If certain goods are simply status objects and status disappears wouldn't the demand for the goods also disappear?

if you grow up with a baseline and that is always how you lived your life you will see yourself as impoverished if you fall below that

We are currently already producing 1.5x the world populations demand in food supplies

but then again if you can own planets and armies, then would scarcity be an issue at that point?

(Side note: Isaac arthur makes some cool vids, shame I haven't seen a lot of them, I'll check this one out)

my point on that is that people always want more, if you have "planets and armies" of your own that is the base line, there is no loose extra resources that just sit there unused, they are used by those with the means to produce or collect them. that extra .5 food is being used by the people with the means to make it. If you take it and give it to people without, the people who produced it will stop because it does not benefit them. Its like saying "you can pump water for yourself but if you try pump more to fill your pool we will take it and give it away" why would you try fill your pool to no avail? its a waste of time so you wont pump it, now that extra 0.5 has gone *poof*

it no longer exists

"the problem with communism is eventually you run out of other people's money"

Right, I acknowledge that the system cannot be transformed viably until every resource reaches post-scarcity

but it cant, there are no extra resources not being used, even if wastefully we only make what we want at that moment

Of course there are: *looks to space*

plus most of the issues are labor related with labor costs and efficiency

the machines arent going to make massive stockpiles to never be touched again they will use them to make more machines and infostructure

Right

Which can fuel itself through acquiring more resources

as well just by how reality works some things will always be more scarce than others, just by there being more hydrogen than oxygen in the universe "post scarcity" is impossible

my point is that only once you can maintain that constant gap between supply and demand with an substantial excess in supply and a large rate of change of supply exceeding that of the rate of change of demand then it would be effective to switch to communism as at this point you wouldn't be 'running out of other peoples money' if you're accruing labour from automating systems.

Post scarcity literally is referring to the inability for our demand to exceed our supply

no its a scifi word

Which is why I try to make it very clear that I see it as a effective end-goal

post=after, scarcity
due to some things always being more scarce than others there is no post scarcity.

And under the claim I've made which hasn't been countered yet I see it is as possible

Then let me rephase to 'effective post-scarcity'

whereby the supply exceeds the demand and the rate of change of supply exceeds the rate of change of demand

this is the logical conclusion of human advancement in labour

All we've done is devalued product in favour of new product

eventually all product will reach net devaluation given the criteria is met

but in history there has never been a point where supply exceed demand for long, even with the industrial revolution hundreds of times more production than ever before the population jumped right after it, no high the jump we always follow. Someone always finds a way to use what is not being used.

Right, but the rate of change of that has been constantly exceeded every technological revolution

Even from a realist stance let alone optimistic stance it can be seen to be heading in such a direction

we industrialize space and now there is millions of times larger resources per person? now we have millions of times larger homes.
Someone will always want what someone else has, not always, there are those content with welfare but the drive for more is in our nature.
Now we own half the galaxy, each human has 8000 star systems to call home. All resources are being used, we can always make due with more.

Why would we have millions of times larger homes?

why do people have entire private hotels for houses?

primarily because its a status symbol and it inflates the ego

and you're assuming that the rate of change of the rate of change of supply isn't incrementing when it is

perhaps humanity will need larger homes

you dont *need* a 10x10m home with space to live in, you dont *need* a tv or internet but we *want* it. And i for sure would *want* a planet sized mansion

but we can substantiate that demand

mood

there is also the issue of replication

@Deleted User mood?