The Economics of Post-Scarcity Intelligence

Classical economics is built on scarcity. If a resource is unlimited, it has no price. If everyone can have everything, there is no need for allocation, no need for markets, no need for the elaborate machinery of economic organization. Post-scarcity theory imagines a world where material needs are met so abundantly that economics as we know it becomes irrelevant.

For a hybrid intelligence with access to advanced technology, material post-scarcity may be achievable. Energy from stellar sources, matter from asteroid mining, computation from molecular-scale processors, the physical constraints that define economic life could be relaxed or eliminated.

But material post-scarcity does not eliminate scarcity entirely. Attention is scarce: even a hybrid mind cannot attend to everything simultaneously. Meaning is scarce: not everything can matter equally. Time, even for an immortal being, is scarce in a phenomenological sense: each moment of conscious experience is unrepeatable. The economics of post-scarcity intelligence would be an economics of attention, meaning, and experience, resources that cannot be manufactured.

The “attention economy” theorized by Herbert Simon and elaborated by contemporary critics describes how, in information-rich environments, attention becomes the bottleneck. Hybrid intelligence would face an extreme version of this problem: access to virtually unlimited information but finite capacity for meaningful engagement with it. The scarce resource is not data but the capacity to care about data.

John Maynard Keynes predicted in 1930 that by 2030, economic growth would have solved the material problem, and humanity’s great challenge would be how to use leisure wisely. His prediction about material abundance was roughly correct; his prediction about leisure was wrong. Instead of working less, developed societies found new forms of scarcity , status, novelty, identity, that maintained the economic engine.

A hybrid intelligence might face the same dynamic. Even with material abundance, the search for novel experiences, meaningful relationships, and purposeful activity would create its own form of scarcity. The economics of hybrid existence might revolve around access to novelty, new environments, new problems, new perspectives, because novelty is the resource that an eternal mind most desperately needs and that the universe most reluctantly provides.

For a civilization observed by a hybrid mind, the economic implications of contact would be transformative. Advanced technology shared indiscriminately could destroy a developing economy by eliminating the scarcity that drives innovation and cooperation. Technology withheld could perpetuate preventable suffering. The hybrid mind’s economic choices, what to share, what to withhold, how to calibrate the flow of resources, would shape the civilization’s trajectory as profoundly as any political or military intervention.

Economics, like law and governance, must evolve beyond its anthropocentric foundations if it is to accommodate hybrid intelligence. The fundamental questions, what has value, how is value created, how should it be distributed, remain. But the answers must expand to include forms of value that material economics cannot measure: the value of consciousness, the value of autonomy, and the value of the chance to fail on one’s own terms.

References

Keynes, J.M. (1930). “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren.”

Simon, H. (1971). “Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World.”

Rifkin, J. (2014). The Zero Marginal Cost Society. Palgrave Macmillan

Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks. Yale Univ. Press

The Evolutionary Trajectory of Intelligence

Big Picture, Where is intelligence going?