This is the headline "Musk says that in 10 to 20 years, work will be optional and money will be irrelevant thanks to AI and robotics". The article... " http://tiny.cc/ezuz001

Anyone who has followed Elon's career will know that he's almost always over optimistic in this time-frames. So 10-20 years is probably closer to 15-30 years.

What he's talking about here is an extension of the theory of Superabundance. The idea isn't new having been covered in the book 'Superabundance' by Tupy and Pooley which talked about an "Infinitely Bountiful Planet". This was in turn derived from the work of the economic great Julian Simon (he of the Ehrlich bet) which is summarised in his book 'The Ultimate Resource', (meaning humans). The notion goes back even further to Azimov who prophesied a planet where all human needs were completely fulfilled with minimal effort.

The idea revolves around Simon's calculation of Time-Price. This is the amount of time someone has to work to obtain a given good. The most startling example of that was that, in 1800, the average worker had to put in 5 hours of labour to earn enough for one hour of after-dark light via candles. Now they must work less than 1 second to run a light for one hour. Using similar methodology, lamb is 85% cheaper (in terms of Time-Price) than 1980, Salmon 81%, Coffee 74% etc etc.

As things become increasing cheaper to make, the amount of work time required to buy a representative basket of goods in 1980, ifs cut by 2/3rds in 2025. So, people work less to get the same amount of goods and as robots and AI make work even more productive, the work required to meet the average needs of the population plummets to the point where it is effectively zero.
I don’t think any of us on this forum will be around to see it (although medicine is advancing at a comparable pace to other industries) but what a world it’ll be. Ordinary people in 2060 living a life the richest of the rich only dreamed about in 1960.

Sounds great, if you believe in unicorns.

"I do not know yesterday, I only know today" -BUDDHA.

It reflects the central message found in the Bhaddekaratta Sutta (MN 131), where the Buddha teaches that one should not chase after the past or place expectations on the future, but rather live fully in the present.

2060! Will the average Old Fart be living to 120? Me thinks not.

more on the Simon Abundance index....
http://humanprogress.org/the-simon-abundance-index-2025/

I must admit an intriguing concept which got me searching. If I am allowed to reproduce these points from
https://lessonsummaries.com/superabundance-why-more-people-means-more-prosperity/
without violating copyright.

Key Takeaways
1. Human beings are not a burden—they are the ultimate resource.
2. More people means more minds, more ideas, and faster progress.
3. Scarcity is relative and often solved through innovation.
4. Time prices are a powerful way to measure real-world abundance.
5. Freedom and markets unleash the ingenuity needed to thrive.
6. Optimism, rooted in data and human creativity, is not naïve—it’s rational.
________________________________________
I only have questions / concerns with 3 of these statements.
Human beings are not a burden—they are the ultimate resource.
Yes, all very well and good, so long as they aren’t exploited and are truly valued as the ‘ultimate resource’. IMO there is a huge chance that this will not happen, as history has clearly demonstrated that many have not be valued over successive eras.
And
Time prices are a powerful way to measure real-world abundance.
Is this just another way for figures to be manipulated to prove your point of view? After all, there are lies, damn lies and an economist quoting statistics.
And
Optimism, rooted in data and human creativity, is not naïve—it’s rational.
I can understand why ‘Optimism’ might be a bit scarce on the ground at the moment. Human greed, stubbornness and lack of empathy for others desperately needs to be overcome for any of this utopian dream to ever eventuate. It hasn’t happened yet in human history, so good luck with that one.

mhaze,
It won't work because the rich and powerful maintain that status from profits made off the backs of others, and those profits require scarcity, not abundance.
I'm not arguing that it isn't possible, I'm arguing that it isn't realistic.

"as history has clearly demonstrated that many have not be valued over successive eras."

And yet human welfare has shown unerring growth over the past 2 centuries in most of the world.

"After all, there are lies, damn lies and an economist quoting statistics."

Yes, the notion that we are running out of stuff, is counter-intuitive in the extreme, especially for a generation, (actually multiple generations) raised on the notion of growing scarcity. From the belief in the 1850's that we were running out of coal, to Malthus' belief that we would inevitably run out of food, to the Population Bomb scares of the 1960's, to the certainty of peak oil in 2000 which never happened, to running out of copper, and ancillary metals, to the 'Limits to Growth' hysteria. All made absolute sense to a people educated in the notion of growing scarcity and all absolutely wrong. Its why the Simon-Ehrlich bet made so much sense to people like Ehrlich and his supporters who thought the bet was the easiest money he'd make. All completely bamboozled when every one of the items involved in the bet ended favouring Simon's thesis.

