Monday, 22 August 2016

No Man's Sky, Post-Scarcity, & Future Societies


Tribes & Cities

    Among the oldest feats of civilisation, and indeed of Human society in general, is the construction of cities.  From the stone and wood of the ancient world, to the sprawling glass and steel of today, cities have always been at the heart of a civilisation's economic and political power, a nexus of wealth and culture.  There are exceptions of course; the nomadic hordes of Genghis Khan for one, and many nomadic tribes of Africa.  As a rule though it has been the city building cultures that lasted longest, and grew the largest.
   

   There is a solid reason for this to be the case.  With people gathered into larger communities it is increasingly easy to support people who are not directly engaged in the production of food and other basic necessities.  These people, freed from the daily struggle for survival are freed to work on other things, such as developing better building techniques, better tools, or new medicines.  There are also economic advantages to cities as hubs of commerce, and advantages of security that high walls and a large force of arms can provide.  Beyond these concrete benefits are those of culture and of art, accelerated and fertilised by the proximity of thinkers who can afford to think instead of working in the fields.

   While some of these advantages have been left in the past, the economics and cultural attraction of cities remain.  Even if for no other reason than the basic Human desire for companionship cities will always be a part of Human existence.  Or will they?  Many SF settings include technology that would make cities less advantageous, and that even might even create conditions under which cities are no longer advantageous.

   And so I get to the recently released game No Man's Sky, and the concept of a post scarcity world. Wikipedia has a pretty good look at the concept, so I won't go deep into it here.  Wikipedia uses this definition;

Post-scarcity is a theoretical economy in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely. Post-scarcity is not generally taken to mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all consumer goods and services; instead, it is often taken to mean that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met along with some significant proportion of their desires for goods and services, with writers on the topic often emphasising that certain commodities are likely to remain scarce in a post-scarcity society.


   Many SF settings demonstrate technologies needed for a post scarcity world; advanced manufacturing, highly efficient food production, and access either to enough resources or advanced enough recycling that raw materials never become a concern.  Strongly enough, though, few writers seem to take into consideration the impact such technologies would have on the world.  There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of post scarcity.  There is the more 'realistic' kind likely to be achieved at some point in a our own future, and the less feasible, more extreme example that science fiction occasionally portrays.  The more realistic approach can result in a world that while markedly different, still retains the basic political and societal structure that it does today, including things like cities.  The latter could result in far more drastic changes. 

   If large fusion reactors became plausible in the near future this will be a large step toward a post scarcity; the energy excess allowing extensive recycling and otherwise inefficient manufacturing techniques.  And 3D printers, while they might eventually move manufacturing out of factories into the home, will still need power.  Because such fusion power plants are likely to be hugely expensive and complexed they will be built to serve existing cities, which will then gain an advantage over rural areas that do not support a population large enough to warrant a reactor of their own.  This basic argument applies to other technologies that right enable a post scarcity world; it they require large coordinated efforts from a government or similar organisation, then cities remain a valid part of human society.

   But take a SF setting like No Man's Sky.  In-universe it is possible to harvest elements through a handheld device, and a small spacecraft can carry the facilities needed to turn these elements into technology.  If we assume that this technology is a kind of 'replicator' similar to what Star Trek uses is behind this portable manufacturing, and we assume that it can also be used to produce food from the correct raw materials, we have the perfect post scarcity.  A single person could theoretically support their own existence without aid from any other individual, and at a level significantly above survival.  

   In No Man's Sky the megacities and space habitats common to many similar settings are conspicuous by their absence.  Instead their are space stations and trading posts that seem to act mostly as hubs of commerce, and fleets of large ships.  And this is in fact a highly logical outcome of the technology in the game.  There is no reason for cities because they cannot offer any major advantage to those who live in them.  Indeed, even the concept of nations and other political entities becomes less certain in such a setting.

   If the technology of No Man's Sky was to be introduced into our world cities would not vanish overnight; and might never make a complete disappearance.  Because a single person, and by extension a group of almost any size, can support itself without outside aid, there is nothing to prevent those who disagree with their parent society from beaching off and forming colonies of like minded people.  In the past it was possible for people to load up a ship and sail across and ocean to colonise another land because they could take almost all their technology base with them.  And if this becomes possible again it will happen.  

   While existing cities will likely remain as hubs of culture, knowledge, and history the formation of new cities or nations seems unlikely.  If people are banding together purely because they want to be surrounded by people that they agree with, or share goals with, such groups do not have the incentive to grow larger than the point where it is still possible for everyone to know everyone else.  That is not to say that it won't happen, but it will see far more common to see smaller groups.  Perhaps communities akin to medieval monasteries or convents will arise; communities dedicated to a goal single goal.  It might not be religious in nature, it could be the terraforming of a planet, or the building of a Matryoshka Brain.

 These communities could take on various shapes.  They could be small bases on planets, space stations, or starships.  'Nomad fleets' of starships might be ideal, able to find new resources on demand, and safer from hostile forces than a stationary colony would be.  They would travel slowly about the galaxy, avoiding those that disagreed with them, and meeting up with others that did.  With physical comfort taken care of by their technology art and entertainment could become the mainstay of commerce, and the fragmentation of culture into smaller, more variant groups would increase the diversity that those who looked for it could find.

