The answer is obvious. Have competitions for the needed jobs, take the top-ranking competitors, then kill and eat the rest.
On a serious note, I'm not sure that we will ever come to a point where our wants can be fully supplied. Really, the line between "need" and "want" is a blurry one. We need shelter, but we don't really "need" a house/apartment, or air conditioning, or electricity, to live. But I digress.
I assert that people's wants are almost always greater than their position -- people in general will always want more than they have, to put it simply.
I've done the same mental exercise before. What happens at the extreme case where, due to technology and other factors, everyone's needs are attended to without them having to do anything for them? Then people spend their time pursuing wants -- in essence, hobbies become lifestyles. Advancing technology, medicine, science.
And to your point, such a society would be somewhat socialistic as far as needs, but wants would still be a capitalistic thing. Instead of trading grain for a horse shoe, you now make a web page for someone, who then gives you a blowjob (or whatever). The greater an ability you have to meet others' wants, the more your own can be met. So if you wanted to just exist, you would be provided food, shelter, etc. in such a world. But if you want anything more than that, then you would have to work for it.
So I guess that's a very roundabout way of saying, "I agree." Because what I describe above would be considered limited socialism, I think.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 09:19 pm (UTC)On a serious note, I'm not sure that we will ever come to a point where our wants can be fully supplied. Really, the line between "need" and "want" is a blurry one. We need shelter, but we don't really "need" a house/apartment, or air conditioning, or electricity, to live. But I digress.
I assert that people's wants are almost always greater than their position -- people in general will always want more than they have, to put it simply.
I've done the same mental exercise before. What happens at the extreme case where, due to technology and other factors, everyone's needs are attended to without them having to do anything for them? Then people spend their time pursuing wants -- in essence, hobbies become lifestyles. Advancing technology, medicine, science.
And to your point, such a society would be somewhat socialistic as far as needs, but wants would still be a capitalistic thing. Instead of trading grain for a horse shoe, you now make a web page for someone, who then gives you a blowjob (or whatever). The greater an ability you have to meet others' wants, the more your own can be met. So if you wanted to just exist, you would be provided food, shelter, etc. in such a world. But if you want anything more than that, then you would have to work for it.
So I guess that's a very roundabout way of saying, "I agree." Because what I describe above would be considered limited socialism, I think.