert personality trait>." And indeed, such thoughts come to married couples to some degree. However, by employing the tried-and-true methods of the family proclamation, you would make it through frustrating and even terrifying times, and be glad that you were with someone through those times. Someone that you loved - the kind of love that you already know and experience, not the kind that everyone imagines from Hollywood movies.

No matter who you end up marrying, they won't be perfect. No matter what, you'll have up and down times. Sarah is a wonderful wife. I'm very grateful for her, and I consider her the best friend I've ever had. We have differences of opinions, and the minutia of our personalities occasionally clash.

Before dating Sarah, I dated a girl, we'll call her R, who was really attractive. She had a beautiful singing voice, was fun to be around, had a cute smile and laugh. I ended up dumping her because she kept calling her ex-boyfriend just to talk... for hours. I told her how I felt about it, and that I couldn't continue in a relationship where she did that. She continued, so I dumped her. At first, she begged to get back together, but I was too hurt. What if I had married her? She wasn't as smart as Sarah, but Sarah doesn't sing as well. She was fatter than Sarah, but that came with a sexy-curvaceous body. I could break down each little aspect of their personalities and their lives and compare them. I'd choose Sarah every time. Why? Because I feel like Sarah and I are better friends than R and I ever could have been.

There was another girl who became interested in me just before I made a serious boyfriend/girlfriend commitment to Sarah. I think her name was... M. She was in nursing school, read a lot, and was very intellectual. On one date, we watched a movie together, and she kind of cuddled up to me, and I liked how she was comfortable being affectionate. She had a face that was cute like a baby's or cartoon character's face (big, beautiful eyes), and she had a great sense of humor. She was very attractive - physically, mentally, spiritually, and personality-wise. The real reason I didn't pursue her was that I ended up pursuing Sarah. Now that I'm married to Sarah, I think it's somewhat taboo to say that I would have been as happy with this other girl, M. But I didn't end up marrying M, and there's no way to know what it would have been like. Who knows, maybe it would have been even better in some ways.

But it doesn't really matter, cause my life isn't a competition. We aren't trying to ensure that we pick a perfect, flawless person that has unquestionable chemistry with us. In contrast, we're trying to find someone who we're excited about. We don't want to come home every day with the sure knowledge that our spouse doesn't make sense in our life - abuse, sin, or significant value differences. But the reality is that we will come home to a person that isn't our romantic ideal... no matter who we marry. Romance, true romance, is the ability to forgive and love a person even when it isn't easy. To have a truly romantic relationship is when you know that your spouse will do that for you, too.

The unambiguously wise words of an irrefutably wise man

Before I close, I'd like to share a portion of a talk I gave a few years back about choosing the right. I consider it the best talk I've ever given, in part because I really thought about it, and wrote notes and developed the talk on my own for months. Then, after I finished the talk, the bishop randomly came up to me and asked if I would give a talk on Choosing the Right (cue the Twilight Zone music). This section is the second of about four main sections.

Who should I date? Who should I love? Who should I marry?

These decisions are important, and you should council with the Lord as you thoughtfully make these decisions. Let me share with you a few things about this decision.

1. You will date your friends
2. You will marry someone you date.
3. You should, therefore, choose your friends wisely. Does this sound familiar? It should, because it's important.

Who should I love? Absolutely everyone, no joke. In our society, people who have faith in nothing believe that love has some romantic, obscure magical property to it. But I know for a fact that a 2 year old fully understands love enough to act with love or to choose not to. You and I understand love enough to choose to act with love. Love is necessary in all your interactions, and you will be a better person if you choose to treat all those you meet with love. 

Everyone you date should be treated with loving kindness. When you become seriously involved with someone, you will express your love in additional ways, but the Christ-like love you share with all will never be replaced by passion, physical intimacy, or googly eyes. 

My wife and I feel passionate about each other. We are excited to see each other. We have even been caught kissing from time to time. But the principles taught in the family proclamation are those that hold our family together with love. How I express my love to my wife makes a big difference in the quality of her life, and it’s important for us to practice expressing love to everyone so that we are well-versed in love. 

As far as whom you should marry, you cannot afford to marry anyone unworthy of the eternal destiny you seek, or who you cannot love. Likewise, you cannot afford to casually pass up the opportunity to marry someone you love and who would help you reach the Celestial Kingdom. You should get anxiously engaged to someone that you think is wonderful.

It's a bit early for Valentines day, but I feel like it would be appropriate for me to close this treatise on love by sharing some of the feelings I have for my wife. Sarah is a beautiful girl. She has cute, curly hair, deep brown eyes, and an attractive, eye-catching physique. Her laugh is contagious, and laughing with her has become among my favorite memories from my whole life. She is a diligent, thoughtful, and forgiving person. As a mother, she is wise and nurturing. Her mind is more powerful than a nuclear missile - she's a friggin' genius. I feel grateful for her in so many ways, and very profoundly. I consider her the greatest blessing of my life. With all the challenges I face, I am grateful to face them with her by my side. I look forward to growing together for a lifetime, and sharing eternity.

---------------

For those unfamiliar with the brief LDS document about the importance of families, here is a link to The Family: A Proclamation to the World.