How Would The World React To a Post-Scarcity Society?

[Mordae]

There is a legitimate reason for getting an intentionally inferior product. If you know/assume that a superior product is in development, there is no point in making anything other than a stopgap until said product comes out.

Yeah, that makes sense. On the other hand, why not sell upgrades or buy products back for recycling? It makes sense... in a system where it's impossible to mine anything from Earth cheaper then reuse what we've already dug out.

Sigh, I should have not watched those movies.

Anyway, is post-scarcity even attainable? I mean, the most complicated question is the motivation. How would you motivate people to produce food? It's boring!

[CorruptUser]

That's what robots are for.

[Mordae]

OK, my problem with all this is that moving away from current system where everyone needs to work hard in order to fullfill his basic needs to a system where they are granted requires certain changes in the society. For example in order to get free food we need to build foodBOTs, hypodronics and a ton of other things. These things need to be funded, since we are starting in a broken system where nothing can be done without money. Who pays in order to build them?

And if your answer is state, then question from current food industry is: "What about us?!"

Well, yeah, you are going to die, dear food industry. But that is not a problem, since our state run hypodronics will feed everyone. You can still take care of beefsteaks though. And increased unemployment? Let's cut maximal work time to something a bit more sensible, so that you need to employ a bit more people. They won't complain, their food bills are gone.

Is that sensible? Can it go this way?

[jseah]

Well, if we can manage free food, we can manage free alot-of-things. Just need the robot infrastructure. And the robots to maintain those robots, etc.

If we can manage all that (or even just require humans only for management and maintenance), it becomes feasible for the govenment to pay a basic income (flat income for all humans past age of majority) which can be used to buy products from government run robot infrastructure. You might be able to run the robot infrastructure through employed people who want more than the basic income.

When it requires so little people to do it, the inefficiencies of a communist-like system can shrink to manageable levels.


If the systems runs by itself without human input, then the government 'owns' it and 'runs' it, but in reality just distributes its products. (manifested as a "basic income" paid to all age-of-majority adults)

[WarDaft]

The world would react to it in exactly the way it already is reacting to it.

By trying to ban it.

Suppose we have device X. Device X can produce Y, essentially free of cost! Just scan a Y, and it will gather the resources and build another one just like it. Queue massive Y-industry campaign for legislature against device X.


You can't escape a capitalist economy, because those most motivation to keep the economy as it is, also have the most power in it.




I sound like some paranoia spewing nutcase here. That is not the intent, this is actually calm, rational, fairly basic (and slightly depressing) reasoning on my part.

[lutzj]

The world would react to it in exactly the way it already is reacting to it.

By trying to ban it.

Suppose we have device X. Device X can produce Y, essentially free of cost! Just scan a Y, and it will gather the resources and build another one just like it. Queue massive Y-industry campaign for legislature against device X.


You can't escape a capitalist economy, because those most motivation to keep the economy as it is, also have the most power in it.




I sound like some paranoia spewing nutcase here. That is not the intent, this is actually calm, rational, fairly basic (and slightly depressing) reasoning on my part.

Does this happen often? People seem willing to send industries into obsolescence all the time to make efficiency gains. Kodak, for example, didn't make some huge push to ban digital cameras.

[Brutz]

I think people would behave in a post-scarcity society exactly the same way a huge chunk of the developed world can already afford to behave; drugs, TV/internet/gaming, little regard for health despite some legit information actually being available, eating food produced for taste and addiction instead of for nutrition, buying useless products as status symbols with no interest in the behavior of those products' producers etc. I also agree with WarDaft on capitalism economies being inescapable, not counting the possibility that a sufficient portion of the "developed world" might eventually be starved and overworked enough to start a violent revolution.

If "post-scarcity" is taken to mean that not only basic necessities for a healthy life are easily available, but so are the above mentioned useless products, I'm convinced that the Guiness World Records will surpass the size of the Oxford English Dictionary thanks to entries such as "man with the most garages filled completely with little rubber tips for cat claws". Some of the real records around already aren't much less insane than this example.

I recently read Arthur Clarke's Childhood's End and got a huge laugh out of a quarter of all human activity in a post-scarcity society being amateur sport. At 8h of sleep a day (and assuming all of the remaining 16 are considered activity), the entire human race's average would then be only 2-3h below what most world champions spend training today. Even considering that Clarke's fictional estimate includes chess and sports that you can theoretically play all day like golf, that seems completely insane to me. Real life students who don't need to work while studying have obligations not much different from those of the novel's future humans. What percentage of them spend not an average of 4, but at least 1 to 2h a day training these days? What about working people who don't spend a long time commuting and don't have families to take care of?