 In terms of politics it is interesting to note that while war is one of the most compelling reasons for political bodies to exist after a post scarcity has come about, the chances of war are much less.  If people can leave their nation and settle somewhere else without becoming refugees dependant on the goodwill of others, they are unlikely to support a war that their leaders have started.  Of course wars that the population does support will exist, based on conflict between variant cultures, but wars of economic or political convenience will be much less likely.

 It is worth pointing out that the separation between what exists in the No Man's Sky universe and what might become reality in our own is a spectrum, not a vase of two discreet options.  It is the details and exact scale of the technology that will determine the size of the groups that form, and how far they spread.  If restricted to Earth the spread will be much smaller than if the whole galaxy is opened up by FTL travel.  Micro-nations  are a plausible middle ground, with the practical advantages of a political entity, and the freedom of a smaller group.  

   So while there is considerable debate over No Man's Sky as a game(I haven't played it myself), it is interesting as an example of one possible future rarely explored in SF, despite being well within the limits of common fictional technologies.  While many SF settings unthinkingly reuse the tropes of other works, creating huge sprawling cities and urbanised planets, it would be good to see more variety; diverse nomadic societies rather than an unimaginative ecumenopolis.

9 comments:

  1. Sean Robert Meaney22 August 2016 at 16:33

    '...the formation of new cities or nations seems unlikely. '

    I would suggest a billion population city on long island allowing future generations to abandon the baggage of old america and live a life free of tyrany is viable. Millenials dont want to lay down their lives for the political or religious beliefs of a bunch of old people ruining the world. The past can keep its slums and glass spires.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As conditions improve, humanity's expectations increase. 'Oh look! I can feed my family, now I want the vote!' 'Oh look! that matrioska brain can calculate the nature of the universe. Now I want a bigger brain made so it can calculate the mind of God! Huh? Your saying that there aren't enough resources around our system to make one? Guess we aren't as rich as we thought we were...'

    Thanks to human nature, post scarcity is completely impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yet if the millitary were post scarcity we would be confused. Why do we need to go to war?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have recently discovered this blog and I while I agree with many of the issues brought up in your other articles, this one seems to be a victim of the same linear, 2D thinking, that plagues much of sci-fi. Why attack a ship from the side or front, when one could attack from above or below, or a multiplicity of vulnerable corners (This is one reason why forts in the past went from their standard square-shape to star patterns)? The concept of post-scarcity is akin to continuing 2D thinking in a 3D environment like space. Indeed, I would propose that a concept like post-civilization would be more apt.

    First, we must consider the statement that cities last longer than nomadic tribes. In many cases, this is true. But in other cases, it is not. The Aztecs and Incas had advanced urban cultures, yet when they came into contact with the Spanish, they were quickly wiped out by disease. This was due to their close, urban proximity to one another and failure to adapt to nomadic survival. The Native Americans, in contrast, were more mobile and nomadic. Thus, disease never impacted them as much as their urban brothers. Native Americans are still around, while Aztecs and Incas are not. In this manner, the nomadic tribe lasted longer than the city dweller.

    The same goes for the Gauls and Franks who lasted longer than the Romans. After Rome fell, Italy split into a multitude of states with waged war with one another to reunify the country. This unity was not accomplished for nearly two thousand years. The nomads in turn, settled down and then developed their own urban countries.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cities, advanced cities, require a lot of resources to maintain. Indeed, many of the these resources are currently being used are being quickly depleted. The logic is simple: On a finite world, as one species grows, it does so at the expense of others. Humans have an abundance thanks to technology, yet much of it is wasted thanks to various types of interference, like regulations and inadequate economic theory. Thus, it is more likely that the future is post-civilization, either a humanity that can more efficiently use these resources, harvest them from space (Though this would serve to only avoid and postpone the problem) or a return to ancient barbarianism. Current trends indicate the last.

    The fatal flaw in post-scarcity is that it depends solely on technology. It really ignores the human factor, which can aid or hinder it.

    As to the war factor, again this shows limited, linear thinking. Napoleonic France and National Socialist Germany/Italy waged wars not of aggression, as they perceived it, but defensive ones. France was surrounded by monarchist forces, while Germany felt it had to catch up to powers like France and Great Britain, which controlled expansive colonial empires. The perception was that expansion was life, stagnation death. And indeed, tech increased during the world wars more so than in many periods of peace. Jet aircraft, computers, missiles - All products of the period. So it would seem more apt for a futurist to desire war, not peace, as it forces tech to increase quickly.

    There is also the size factor. Once the world was considered a large place, but advances in communication, from the telegraph to the computer, has made the world perceptibly smaller. Once the entire western hemisphere lay undiscovered, now it seems all corners are revealed. The universe, I fear, would suffer the same fate if humanity expands in a post-scarcity, linear fashion. It would take time, but we could get there. Eventually, even the universe would appear too small.