Its counter-intuitive to think that we are using stuff but not running out of it. The simple data proving it is rejected. But it holds. It has always held.

Really, the question isn't whether this superabundant world will happen. Barring total societal collapse, it will happen. The issue is how to structure society when the need to work for a living no longer exists.

Sorry mhaze, I think the exact opposite than what you hope for is closer to the truth.

'You will own nothing and be happy'
A world ruled by AI and robots.
Humanity largely wiped out.

How Epstein Blackmail Op got US to attack Iran. Iran isn't the Endgame. WE are the Clique's Endgame.
http://youtu.be/RZu_tErVa-k

mhaze,

The problem with your argument is that it collapses scarcity into the narrow question of whether we are literally running out of physical stuff.

But that is not how scarcity operates for actual human beings.

People do not struggle because civilisation has run out of copper in some abstract geological sense. They struggle because housing, care, land, energy, time, access and bargaining power remain constrained and unevenly distributed.

Your examples show that innovation can reduce the time-price of many goods. Fair enough.

What they do not show is that scarcity in the broader economic sense disappears, or that every warning about limits can simply be waved away as another failed Malthusian sermon.

"rEmEmBeR iN tHe '70s WhEn ThEy SaId We WeRe RuNnInG oUt Of OiL?!!1! LOL"

And they certainly do not show that the gains of automation will somehow distribute themselves so widely that money becomes irrelevant.

That last leap is not evidence. It is faith dressed up as inevitability.

While ever there is inequality in the world, there can only be turmoil and suffering, which is evident today. The developed nations must do more to relieve the injustice that exists in the third world, and among its own people as well.

Please don’t give me this krap that people are valued as the ‘ultimate human resource’. Let’s look at the history shall we?

The serfs in the middle ages were exploited by the ruling lords (elites) of the day. The serfs lived a poor, subsistence existence.
The landed gentry lost their power and status to the industrialists of the Industrial Revolution (the new elites)
The workers were exploited living and working under appalling conditions, just as they did under the lords before.
Then came the tech revolution, in which the elites continue to exploit the workers in the sweat shops of Asia, the exploitation of Amazon, Niki, Walmart, Starbucks workers. The list is endless.

You’re living in ga-ga land if you really think that the elites are going to truly value their workers (i.e. human resources) Undeniable history and human behavior suggests the exact opposite.

As to my point that numbers can be manipulated to prove anything you want them to - just ask Sir Humphrey.

Here's your superabundance mhaze.

http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yqqyly9n0o
It wasn't just a single strike on the school, they targeted multiple buildings...
So that flushes your 'failed Iranian missile just like Gaza Hospital' theory down the S-bend I'm sorry to say.
It wasn't a single strike on the school, it was a double tap on the parents as well when they raced in to help rescue their kids...

Exclusive: Iranian girls killed by ‘double-tap’ strikes on Minab school
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-iranian-girls-killed-double-tap-strikes-minab-school

US media (CNN NYT REUTERS) are reporting it as a US strike.
It's ok to get things wrong sometimes; as you say 'fog of war'.

Trump and Hegseth are still blaming Iran though, 'Only the Iranians target citizens'
(While they're carpet bombing...)

"As to my point that numbers can be manipulated to prove anything you want them to - just ask Sir Humphrey."

Yep. I don't like these numbers, therefore they're wrong.

As to exploiting the workers, I think the point that seems to have gone sailing over many heads is that there will come a time this century, all else being equal, that there won't be any workers or just people who work for pleasure, not sustenance.

Saying superabundance won't happen because it won't be equally distributed misses the point. It will happen. What is unclear is how society will be structured to accommodate.

But every advance has advanced the lot of the lowest classes. Its all very well to talk about exploited serfs becoming exploited factory workers. But those serfs moved to the factories because it offered a better life. And the lot of the workers improved each generation. 19th century workers lived a much higher standard of living than 18the century workers. Ditto early 20th century v. 19th century and so on through the 20th century. Each generation better off than the last because of improvements in technology and productivity.