Does this happen often? People seem willing to send industries into obsolescence all the time to make efficiency gains. Kodak, for example, didn't make some huge push to ban digital cameras.

How much is "often"? I think that any industry large enough to own almost entire governments probably already does or is working on it just to stay competitive with the big boys. If it was only one or two companies globally, that would be too often to me.

[WarDaft]

Real life students who don't need to work while studying have obligations not much different from those of the novel's future humans. What percentage of them spend not an average of 4, but at least 1 to 2h a day training these days?

As a member of that exact demographic, I can give you one data point...

The closest I come to sport is walking to class, and I grumble about even that. I live in a residence on campus. I'd drive anyway, but my car is already parked as close to my classes as I am allowed to leave it.

[Zcorp]

The world would react to it in exactly the way it already is reacting to it.

By trying to ban it.

Suppose we have device X. Device X can produce Y, essentially free of cost! Just scan a Y, and it will gather the resources and build another one just like it. Queue massive Y-industry campaign for legislature against device X.


You can't escape a capitalist economy, because those most motivation to keep the economy as it is, also have the most power in it.




I sound like some paranoia spewing nutcase here. That is not the intent, this is actually calm, rational, fairly basic (and slightly depressing) reasoning on my part.

Does this happen often? People seem willing to send industries into obsolescence all the time to make efficiency gains. Kodak, for example, didn't make some huge push to ban digital cameras.

It is happening right now with the MPAA and RIAA.
That is in part, if not largely, the goal of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and PCIP.

[Ruggles]

Pardon the Cracked, but I think this article is relevant: http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html

To an extent, we are already reacting to certain parts of our society getting close to post scarcity. And while I don't completely agree with his assertion that what you can pirate is post scarcity (as the scarcity is now the intellectual manpower put into creating that thing), forced artificial scarcity is something we will likely see increase as we're transitioning towards a more digital society. Then again, that is more about what happens as an economic sector deals with a new found lack of scarcity, which isn't exactly what this thread is about.

As for a society that is purely post scarcity, I would think creativity and skill will become more and more valuable. Entertainment will become much more important as priorities change, scientific research will likely take a nice bump in interest as well. More frivolous ventures in general would be focused on, I mean, what else would one be able to strive for in a need-less society?

[WarDaft]

You call it piracy because for the last 300 years society has been trying to ban it.

And yes, I do have a model for how to have a functioning interactive society even when everything can be replicated with effectively no cost. Unfortunately it does not extend past the point where we develop controllable AIs with full human level intelligence. No, I'm not sharing. But I am researching what I will need to reliably implement it on small scales though, because I think I can make money from it.

[infernovia]

And yes, I do have a model for how to have a functioning interactive society even when everything can be replicated with effectively no cost. Unfortunately it does not extend past the point where we develop controllable AIs with full human level intelligence. No, I'm not sharing. But I am researching what I will need to reliably implement it on small scales though, because I think I can make money from it.

Haha, yeah, gotta love scarcity.

Anyway, it's not such a bad thing to not be an affluent society, still a lot of room to grow after all.

[jseah]

scientific research will likely take a nice bump in interest as well.

This.

Enforced scarcity aside, even if ideas could be copied and translated into action efficiently, being FIRST is an advantage all on its own. Plus, what else are we going to do with our time anyway?

[Hedonic Treader]

Plus, what else are we going to do with our time anyway?

I know stuff.

[ThunderOfCondemnation]

The capitalist economy shall react as it always does to technological innovation.

(1) Concentration of the means of production
(2) More exploitation of the proletariat
(3) Workers won't see any benefits
(4) The bourgeois get richer and the poor get poorer
(5) More structural unemployment

They'll also be patenting, copyrighting and enforcing artificial scarcity this time.

We are indeed going to see many innovations that make a post-scarcity economy possible soon. If you think it's really going to benefit you, you've got another think coming.

Here, have a look at our future!
http://www.amazon.com/Lights-Tunnel-Aut ... 1448659817

Post-scarcity for the 1%, destitution for the 99%.

The world would react to it in exactly the way it already is reacting to it.

By trying to ban it.

