Sorry for the delay with my feedback. The expanded length worked well, providing more depth and substance to your arguments around post-scarcity philosophy.
However, there is a BUT! It still comes across to me as far too generic. What would significantly strengthen your piece are concrete, real-world examples that demonstrate both the effectiveness and limitations of your propositions. These examples would help readers bridge the conceptual gap between theory and practical implementation. Without the real world examples, I feel a lack of validation. Here are my suggestions -
1. For your governance with AI as partner section: Include specific case studies where AI-assisted governance has already shown promise, perhaps in urban planning or resource management.
2. When discussing post-monetary value systems: Provide examples of communities or organizations that have successfully implemented alternative value metrics beyond traditional economic output.
3. Regarding Universal Basic Income: Reference pilot programs that have already been conducted, their measurable outcomes, and what they suggest about larger-scale implementation.
The conclusion, while inspiring, would benefit from a more pragmatic framing that outlines tangible results if Abundanism principles were adopted. Rather than solely presenting an idealistic vision, consider:
* Quantifiable projections of how specific Abundanism policies might impact economic inequality, environmental sustainability, or mental well-being
* A phased roadmap showing how we might transition from current systems to Abundanist frameworks
* Potential challenges and resistance points that would need to be addressed during implementation
If you want to drive meaningful change, showing readers the concrete outcomes of adopting these principles will be far more compelling than theoretical arguments alone. Grounding your vision in reality through evidence-based examples will make your case more persuasive to skeptics and provide actionable insights for advocates.
I look forward to your future work on this important topic, particularly the action list and policy recommendations you mentioned for a follow-up piece.
Davey, Really appreciate your feedback on the draft and suggestions for coming papers. As you know I had to make sure the paper is at a length that would not scare most from reading. We must first plant a seed before the tree can grow. More depth will come in future docs and your inputs are very valid. Thanks again for your continued support. 🙏
This is a wonderful “check-in” that builds upon last year’s “Our Next Reality”, and it’s very refreshing to hear a case being made via a visionary framework, as opposed to an argumentative/oppositional framework. Alvin has the requisite knowledge and experience that lend authenticity, and urgency, to his perspectives and I’m sure that the roots of his optimism stretch back to the early days of the networked reality we now live in, at the University of Washington. I was there too, and I feel it – but as Alvin points out, time is running out. He thinks the next 5 years will be critical in shaping what our future looks like, and I have to agree. As an analogy, he leaves me thinking we’re now in the “Help” phase of the Beatles career without knowledge of what lies ahead, although in retrospect we know that everything was already in play. So, will “the next 5 years” result in an “Abbey Road”, or something else? It’s entirely up to us, and I’m now going to go have a listen to Help (the full album, not the “soundtrack”) and engage in a little reflection - followed by a lot of action!
As expected, well-written. As you admit in the conclusion, perhaps a bit dreamy. I can agree with you on what we SHOULD do, but can we do it? We should eat better, drink less, exercise more, etc. but we don't. I believe AGI will bring fantastic(al) benefits to humanity, but can we make it through the trough of unemployment of white-collar knowledge workers?
Yes, what’s possible is amazing. I wrote this to help wake the policy makers up to both the potential good acting preemptively and harm of staying the current course. We need more to help raise the pressure on the gov so they can see the proper path.
The world needs more of this forward-thinking globally-minded philosophy. We don't have enough philosophers today, when we need them the most. You are a rare and brave one.
As an idealist, I support your idealism, and as a pragmatist, I support your pragmatism.
Where I would like to hear more is "Abundanism embraces AI as a governance oracle and co-pilot, complementing human values with superhuman foresight and global understanding."
Keeping this from getting coopted by private interest in today's trajectory and putting guardrails in place to ensure its benevolence is a challenge that needs to be addressed.
As it relates to "With machines handling most production and AI handling most cognitive work, UBI becomes a moral imperative and economic inevitability." Digging into how humans will occupy themselves is important. What thresholds will they be required to give back, by recreating, working, teaching, minding the AI store.. etc.
Alvin, your articulation of abundanism resonates deeply with me. In my work at the intersection of ethics, technology, and humanity, I’ve seen firsthand how systems can either reinforce scarcity and exploitation — or, when built with intention, can scale trust and dignity instead.
In a sense, there is an orchestration — a design choice — toward abundance: systems that empower individuals without extraction, that amplify human potential. Innovation should extend humanity, not commoditize it. It's powerful to frame it this way: technology either serves the logic of scarcity or the logic of abundance.
Yet abundance can be viewed across many dimensions, and systems — technology especially — are never neutral. There is no neutrality, no benign architecture; there is always impact, even if small.
Intentionally designing for abundance sounds like Nirvana. But I’m wary of leaving that design to a small or elite group of architects — empowered (and by whom?) to decide what abundance should look like.
Whose definition are we following? What are the guideposts? Who navigates the gray? Even those with the best intentions can be influenced — or corrupted — by powers less altruistic. Influence can quietly escalate into domination; power can corrode, because humans are imperfect, and many act from self-interest, often unaware of their own proclivities.