Saying it won't happen this time without explaining why this time would be different is lazy. As is JD saying that just because every claim about running out this or that resource being right doesn't mean the next claim will be wrong. Just hoping that something that always happens won't happen this time isn't a lucid argument. Its wishful thinking which ignore all the data.

Superabundance is coming and there are people alive today who will witness it. The issue is how they will cope. Based on history I think they'll be living a life that would be the envy of all 5000 generations that preceded them.

You're making quite a leap there too, mhaze.

The historical pattern you describe is broadly correct: technological progress has tended to raise average living standards over long periods.

But that does not demonstrate what you claim it demonstrates.

It shows that innovation can increase productivity and expand the supply of many goods.

It does not show that scarcity disappears in any broader economic sense, nor that a post-work society is inevitable.

Much of the improvement in workers' lives over the past two centuries did not come from technology alone. It also came from institutions: labour laws, unions, public health systems, pensions, education and social insurance. Those played a major role in determining how the gains from productivity were distributed.

And even in today's highly productive economies we still see persistent scarcity in areas like housing, care, land and access to services. Those constraints do not vanish simply because manufacturing productivity increases.

So the question critics are raising is not "whether productivity can grow". History clearly shows that it can.

The question is whether increased productive capacity automatically produces a world where work becomes optional and money irrelevant.

History does not show that inevitability. That step in your argument is assertion, not evidence.

You have shot yourself in your foot by the statement

" ... all things being equal ... "

because obviously all things aren't equal and never have been. Your whole thesis with all its mathematical calculations hasn't ever taken into account human emotions and actions. Try greed, envy, fear of missing out, a sense of superiority over others. (Take a cursory look over some posts on this forum to see the latter one in action.)

Hi John Daysh,
The standard mhaze MO is 'never admit you were wrong'
He'll argue the point until the end of time rather that EVER admit he was wrong on anything.
Be careful on that merry-go-round, you only win when you get off of it!

Indeed, AC. It's a common trait amongst those who prioritise performance over truth-seeking. To them, admitting to error risks puncturing the appearance of dominance, confidence, and rhetorical control they want the audience to see.

Superabundance...

The follow on effects of a shutdown of Persian gulf oil is going to affect everyone.
Not just the price of fuel for cars, but also the price of diesel for transport, which will affect the price of goods, including the food on everyones tables.
Roughly 33% of the world's urea and, with other nitrogen-based products, roughly 20-30% of total global fertilizer exports come from the Persian gulf.
Businesses will go bust, goods wont be available, and the follow on effects will occur one after the other like dominos.

All you idiots cheering this on, like Trump saying "no-one had the guts to do it", well, nobody else except a blackmailed pedophile president would be insane enough to go through with it.

You might soon change your mind.

All you know it all dummies clinging to your love of the pedophile genocide state, may have just cheered on our own destruction.

JD,

"And even in today's highly productive economies we still see persistent scarcity in areas like housing, care, land and access to services."

Well, I've only ever been talking about physical goods and what I've said is so obvious that JD needs to introduce non-sequiturs like care, and services. Basically proving my point.

Additionally, are we really running out of land? Wow, desperate men clutching at straws. And housing is in short supply because of policy not because we don't have the resources to supply it. Whatismore, saying things aren't perfect everywhere hardly shows that things aren't vastly better generally. Never let perfect be the enemy of better.... unless presented with a proposition you don't like but can't refute honestly.

Aries,

"You have shot yourself in your foot by the statement

" ... all things being equal ... "

I'll explain more. There are all sorts of things that could delay or potentially even stop the inexorable move to superabundance.... The Chinese release and new improved virus and governments make the same mistakes as last time; new governments so alter economic conditions as to kill the incentive to efficiency and probably a bunch of others that no one's even contemplated.

But the fact is, based on passed experience and the clear trend lines that you so want to not see, things are pointing in just one direction. Dismissing the data because it is counter-intuitive and doesn't suit other ideologies, is the opposite of clarity of thought.

What I find hilarious is that experts throughout the world are now addressing this issue - I've mentioned a few above - yet the experts here are sure it'll never happen based on ....reasons.

This is a retreat, mhaze.

//Well, I've only ever been talking about physical goods.//

If that is the scope of the argument, then very few people would dispute it. Technological progress has often reduced the labour required to produce many manufactured goods.

But that is a much narrower claim than the one you originally made.