Suppose we have device X. Device X can produce Y, essentially free of cost! Just scan a Y, and it will gather the resources and build another one just like it. Queue massive Y-industry campaign for legislature against device X.


You can't escape a capitalist economy, because those most motivation to keep the economy as it is, also have the most power in it.




I sound like some paranoia spewing nutcase here. That is not the intent, this is actually calm, rational, fairly basic (and slightly depressing) reasoning on my part.

Does this happen often? People seem willing to send industries into obsolescence all the time to make efficiency gains. Kodak, for example, didn't make some huge push to ban digital cameras.

It is happening right now with the MPAA and RIAA.
That is in part, if not largely, the goal of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and PCIP.

This is so true. Hopefully, people realize what is happening and overthrow these parasites.

[infernovia]

Enforced scarcity aside, even if ideas could be copied and translated into action efficiently, being FIRST is an advantage all on its own. Plus, what else are we going to do with our time anyway?

Outside of the likely scenario where an affluent society decides to secure the advancement of individuals who has progressed humanity, what advantage would it give to the person who got there first? I can see it maybe pleasurable as a problem to overcome, but not as something that can actually give serious advantage to an affluent (post-scarcity) individual. Right now, admittedly, there is a lot. But that's because we have scarcity, and a way to take advantage of this scarcity, enforced or otherwise.

Also, I don't think movie companies can be classified as "parasites" as much as "greedy."

[Hedonic Treader]

Outside of the likely scenario where an affluent society decides to secure the advancement of individuals who has progressed humanity, what advantage would it give to the person who got there first?

Being first will always be scarce. Just like being on top of a high score ladder or social hierarchy will always be scarce. Unless the world is designed to uniquely give each individual the illusion of being first/on top.

[morriswalters]

Post - scarcity? Just because you can say something doesn't mean it has any real meaning. The patent office doesn't patent perpetual motion machines because thermodynamics says they can't work. Post-scarcity falls in that category.

[Zcorp]

Outside of the likely scenario where an affluent society decides to secure the advancement of individuals who has progressed humanity, what advantage would it give to the person who got there first?

Fame, prestige and all that comes with them.

Post - scarcity? Just because you can say something doesn't mean it has any real meaning. The patent office doesn't patent perpetual motion machines because thermodynamics says they can't work. Post-scarcity falls in that category.

You have this annoying habit of completely failing to understand any of the concepts required to actually participate in a discussion. Read the thread before you post, then if you still don't understand what is being said ask questions instead of making assertions.

[omgryebread]

Post - scarcity? Just because you can say something doesn't mean it has any real meaning. The patent office doesn't patent perpetual motion machines because thermodynamics says they can't work. Post-scarcity falls in that category.

Not at all. Thermodynamics are physical laws, and motion is a physical concept. Scarcity is an economic concept, and economics has no laws in the same sense that physics does.

EDIT: not to mention there's no real theory of economics that would prevent post-scarcity from existing. It's actually pretty easy to consider a post-scarcity society existing, unlike perpetual motion.

[WarDaft]

Air is a non-scarce resource. No one, anywhere, in the entire world, charges for breathing air (orbiting space stations are in orbit around the world, not in the world. That wouldn't work very well.) Therefore there is at least one non-scarce resource, so no blanket argument invalidating all possible post-scarcity resources is currently valid.

[morriswalters]

Breathable healthy air is a scarce resource. Ask an asthmatic. The more there are of us the less there is of it. Scarcity may be an economic concept, but it is closely tied to population. You can't name a resource which is not limited by population. My point is, that barring changing ourselves in some fundamental way, it can't be done. WE won't control our populations and there are not enough resources to raise the rest of the world to the level which causes the birth rate to drop. How do you address that?

[jseah]

WE won't control our populations and there are not enough resources to raise the rest of the world to the level which causes the birth rate to drop. How do you address that?

Do we actually know this?

Even if it was true, then we still have a possibility of a post-scarcity society in the western world, and not outside it.

See my earlier hypothetical scenario. That would at least generate a post-scarcity like situation in the western world, even if resources weren't enough to apply it everywhere.

[WarDaft]

We don't even need the entire western hemisphere to have it, we just need some post-scarcity society and then we can discuss how the world reacts to it.

In fact that's the situation that would provoke the strongest reactions.

[lizkatz]

Basically, what the title says. What would happen in a post-scarcity society in which all goods, services, and information was readily available through non-morally objectionable means? Could an economy exist? How would education work, with no one trying to get a new job? Would anyone try to create anything? What if innovation was manufacturable as well? I know this is very unlikely, so it'll mainly be hypothetical speculation.

