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?