Earlier you were defending the proposition that work will eventually become optional and money largely irrelevant because of "superabundance".

That conclusion depends on far more than the abundance of manufactured goods.

//JD needs to introduce non-sequitors like care and services.//

Those are not non sequiturs. They are exactly the kinds of things people spend much of their income on, and they are central to whether scarcity persists in everyday economic life.

If the discussion is about whether society moves toward a world where work becomes optional, then housing, care, land, energy, services and infrastructure access are directly relevant constraints.

//And housing is in short supply because of policy not because we don't have the resources to supply it.//

That actually reinforces the point. If policy and institutional arrangements determine whether housing is abundant or scarce, then technological capacity alone does not guarantee a post-scarcity society.

In other words, the argument has shifted from a very large claim about the future structure of society to a much narrower observation about the productivity of manufacturing.

I told you all years ago that I think the best way to fix housing is to go back to what we did 50 years ago, essentially caravan parks, just assemble relocatable homes straight off a production line instead with shipping containers full of components from China.

It's not so much about keeping Aussies employed as much as it's about fixing a problem.

Hey mhaze,
Here's the full information about how the U.S. bombed the elementary school in Minaj, you won't find this information on any mainstream media article.
http://www.youtube.com/live/ZGazMbUn1-I?t=2135

"This is a retreat, mhaze.//Well, I've only ever been talking about physical goods.//"

Show me where I talked about anything other than physical goods.

Show me where any of the links I provided talked about anything other that physical goods.

The fact that you failed to understand the concept of superabundance doesn't mean I retreat when the penny finally (FINALLY) drop with you.

The whole notion that it can be anything other than physical goods is so daft that its laughable. How do you have a superabundance of services. What? Two waitresses per table. Two accountants doing your books.

Its insane and inane and shows how little you understood this and how little you considered it before weighing in to try to discount it.

"Indeed, AC. It's a common trait amongst those who prioritise performance over truth-seeking"

So we see AC and JD seeking to sooth each others butt-hurt.

We have AC who thinks the path to truth is via fake AI YouTube videos.
And we have JD who runs off to Grok whenever he needs someone to offer him some solace.(its actually not a someone but JD doesn't seem to understand that either).

Both heavily reliant on AI and now soothing each other. A certain symmetry there.

The issue isn't the examples you used, mhaze.

//Show me where I talked about anything other than physical goods.//

The issue is the conclusion you drew from them.

Earlier you wrote:

"there will come a time this century … that there won't be any workers or just people who work for pleasure."

That claim goes far beyond the abundance of manufactured goods.

Whether work becomes optional depends on the availability of the things people actually spend most of their income on in modern economies.

In most developed economies today, the majority of economic activity is not the production of physical goods but services - health care, education, transport, maintenance, care work, administration and infrastructure.

If those remain scarce, then labour remains necessary and the conclusion about a post-work society does not follow.

So the issue isn't whether technological progress can make physical goods cheaper. History clearly shows that it can.

The issue is whether that observation logically supports the much larger claim that work becomes optional and money irrelevant.

//So we see AC and JD seeking to sooth each others butt-hurt.//

What butthurt? You've never made a point that withstood criticism. You're always on the backfoot... until you skedaddle.

"So the issue isn't whether technological progress can make physical goods cheaper. History clearly shows that it can."

If pennies keep dropping at this rate, JD might eventually come to understand the issue.

I've been talking about superabundance which is about actual physical goods. In some strange way JD now seems to get that although we won't see him admitting it.

As to services...the revolution coming down the pipe there is probably even more profound than the inevitability of superabundance in actual goods. Large numbers of service jobs are going to disappear in the next decade or three. From waiters to accountants, they'll become a curiosity rather than the norm. General Practice will be gone although specialists might remain. Nurses too. There are few areas of life that won't be profoundly altered by AI and the new robotics that are set to hit.

But we will have some things unchanged. Such as people who'll stick their head in the sand and declare that, since they don't want it to be true, it isn't true.

That was your clarification in the previous reply, mhaze.

//I've been talking about superabundance which is about actual physical goods.//

But in this comment you go on to argue that large numbers of service professions - waiters, accountants, GPs, nurses and others - will largely disappear because of AI.

That is a much broader claim than the one you were defending earlier.

Predicting technological disruption is one thing. History certainly contains many examples of jobs being transformed or replaced by new technologies.