I misread this at first to say "how would the world react to a post-sarcastic society" it made me giggle for at least three seconds.

[Qaanol]

Well, seeing as this has already been bumped…

What about semi-post scarcity? As in, let’s say only 50% of the population (or even less) is needed to do all the work. Not just the “necessary” work, but all the luxury-goods and service-sector work as well. That means, unemployment stands at 50% or more, and there is absolutely nobody who is hiring, because every job is already filled. There is no way to create new jobs, because every market where people are willing to pay money, is already saturated with jobs.

To some extent, we are already seeing this in places like Spain (and Greece I think?) although not for the whole workforce, nonetheless for those below 30 years old, only half of them are employed and there are no job openings.

[Greyarcher]

What about semi-post scarcity? As in, let’s say only 50% of the population (or even less) is needed to do all the work. Not just the “necessary” work, but all the luxury-goods and service-sector work as well. That means, unemployment stands at 50% or more, and there is absolutely nobody who is hiring, because every job is already filled. There is no way to create new jobs, because every market where people are willing to pay money, is already saturated with jobs.

To some extent, we are already seeing this in places like Spain (and Greece I think?) although not for the whole workforce, nonetheless for those below 30 years old, only half of them are employed and there are no job openings.

It is an interesting hypothetical. Wish I'd studied some relevant Econ. It's a question about the relation of population, production efficiency, consumption, and employment, yes? And an imbalance between them, I think. Efficiency reaches the point that only N people are required the reach a balance between production and consumption (and thus a balance between employment and population). But the total population is N + x. And as efficiency increases towards a post-scarcity situation, N decreases while x increases. At earlier levels of post-scarcity, one could implement controls to try and keep the population at level N. But that seems to break down as one gets closer to post-scarcity.

I'm not sure at all, really.

[Zcorp]

Well, seeing as this has already been bumped…

What about semi-post scarcity? As in, let’s say only 50% of the population (or even less) is needed to do all the work. Not just the “necessary” work, but all the luxury-goods and service-sector work as well. That means, unemployment stands at 50% or more, and there is absolutely nobody who is hiring, because every job is already filled. There is no way to create new jobs, because every market where people are willing to pay money, is already saturated with jobs.

To some extent, we are already seeing this in places like Spain (and Greece I think?) although not for the whole workforce, nonetheless for those below 30 years old, only half of them are employed and there are no job openings.

Does 'needed to do all the work' imply that everyone is getting sufficient resources based on that work? So could everyone work part time and live their current life-styles and have an opportunity to improve their lifestyles?

If so, people will find ways to fill that other 50% of their time, many of them will fill it by creating new things and thus new jobs / income / technology / knowledge.

Of course another possibility is that the working group wants to work full time and get more from doing, to spend on more luxury during their smaller off time, and that the result is a population culling.

[CorruptUser]

What about semi-post scarcity? As in, let’s say only 50% of the population (or even less) is needed to do all the work. Not just the “necessary” work, but all the luxury-goods and service-sector work as well. That means, unemployment stands at 50% or more, and there is absolutely nobody who is hiring, because every job is already filled. There is no way to create new jobs, because every market where people are willing to pay money, is already saturated with jobs.

To some extent, we are already seeing this in places like Spain (and Greece I think?) although not for the whole workforce, nonetheless for those below 30 years old, only half of them are employed and there are no job openings.

It is an interesting hypothetical. Wish I'd studied some relevant Econ. It's a question about the relation of population, production efficiency, consumption, and employment, yes? And an imbalance between them, I think. Efficiency reaches the point that only N people are required the reach a balance between production and consumption (and thus a balance between employment and population). But the total population is N + x. And as efficiency increases towards a post-scarcity situation, N decreases while x increases. At earlier levels of post-scarcity, one could implement controls to try and keep the population at level N. But that seems to break down as one gets closer to post-scarcity.

I'm not sure at all, really.

No, all that happens is that people start consuming twice as much, and unemployment goes back down to normal levels. If you were to divide the country evenly in half, you'd end up with 2 countries both with half the people, but the same rate of unemployment.

