On a Whim
by Mat in Vadnais Heights

I’m a big fan of speculative fiction, and an interesting theme that occasionally pops up is the post-scarcity society. The real world is most definitely not post-scarcity. Because, you know, resources are limited and not readily available to everyone and stuff. We humans have never lived in post-scarcity where all needs are met. In fact, I dunno what that would even look like or how it could function.

To take a trivial example, you go to work to make money, and you use part of that money to pay for food, clothing, shelter, and other such basic needs. Post-scarcity, where resources are not functionally limited and basic necessities are available to all, would presumably not require you to work for such things. But a fair question, then, is “well, what would you work for?”

Before we tackle specific questions, though, let’s set some ground rules. Any Googling of post-scarcity pretty quickly produces links to something called “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,” created in 1943 by Abraham Maslow. In its original form it divided people’s needs into five layers. You start at the bottom and work your way up. One of Maslow’s basic insights is that folks won’t worry about the next layer up until they satisfy the needs of the layer they are on. Broadly speaking, the layers are physiological needs (air, food, water, shelter, clothing, sleep), safety and security (health, employment, property, family), love and belonging (friendship, family, intimacy), self-esteem (confidence, achievement, respect of others), and self-actualization (morality, creativity, experiencing purpose and meaning). Maslow seems like a good place to start.

Shooting for the moon, what would it look like if all five layers were satisfied for everyone? Well, Utopia, I guess. Everyone has enough to eat, a place to live, meaningful work, friends, family, confidence, respect, morality, and can express their creativity to the fullest. Since all of everyone’s needs are taken care of, all people should always be happy and content, yes? Well, since it has never happened in the history of history we cannot be certain, but I would say no. Even if you are “expressing creativity to the fullest” you could certainly be envious of someone more creative or talented than you. And the picture of a wealthy person who has everything they could need but is still discontented, well, that’s been cliché since forever. Clearly, it is not logically impossible for everyone to be happy and satisfied, but I don’t think humans are generally wired up that way.

Setting our sights a little lower, what does a plausible post-scarcity society look like? I know of a few sci-fi franchises that have taken a crack at this. In Star Trek it is routinely claimed that their society no longer uses money, for example, and that everyone’s basic needs are provided for. They are maddeningly vague about the mechanics of how that works, however. There are a few hand-waving arguments about people working for the joy of bettering themselves and so on, but that seems a bit thin when they also have minor characters walking around whose jobs are to do things like “guard this door and make sure no one enters” or “wait tables at this bar.” Those don’t sound like terribly Utopian forms of employment as far as giving one free rein on their creativity or allowing them to derive meaning in their lives. They sound more like boring slogs.

The authors Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck, writing together under the pseudonym James S.A. Corey, give it a more detailed treatment in their book series The Expanse. Set a few hundred years from the present, the governments of Earth have pretty well handled most of the bottom two levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. Everyone is guaranteed food, water, shelter, clothing, basic healthcare, something equivalent to a secondary education, and a few goodies like public network access. No one is required to work if they don’t want to. Anyone is free to live “on basic,” getting all the above necessities for nothing. If you want additional education, however, you must first work for two years in a service-level job. If you succeed there, you get access to university education. Which opens up additional employment opportunities, wherein you can make money to purchase luxury items—a nicer home, better food, private transportation, travel, and the like.

This sounds like a workable system, assuming the infrastructure exists to feed, clothe, and house several billion people, but … are the people on basic happy and content? In general, they are not. Many of them look enviously on the people above them, feeling left behind but unwilling or unable to do what is required to move up. Crime rates among people on basic are high. Utopia it ain’t.

Leaving fiction aside, how close are we to satisfying even the lowest level of the hierarchy for all people alive today? Obviously, nowhere near. Straightforward calculations show that there is enough fresh water in the world for everyone. Actually, there’s enough to last thousands of years. The problem is access and distribution. And according to the United Nations Environment Programme, there is currently enough food to serve 10 billion people, if managed and distributed efficiently. Which it isn’t. A fair goal for the whole human species might be just to take care of that first layer … and then see what happens.

How far up the hierarchy would you want to ultimately go? Would you aspire to have everyone live at level five, assuming for the moment that humanity-as-a-whole wouldn’t find it just psychologically impossible? Maybe … it would certainly be pleasant for the occupants. But somehow, I have a feeling it would be the death of literature. Think about it. With no evils or wrongs to struggle against, with nothing out of reach to strive for, what plot could any relatable story have other than “gee, it’s nice here—and tomorrow will be just as nice!” To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, the novels of Utopia would be terribly dull.