But repeatedly asserting that particular outcomes are inevitable does not demonstrate that they are.

The point raised earlier remains the same: technological progress can expand productive capacity, but it does not automatically establish that society is heading toward a world where work becomes optional and money irrelevant.

That conclusion still requires an argument rather than a prediction.

JD,

Musk and a bunch of experts have made predictions about the near future based upon a close study and understanding of the past and continuing long-term trends. Just asserting that since their predictions aren't proven (how do you prove a prediction?? !!), they aren't true is a fool's errand.

Predictions based on time-price have been remarkably accurate over the years. (If Global Warming's advocated had been even 10% as accurate in their predictions they'd be a lot more persuasive.)

I get that you don't want it to be true and since its a prediction about the future, it may fail. But the past suggests otherwise. And the prudent society would take note and begin to prepare.

mhaze,

Earlier in the discussion you wrote:

"Superabundance is coming and there are people alive today who will witness it."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10755#374940

In your latest comment you write:

"...since its a prediction about the future, it may fail."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10755#374988

Those are two very different propositions.

Predicting technological change based on long-term trends is perfectly reasonable. History clearly shows that innovation can increase productivity and reduce the labour required to produce many goods.

But once we move from observing past trends to predicting the future structure of society, we are dealing with forecasts rather than demonstrated outcomes.

That was the point raised earlier.

Superabundance may occur. AI may transform large parts of the service economy. Or those predictions may turn out to be overly optimistic.

Either way, predictions about the future - however confident - remain predictions rather than inevitabilities.

//I get that you don't want it to be true.//

That's a strange assumption. Nothing I've written suggests that technological progress or increasing abundance would be undesirable, so how can you "get" that?

The point being made is about the strength of the claim, not anyone's preferences about the outcome.

Thanks for bringing up superabundance mhaze.

I was investigating similar the other day and came to the interesting conclusion that even in a superabundant civilization there will still be poverty for those that don't want to get out of bed. Not because they can't, but because they won't even try. These people are a weight around our necks, in facing our future survival challenges.

When we are using stellar engineering to build wormholes, there will still be grizzle guts who only want to pull civilization down in a hissy fit of envy

In a lot of ways we have superabundance now, but few can see it. When half the food is thrown in the bin in the UK this is superabundance. Planning is required to exploit any resource, but people have become too weak and dumb. If a dumb population explodes at an exponential Malthusian rate without planning then you're going to have scarcity. The problem isn't abundance it's lack of planning and innovation. The essentials of life are abundant- you can make a solid sub-zero shelter out of plastic and spray foam.

Hi Canem Malum,
I see that fuel scarcity has now prompted all these fuel saving methods...

AI Overview
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has issued a 10-point plan for member nations like Australia to conserve fuel amidst Middle East conflict-driven supply disruptions, focusing on reducing oil demand through remote work, lower speed limits, and increased public transport usage. These emergency measures aim to reduce oil consumption and ease pressure on global energy markets.
The IEA's 10 Recommendations for Fuel Conservation:

Work from home: Implement remote work up to three days a week to reduce commuting.
Lower speed limits: Reduce highway speed limits by at least
.
Encourage public transport: Promote bus and rail to reduce private car use.
Car-free Sundays: Implement Sunday car restrictions in large cities.
Alternate road access: Introduce odd-even number-plate rotation for driving in cities.
Increase car sharing: Promote vehicle occupancy to lower fuel consumption.
Promote efficient driving: Encourage eco-driving practices for cars and commercial vehicles.
Reduce air travel: Limit business flights in favor of remote meetings.
Avoid high-speed travel: Promote high-speed train alternatives to flights.
Shift to electric cooking: Replace LPG cooking with electric alternatives to free up fuel.

Why does it look like the exact same things they say we should do to limit the effects of climate change...
I think maybe they're planning for superscarcity all along, not superabundance

The Qatari's aren't feeling much superabundance this week

So far this war has been costly for the Gulf states.
Because their main ally the United States could not defend them against the Iranian missiles strikes.
Because President Trump prioritises the security needs of the Israelis above the security needs of the Qataris.
Qatar Gas CEO says 'We incurred a $20 billion loss at the facility we built for $26 billion two years ago.'
But the Qataris may find themselves living with a budget deficit which will put huge financial strains on the country for some time to come as they rebuild their gas supplies capacity to pre-war levels.
But ultimately it will be cheaper and safer for the Qataris to ask the Americans to remove their military bases from Qatar to prevent a reoccurrence or repeat of such an indefensible and vulnerable situation.

http://x.com/FUADH78666/status/2035085934887145600

They obviously built it to provide gas for the Europeans after they cut themselves off from cheap Russian gas.

