Board Thread:Fiction Universe Discussion/@comment-4242472-20160617203303/@comment-4242472-20160618125502

I agree with Charles' example. And the summary given in his second-to-last paragraph is a nice demonstration of what could be the best balance:


 * post-scarcity societies have access to phenomenal amounts of energy and resources, but so much that things like streamlining and energy-efficiency are a non-concern. While a cultural leaning exists that lessens the need for competitive thinking means that adaptation is more difficult. There might still be some innovation though the 'do-what-you-feel' nature of such a society, but it's at a reduced degree compared to an incentive-based society.
 * Capitalist societies might not have access to such massive energy pools and are constantly hungry for growth, and evolve of their ow accord. There is always a spirit of competition which while good for innovation and adaptability is not so good for a solid sense of consensus or cohesion. Quality of life inequality is a bit more severe than in post-scarcity but capitalist societies will be more inclined towards streamlining and efficiency.

When resources are extremely abundant or practically unlimited, what incentive is there to be economic in how the resources are used or distributed?