The reason that, AFAIK, the economy isn't recovering is because the money isn't flowing properly. Despite what appears to be, we actually have a lot of work that needs to be done in the US. The infrastructure is crumbling, bridges collapse, there's a shortage of nursing care that's only going to get worse as people age. It's not like we don't have the resources to do that; we have hundreds of thousands of construction workers out of work, and millions more people that could potentially become nurses.

It's one of the few times I do support 'reckless' spending; so long as the money you are printing is actually used to create as much wealth as paper printed, inflation doesn't occur because the ratio between currency and wealth has not changed. Yes, you can print money and not have inflation.

[HungryHobo]

It's one of the few times I do support 'reckless' spending; so long as the money you are printing is actually used to create as much wealth as paper printed, inflation doesn't occur because the ratio between currency and wealth has not changed. Yes, you can print money and not have inflation.

Weird that I've never heard it phrased like that before.... but that's a good point.

[Zamfir]

It's somewhat trickier than that. After all, the total value of dollars is not equal to the total amount of wealth or something. Most wealth takes the form of far less liquid claims, like ownership of a building, or of a company, or simply a nominal claim on someone (like a bond, or an unpiad bill). Those claims might be denominated in dollars, but they aren't dollars (unless they are a very specific kind of claim, namely a claim on a deposit in an approved bank).

In numbers: the broadest currently used definition of dollars is M2, about 9000 billion at this moment. M1, that's dollars in circulation excluding "locked" dollars in long-term savings deposts, is only about 2,000 bilion. But the total wealth of Americans is in the order of 60,000 billion.

That makes sense, because dollars are more related to the easily-liquifiable subpart of wealth. The parts where the current owner is willing to part with quickly, in return for dollars. Supplies in stores are the best example: if you have dollars, you can quickly buy such supplies, for the standard value. But if you offer your neighbour 200,000 dollar for his house (or his carpenter firm) he says "no way, I like it here and I like my job". The house and the firm still represents 200,000 dollar worth of real wealth, just not wealth that dollars can easily buy.

So imagine you double M1, and manage to spend it all on valuable, longlasting infrastructure using only unemployed resources. Then the US is now wealthier, say by 3% (2,000/60,000). That's great. But the new infrastructure is not for sale, so now you have twice as many circulating dollars chasing the same amount of stuff for sale. That will cause inflation, by some hard-to-predict amount.

[CorruptUser]

Even trickier than that; inflation can take months to actually occur, which is the entire basis behind Keynesian Economics. Extra money is issued, and people start spending. Stores go through their inventory and order more goods, manufacturers go through their inventory and order more raw materials, mining companies mine more minerals. To mine more minerals, or produce more inventory, you may need more workers. But if you don't have the workers available, which may the case at this point (skilled technicians are not a dime a dozen), you get to charge more; if you have to hire people at a higher wage, you have to charge more. So the raw materials go up in price, and then it works its way back to the stores. On average it takes 9 months for this to occur, varying by industry.

Of course, there are people who make small fortunes in the marketplace speeding up the process by raising or lowering prices accordingly. The recession in the early 1980s was a classic example of them getting it wrong; Reagan started using Keynesian methods*, and the Fed openly stated they were going to contract the money supply. And they actually did. But people didn't listen**, and so goods were priced higher than people could pay, but eventually the hyperinflation of the 70s was ended and the economy recovered healthier than before, depending whom you ask of course.

There's feedback and other stuff that has weird effects; inflation devalues money, workers demand more money for their labor, which raises the prices further, which causes money to devalue more, which makes workers demand more, and so forth. There's a reason that economics has so many disagreements within the field.

*Yes, yes he did. Maynard Keynes may have wanted a rudimentary form of Socialism, but that doesn't mean that Keynesian Economics automatically requires/forces Socialism.

**The Fed was notorious for simply lying in order to stimulate the economy, so no one ever listened to them.

[EdgePenguin]

I'm not sure post-scarcity society, as commonly envisioned, is at all possible. At the very least, you've got to get population under control to stop resources scarcity kicking off again, and that makes reproductive rights scarce. Plus, bear in mind that the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that the amount of physical work you can do for unit resources must be subject to diminishing returns (as it has an asymptotic maximum). There are hard, physical limits to what you can make under the terrestrial energy budget, and no indication that people will stop wanting stuff before you get there.

Maybe its better to approach this from the other angle. Scarcity is simply when there is more demand for something that there is supply of this; the conventional technocratic vision of how it might be abolished is through making supply outpace demand forever - but that is subject to physical limits. An alternate (or complimentary) way to do it is by reducing demand, i.e. changing people so that they aren't driven to acquire stuff to make themselves feel better, or to compete with their neighbours.