    As to the posting above by Sean - I believe you underestimate the role of beliefs. As we move beyond Christianity, examine the results. Numerous psychological disorders ranging from neurosis to anxiety, rampant drug and alcohol abuse, low birth rates, and an increasing disparity between rich and poor. Meanwhile, the Middle East, still believing in Islam has more sustainable birth rates, less substance abuse, and less disorders. Terrorism is really a response to western interference, forcing the region to adopt democracy as it were, so one cannot argue that Islamic religion is a disorder. In fact, this leads to another point. How is it the self-proclaimed peaceful light of democracy is the most expansive of the current era? Conclusion: People need beliefs to anchor themselves in reality. Reality is too scary for people to accept outright, especially death. Science itself is not a belief, but a belief deconstructor. It will never fulfill the same role.

    What I can safely conclude from all this is that sci-fi is really a product of urban idealism, an continuation of socialism/communism/liberalism. Even in Star Trek, it was stated that money was no longer in use - A purely communistic concept. While a noble goal, to accomplish this feat would be to renounce humanity and natural instinct like desire. But instinct is what has kept us alive for thousands of years. And trying to remove it, well, see the above problems plaguing western civilization. Concepts like peace and communism are actually a continuation of Christian ones. Instead of original sin, people are seen as beasts and must be reformed. Instead of God, it is science. How can we go into space without accepting who we are, without the numerous blemishes like war? Perhaps alien civilizations have not been discovered because they have all failed to solve this problem before the resources ran dry.

    ReplyDelete
  6. An interesting type of post scarcity would be if you had a breakthrough star drive which gave you all the bounty of the minerals and land in all the galaxies planets. But the robotics still is not very good. In which case labor would be the thing in shortest supply creating economic demand for slaves and plenty of planets to hide them on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. After an investigation of the EM drive anomaly finding out the true workings which where completely different to the inventor's idea. Lead to the creation of the cheap and powerful remote reaction mass beam and warp drive. The ability to travel anywhere on earth within an hour and later nearby stars led to all business manufacture and suburbs moving to tax havens. First to remote places on Earth like the mongolian desert and later to the outer planets. Starved of funds all governments shrank till they could no longer control their territories and pirates from all parts of the world became a recurring menace. Pirates could warp in raid kidnap people for ransom and warp out into the dephs of space before any military could respond. So people hid from the pirates the only way they could by spreading out and hiding amongst the billions stars, keeping their settlements location secret. Their were some trading posts but if they had too many customers there always seemed to be a traitor who would leak the location to pirates for whatever reason. So settlements became increasingly secret and isolated products which require large plants with big economies like microchips became forgotten. Over the next millennium the population of the galactic cluster would exponentially grow enough that it became increasingly easy to find a random settlement by star hoping, so slaving became a profitable option for warp ship fleets.

    ReplyDelete
  8. An interesting article; thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    Along the lines of some of the other comments above, I'm going to have to disagree with the assertion that cities have always been "a nexus of wealth".

    In fact, during all of history prior to the industrial revolution (i.e. until the 1800s), cities tended to be a major drain on most states' treasuries. Capital cities in particular tended to be un-taxable, as any attempt to impose tax tended to result in government-paralysing riots or even rebellion. Even worse, big cities often required expensive food subsidies, or even the distribution of free food staples, in order to keep the population placid. City dwellers essentially got a "free ride" on the backs of the tax-paying rural peasantry.

    In fact, in the USA of today, you can actually see how this historical state of affairs could potentially return. City-dwellers voted heavily in favour of Hillary Clinton in last year's election; feeling disenfranchised after the Trump victory, there has been considerable resistance to the new regime. What if they refused to pay taxes? It isn't hard to imagine a disgruntled Trump placing such "rebel" cities under a sort of modern "siege" by cutting off access to critical services in order to force a return to compliance (think: water treatment, garbage disposal, internet, non-locally-produced food, non-locally-produced electricity...).

    ReplyDelete
  9. An interesting article; thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    Along the lines of some of the other comments above, I'm going to have to disagree with the assertion that cities have always been "a nexus of wealth".

    In fact, during all of history prior to the industrial revolution (i.e. until the 1800s), cities tended to be a major drain on most states' treasuries. Capital cities in particular tended to be un-taxable, as any attempt to impose tax tended to result in government-paralysing riots or even rebellion. Even worse, big cities often required expensive food subsidies, or even the distribution of free food staples, in order to keep the population placid. City dwellers essentially got a "free ride" on the backs of the tax-paying rural peasantry.

    In fact, in the USA of today, you can actually see how this historical state of affairs could potentially return. City-dwellers voted heavily in favour of Hillary Clinton in last year's election; feeling disenfranchised after the Trump victory, there has been considerable resistance to the new regime. What if they refused to pay taxes? It isn't hard to imagine a disgruntled Trump placing such "rebel" cities under a sort of modern "siege" by cutting off access to critical services in order to force a return to compliance (think: water treatment, garbage disposal, internet, non-locally-produced food, non-locally-produced electricity...).

    ReplyDelete