"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...)