Introduction:
We humans think in concepts; and organize them through comparison and contrast. This appears to be the manner in which we distinguish scarcity and abundance as well. In order to reduce this phenomena, consideration of how we observe and think about it is probably required. By first considering the metrics by which we measure it, then the systemic influences, and finally the means by which it can be organized, a model for economy can result. Organized thoughts on the subject then provides the ability for inference and problem solution.
The Metrics of Observation:
When considering whether a resource is sufficiently abundant, we tend to consider its’ use case; and if there is enough available for it. It’s the combination of physical presence and perceived need that the inference is derived from. This of course is also effected by time. By being able to inventory the amount, calculate the need and how long it will suffice, we are capable of determining how abundant a resource is. It’s in essence a-b=c; where “a” (availability), “-” is compared to “b” (projected need over time), “=” equating to a positive or negative yield; that determines whether or not the resource is scarce. If the resulting number is a negative number, the resource is scarce. If it’s a positive number, its either sufficient or abundant; depending upon the size of the number.
The basics are of course simple; however the details are a bit more interesting. Calculating projected need in a complex and ever changing society tends to be difficult. Many resources have been deprecated over the past few thousand years; and not only because of their availability. New resource acquisitions have been adopted for being more efficient or effective. Some have just been altered with technology to be more efficient or effective; and some have been abandoned due to various consequences. This suggests that determining need through time requires a caveat for sustainability. In determining this, one needs to know what the competing resources are; and their advantages and disadvantages. Simple math will not suffice for this. For this, a common general systems tuple is more appropriate.
< T, U, Y, Q, Ω, δ, λ >
The western characters on the left state that, “T” over time, “U” an input to the system, “Y” results in an output, “Q” that renders the system in a particular state. This is the procedural view of the system. The Greek characters on the right state that, “Ω” an admissible input to the system, “δ” produces a transition, “λ” that results in an observed output. This is the instrumental view of the system. This is a good method for organizing ones thoughts on systemic influence and running simulations for inference. Each resource can be examined; and the yields from each examination can be compared with each other; to determine which resource is more favorable. “More favorable” is of course determined by comparison with a desired outcome; in which one cannot expect unanimous agreement.This suggests a requirement for a framework for assessing risk factors and the probability of deprecation of systemic components; for the purpose of argumentation.
n
Δ f = Σ
n+1
The equation above is a statement about influence. It states that, “Δ f” the difference between two yields, “=” is equivalent to, “Σ” the sum of, “n and n+1” two influences. The “Δ f” is a difference function. The “=” states that there is equivalence between the yield of the difference function and the summation of the two influences; which are variables with yet unknown values; denoted by the “n”. It can be used to assess the probability of systemic components being driven into extinction. For instance, it can state that, “the difference between entropy and extinction is the sum of normative and novel influence”. In this account, determining whether the component is at risk is done by determining how well the component coordinates with the bulk of the systemic components. If it coordinates very poorly and tends to result in destructive outcomes, it is disorder. If it coordinates very well and tends to be fruitful, it is normative, If it doesn’t coordinate all that well, but isn’t likely to result in destructive outcomes, it’s novel. So whether or not a component is disordered is determined by a feedback loop of its’ influence on the system and the systems’ influence on it. Whether or not it is driven into extinction is determined by how well it coordinates with the bulk of systemic components; by virtue of natural “tyranny of the majority”.
Another important consideration is the side effects of using particular resources. They often have to be acquired, processed and distributed. This can run into various economic and ecological costs. These two can be assessed with the before mentioned methods.
Abundance Defeaters:
In the history of civilization, there has never been real abundance; even though it’s been promised over and over again. This is probably because the projections of what will be needed in the future are often so modest. The probability of emergence Is great with technological advancement and it often results in greater needs; even above the expectations with population growth. This is of course likely to be mitigated to some degree with efficiency and reduced waste; but the requirements still persist to inflate.
Population Growth:
Of course population growth is expected in accounting for future requirements; but while approaching abundance, population growth accelerates. This is an exacerbation of the already exponential nature of reproduction. This is promoted by many social factors.
Financially, population growth is favorable in nation states; because it is likely to have a favorable effect upon the longevity of economic growth. Since economic growth enhances a nations’ ability to be competitive in global affairs, it naturally makes sense for nations to promote domestic families. There is also an interesting strategy to reduce population growth in “Third World” countries. This is done by making educational resources more abundant in those nations. The abundance or lack there of, of educational resources has a direct effect on the rate of population growth by the number of children that young women under that condition tend to want to have. Where girls have access to quality educational resources, they are more likely to develop a will for a career; thus reducing the probability of having more than one or maybe two children. This of course inhibits population growth. In a developed country with a class structure, this isn’t often the strategy. Toward the end of the crisis cycle, when budgets are in heated competition with each other, educational systems are neglected and become significantly weakened. The state of the system under these conditions is one that promotes population growth; and it’s often observed. The contrast between the educational resources in the US and Japan, and their population growth rates correlates with this. Public education is very good in Japan and there is more will for career oriented lives in young Japanese women. In the US, public education is in steep decline, the population is steeply growing, and there is ample support for stay at home mothers.
Technological Advancement:
As technology advances there has been observations that particular resources have substantial increases in usage. Energy is one that is consistently and significantly increasing with the complexity of a society. With the advancements that make particular resources more available comes emergent technologies that consume resources at greater rates. For instance, the small effects that have been achieved with efficiency in fossil fuels has not been capable of offsetting the increased usage by emergent, modern conveniences. It’s been observed that the economy with the greater complexity is the one that uses the most resources per capita.
Projections of abundance have consistently been defeated by natural processes that take advantage of them. Even the more sci-fi assertions have the same defeaters. For instance, the notion of material scarcity being defeated with the ability to use the natural energy and computing capabilities of particulates contrasts with the energy that it would probably take to do other tasks like travel the galaxy. Creating “warp drives” or “worm holes” is likely to be extremely demanding on energy resources. It’s easy to have an optimistic view of the possibility of abundance in the future; until one closely studies the data.
Closing:
Economics is not an emergent technology. It’s a completely natural process that coordinates natural systems. There is no reason to think that the need for economy will ever be defeated. It appears to be a constant in the known universe. All projections of abundance have been defeated in our history; and there is no reason to expect abundance in our future. There is an observed correlation between inputs and yields in systemic developments that have always demanded economy… across the board. Where one efficiency prospers another emergence takes advantage. That is probably the nature of complex systems.