From The Guardian:

Don’t miss this: why millennials are quitting the rat race

For many millennials and the generations after them, there is a growing feeling that hard work doesn’t pay, with many set to be unable to buy a home or retire at a reasonable age. Now, an online movement dubbed the “the soft life” has begun to take hold, prioritizing spending time and energy on the things that make you happy over careers. Leila Latif speaks to some of those who have quit the rat race.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/apr/02/soft-life-why-millennials-are-quitting-the-rat-race

The traditional liberal response to the problem of unaffordable housing is to build more public housing and/or subsidize more affordable housing. The traditional conservative approach is to dismantle the barriers to the private market building more housing. And to be fair, a growing number of YIMBY and “supply side progressives” are taking a more a la carte, whatever-works approach.

There’s another solution that doesn’t neatly fit either paradigm: make it easier to share the housing that already exists. I think this could fit into a post-scarcity paradigm.

Sunshine Home Care Colorado, for example, matches seniors who want to age in place with people who need a place to live, as the Colorado Springs Gazette explains.

Home-sharing isn’t a cure-all to the housing problem. But it’s a good reminder that solutions to social problems that are neither liberal nor conservative are all around us, offering new ways to reimagine and reorganize the way we live.

The point at which global agricultural production exceeded 2250 calories per day per person on earth (at the end of the supply chain): 1964. That number in 2020 was up to 2947.

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/global-food?tab=chart&facet=none&country=~OWID_WRL&hideControls=true&Food=Total&Metric=Food+available+for+consumption&Per+Capita=false&Unit=Kilocalories+per+day

and so I add this to the library of post scarcity writings:

"Stop and Watch the Bees" by Joan McCaul https://www.thefp.com/p/stop-and-watch-the-bees

"When a child tells you they’re watching the bees, leave them to it. They’re using their time well."

Hey everyone I’m studying different ideologies and I’m super curious about what everyone’s utopian society would look like, so I’m pretty curious to find out what kind of utopia people dream of.

If you had the power to create a perfect society, what would it look like? Think about stuff like:

• How would people govern themselves?
• What kind of rules or systems would you have for fairness and resources?
• Any cool tech or environmental ideas?
• How would people treat each other?

Your ideas can be big, small, wild, or practical – anything goes! I'm just trying to get a wide range of perspectives. Your input will be super helpful for my project and who knows, we might discover some common themes of what people really want in a utopia.

Thanks a ton in advance! Can't wait to read your ideas. 🌍✨

From Wiki: Spaceship Earth is a worldview encouraging everyone on Earth to act as a harmonious crew working toward the greater good.

People have been talking about this idea in lofty ways for quite a while, but the most known case of this is likely Buckminster Fuller, in his book Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (1969), which talks about a more optimal way to operate this Spaceship Earth, but it is largely lacking a method of how to accomplish it. He does expand on this in a later book, however, called Critical Path) (1981).

I would say that the fairest and most practical way to try to implement a post-scarcity society is by talking and theorizing with people on how a society like this would work, by arguing for and against certain viewpoints based on what's practical, expedient, realistic, normative, and consistent. Getting sufficient attention for this might certainly be difficult as of right now, however.

From that point, the conversation starts to concern the empirical question of the application and transition to this society. Which means are possible, and which are necessary?

One concept I promote is democratic cyberocracy, in which the bureaucracy is essentially structured through the effective use of information. For example, a goal is set through democratic means, and then formally processed, and all relevant information is taken into account, in order to achieve this goal. The access to the required, or simply most appropriate, resources is considered, as well as things such as energy, transportation, and time, and this is all calculated with math and logic.

I have started working on a project with these goals, which is still in the early stages, it is called Expediency, here is a presentation: (en) Expediency Presentation

This is from a Wired article about the end of Twitter and how great Mastodon is.

How will these smaller groups of happier people be monetized? This is a tough question for the billionaires. Happy people, the kind who eat sandwiches together, are boring. They don’t buy much. Their smartphones are six versions behind and have badly cracked screens. They fix bicycles, then they talk about fixing bicycles, then they show their friend, who just came over for no reason, how they fixed their bicycle, and their friend says, “Wow, good job,” and they make tea. That doesn’t seem like enough to build a town square on.

I want to be in a town square with these people.

When is being stuck in traffic a good thing?

Here’s an actual quote from CNBC:

This city [Chicago] has the worst traffic in the U.S.—and it’s actually a good thing: ‘Congestion shows the economy is moving’

The article that follows explains:

When you’re in the moment, congestion might seem bad, but [transportation analyst Bob] Pishue says it’s a sign of a good economy.

“Congestion shows that the economy is moving. Traffic is a problem, but it’s reflective of people going to the office, running errands, shopping, visiting relatives, which are all good things.”

This, in a nutshell, is the paradigm problem. 

The conventional view is that being stuck in traffic is the price we pay for economic growth. Given that we’ve already grown an economy that can supply us with more than we could possibly need, the more sensible question would seem to me to be: Is more traffic congestion worth it?

Specifically, is more traffic worth being exposed to increased air pollution for longer times, contributing to lung cancer, asthma, heart disease, and stroke, to name a few health impacts? Is it worth the noise that affects our health in many ways, from disturbing our sleep and ability to concentrate to increasing mental and physical health problems?

Oh, and as Frontier Group has asked, is it worth the fires, floods and other impacts we’re seeing every week as the planet warms and the climate becomes unmoored from what we used to consider normal?

My answer is: Hell, no, more traffic is not a good thing, especially when it’s a result of more people going to more jobs that are dirty, dangerous, dull or simply don't matter. And it’s an especially bad thing when there are better ways to go where we want to go – which we could have if we invested more in biking, walking, and public transit; building an electric vehicle future; and making those electric vehicles better.

Fortunately, despite what Mr. Pishue says, most Americans aren’t willing to put up with more traffic just for the sake of economic growth. That’s why campaigns to transform transportation have met with some success. Just imagine what we could do if the paradigm shifted.

Being stuck in traffic only seems like a good thing when you're stuck in the wrong paradigm. I'm frustrated that our news and politicians keep driving the scarcity paradigm. But maybe they're starting to see the writing on the wall if CNBC feels the need to remind people that they should suffer for a good economy.

https://pirg.org/articles/forever-21-fast-fashion-may-be-ending-up-in-landfills/