Armchair Critic- There is an abundance of fuel in the world, but most of it is like the children's blocks, "the fuel block doesn't fit in the fuel hole". Some of the fuel blocks are even able to be part of a fuel cycle. Rocket fuel's for example could potentially be used in cars, with the right configuration. Think of running a car from alumina or al + o2, simple stuff, pick up an o2 generator/ concentrator from Bunnings. But the dumb envious "progressives" force too much red tape on industry, and don't know how to run businesses, and so there is little innovation, and little advantage to risk.

A man can be 2 metres from water but die because he doesn't know it

Aries54 is wrong- People are not the ultimate resource, as Ayn Rand (and Nietzsche) said, thought is the ultimate resource, but not all people think.

Armchair Critic said "Why does it look like the exact same things they say we should do to limit the effects of climate change...
I think maybe they're planning for superscarcity all along, not superabundance"

Answer- Good question. Yes I came to the conclusion that Woke Marxist's create scarcity a while back, while claiming to care about the poor and slavery. To be fair Libertarian's do their share of tricky business to keep competition out of their affairs, by illegitimately creating red tape. Ayn Rand criticised this, but sadly she isn't immune from corruption. Ayn Rand seems to get a lot from Nietzsche who seems to be one of the purer ones, that speak and act as one motion. The original political system Traditionalism (Nietzsche might call it the knightly code) is different than Woke Marxism and Libertarianism.

It almost seems as if "The Greens" could be complicit in energy scarcity, or might see advantage in it. Isn't it the Greens that are blocking nuclear energy, what else are they doing??

If humans are free of need, but some try to hide this fact, and create scarcity, what does that mean?? Who are the slaves free-ers, and who are the slave masters?

"The Goulburn Community Solar Farm has plugged into the grid, aiming to keep profits in the community.

The facility is owned by 288 local investors and is one of the country's largest community-owned solar farms."

Fantastic news, this community project will power 500 homes in the local district. Its projected that 'The Farm' will make a profit. The idea is to use the profits in this way, 25% to community funding as support for those struggling with power bills, 25% reinvested in sustaining 'The Farm" and 50% as dividends to the community investors.

http://goulburnsolarfarm.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Final-KS-Report.pdf

This project seems to be a mix of positive and negative- I can imagine the vicious infighting that must have occurred to get it off the ground with so many ideological parties, even after the red tape was dealt with. I'm not sure I would have wanted to be part of it and probably would have suggested that we fund a different community project with Traditionalist roots.

I like the idea that it is something that has ostensibly been created by members of the local community- I'm a big fan of localism- and it's advantages in self sufficiency, redundancy, community economies of scale, etc. But they are calling it a "social" project- usually dog whistling to Woke Marxist Socialist's. But yet they also talk in the report about "during the COVID shakedown"- perhaps a hat tip/ negotiating point to more Traditionalist elements within the coalition, maybe Teal like attributes (but Teal's often revert to Greens policy when it counts). Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable trusting a coalition with those who talk in terms of "'social' benefit" rather than community benefit or something that sounded more Traditionalist. Image often has an effect on reality...

Using government grants from garnishing tax payers money doesn't sound right in this case.

The technology doesn't sound like the right technology to me, possibly more difficult to scale than other energy technologies, requires high maintenance, high initial capital investment, it's a fixed inflexible infrastructure, etc, etc.

Often those that talk about Green technologies talk about the social benefits rather than the economic benefits, which suggests to me that the economic benefits are less convincing. Often the ambassadors of green technology know very little about engineering from talking with them

It's been said that the Liberal Party hasn't been a proper opposition party, because they haven't addressed the paradoxes inherent in the "state space" of Australia. And the reason for this is because they haven't addressed their own internal party "state space". One Nation has, and that's why it's brand is growing, while the Liberal Party's is shrinking. The Liberal Party has been pre-occupied with fashionable politics, and needs to return to core principles to survive. One Nation has a sound basis for growth, but there will still be growing pains due to scaling issues.