It is worth noting, Star Trek does both; they have replicators, but nobody drains the energy supply dry replicating crap they don't need, because the people have changed too.

[jseah]

I'm not sure post-scarcity society, as commonly envisioned, is at all possible. At the very least, you've got to get population under control to stop resources scarcity kicking off again, and that makes reproductive rights scarce.

For most of the western world, birth rates aren't all that high.

Or put it more personally:
You are happily married, living in a suburban district. A decent house (although not overly luxurious), able to afford good food and the once-every-two-years overseas holiday.
Assuming a post-scarcity situation, where you got an income able to support that lifestyle from the government just for being a citizen, so you had all the time you wanted to socialize, pursue hobbies and raise children. Or go to work for a better house and more frequent holidays if you could find work.

How many kids would you like to have? Assuming your partner is agreeable.


For many people, the answer is 2. Sometimes 1 or 3.
This is not going to make the population explode.

[EdgePenguin]

For most of the western world, birth rates aren't all that high.

Or put it more personally:
You are happily married, living in a suburban district. A decent house (although not overly luxurious), able to afford good food and the once-every-two-years overseas holiday.
Assuming a post-scarcity situation, where you got an income able to support that lifestyle from the government just for being a citizen, so you had all the time you wanted to socialize, pursue hobbies and raise children. Or go to work for a better house and more frequent holidays if you could find work.

How many kids would you like to have? Assuming your partner is agreeable.


For many people, the answer is 2. Sometimes 1 or 3.
This is not going to make the population explode.

But if you want supply to *permanently* outstrip demand, with finite resources and diminishing returns on the ability to extract useful work from those resources, then you might not even be able to function with the population you've got.

Besides, even with low birth rates, populations are increasing through immigration. Yes, you could stop anyone entering a country at all and argue that the demand there is stable, but I thought a post-scarcity society was supposed to be a gentle utopia, not a xenophobic nationalist fortress?

[Zcorp]

Besides, even with low birth rates, populations are increasing through immigration. Yes, you could stop anyone entering a country at all and argue that the demand there is stable, but I thought a post-scarcity society was supposed to be a gentle utopia, not a xenophobic nationalist fortress?

If you create a post scaricty world immigration isn't a factor. Havign strict immigration rules in no way makes a soceity xenophonic or nationalist.

Besides the western birth rates look at Japan. Few countries are setting themselves up for the waves of automation we are going to experience. Nearly halving their population, focusing greatly on technology and valuing education more than most western countries, fairly socialized health care and the longest life expectancy in the world.

Holding values, in this case the future of human well-being and societies, over a small percentage of the population of other countries trying to join yours might be a bit cold but it certainly doesn't express fear nor groupism.

[EdgePenguin]

Lets assume you can make a post-scarcity society in one country; how do you know that fertility rates will not rise when post-scarcity is achieved?

Without 9-5 work, people are going to have a lot of time on their hands

[Zcorp]

You don't. Multiple times through out history we have created far more than is needed to support our population. The population booms. Part of the idea of post-scarcity is a population that values it strives to maintain it and does not over populate.

[EdgePenguin]

You don't. Multiple times through out history we have created far more than is needed to support our population. The population booms. Part of the idea of post-scarcity is a population that values it strives to maintain it and does not over populate.

Which comes back to my original point; you can't achieve post-scarcity (supply >> demand) without addressing the demand side i.e. changing how humans think and act...

...and going back to the original point of the thread, you can't predict how humans would react to post-scarcity because post-scarcity seemingly can't exist with the humans we have at the moment.

[Zcorp]

Which comes back to my original point; you can't achieve post-scarcity (supply >> demand) without addressing the demand side i.e. changing how humans think and act...

In the long term, yes that is correct.

...and going back to the original point of the thread, you can't predict how humans would react to post-scarcity because post-scarcity seemingly can't exist with the humans we have at the moment.

You can certainly give predictions, and for those who have studied human behavior they will likely have a high level of accuracy. Simply because we change one factor doesn't mean other aspects of society change, and we can account for the systemic effects of that change.

Even in post scaricty there will be struggles for power and the resources that are scarce. There might even be struggles to re-introduce scarcity to things that are no longer scarce for the sake of power. But if this is a discussion that you don't find valuable to have you are quite welcome not to partcipate.