Then there’s another tension: does abundance equate to comfort? And is comfort a risk? Could comfort and complacency dampen the hunger for challenge that has been the hallmark of human innovation — the very force that shaped who we are today?
I believe humans need challenge, a cause to believe in, something to strive for. We are driven not just by abundance, but by the necessity to overcome — intellectually, physically, spiritually.
Thank you for putting words to a concept that feels so vital right now. Looking forward to reading more and continuing this conversation.
Excellent point and agree on much of it. This is why I advocate for the need to bring AI itself into the governance process and thus reduce the innate corrupting affects of power. As properly trained AI won’t be self serving as humans and will have learned all of the lessons of history it would have a better chance to design a system that will be less likely to fall into the traps mentioned.
On abundance being only giving comfort, that is certainly not my intent. Agree humans need purpose and curiosity. Those forces are built into all of us. The ages of when the most discovery and invention happened in history is when people had their daily burden of basic needs satisfied. AI will become all our patron so we can enter a new age of cultural and scientific renaissance. 🙏
Interesting clarification — so many folks I know talk about how they associate abundance with satisfaction and peace, and perhaps then I associate peace with comfort; conflating it. Currently, I'm addressing institutional scarcity by design (which I won't go into here but am happy to discuss on a call for context). What I find most interesting about this topic is that people who are principle-based and ethical (as you are) speak about the future very differently than those who seek to exploit and rule — or those who manipulate through fear. I was sharing with Will a short time ago that it's a wonderful time to be alive and see these things forming and to get to be a part of it. It's both inspirational and provocative. I have high hopes for our collective futures! I value your thought leadership.
Thanks for all you’re doing to think through such issues. We definitely need to change institutional design…and the mindset they perpetuate in order to affect the environment they were designed under. We are lucky to be living in this time but more importantly we have a high responsibility to take the needed actions to create the future we all need. There are more of those that want to perpetuate the status quo than those that can imagine a different reality. It’s an uphill battle. We need to recruit more kind souls to the effort. Let’s do chat sometime.
Thank you for this article - it offers a hopeful vision of the future that deeply resonates.
While I share your belief in a future of abundance, I worry that without systemic redesign, abundance could inadvertently enable new forms of exploitation.
There seems to be an assumption in the article that technological abundance will naturally lead to shared prosperity. However, our human experience has shown that we can engineer artificial scarcity even in abundance. For example: (1) Healthcare - financial incentives engineer artificial scarcity, (2) Housing - cities like London and San Francisco maintain scarcity through speculative investment and zoning laws despite vacant properties.
This reflects a failure of incentive architecture - systems that optimize for proxy metrics (profit, growth) that diverge from human and planetary well-being.
In an article that I (co-authored with AI) have posted on Substack (Escaping Moloch: A Civilizational Framework for the Unified Commons Network, https://timothygoh.substack.com/p/escaping-moloch-a-civilizational), this dysfunction is framed as Moloch - a metaphor for emergent coordination traps where rational actions produce collective harm. The article proposes a structural redesign (the Unified Commons Network, or UCN) that aligns with your vision.
Your emphasis on collective agency aligns closely with UCN’s design principles. Both frameworks reject zero-sum logic and envision a world where cooperation replaces competition.
The Moloch and UCN framework is an evolving thought experiment (e.g., the “civilisation-as-AI” concept was inspired by your recent talk (Alvin Wang Graylin | The US - China AI Arms Race | May 28th, 2025, https://youtu.be/Jg6brPvFJGw)) - and I'm sharing in the hope that it adds to the conversation.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and for writing on this shared vision in your article.
Quick clarification, abundance can be had with new advances in technology, but for us to achieve true abundance, we have to fundamentally change our mindset away from one of scarcity and hoarding. Then change our actions to align with this new mindset. We have the ability in us but it will require conscious and deliberate effort. 🤝✊
Thanks for the clarification. I believe we are aligned - mindset change then actions and importantly actions to ensure that changes are enduring/adaptive - to prevent relapse. The last bit implies systemic change - yes, very conscious and deliberate.
Thanks for this inspiring read! I really appreciate your optimistic tone — also present in Our Next Reality. It motivates me (as a non-academic reader and a parent) to learn more about emerging technologies and how they might reshape not just society, but also the lives of our families and communities.
I fully support the vision of a post-scarcity future. But I do wonder — could abundance also risk making it harder for people to find purpose or meaning? Might it lead to a loss of appreciation for effort, or a lack of drive to meet challenges?
There’s also a striking contrast between the collaborative, hopeful world you describe and the current geopolitical climate, where nations seem to be leaning more into self-interest than shared values. Yes, we should be aligning our systems for global benefit — yet many systems appear headed in the opposite direction…
Your idea of centering society around dignity, cohesion, and shared well-being deeply resonates. But in today’s world, it feels like nationalism and individualism often override these ideals
Some quick thoughts and questions that your closing vision sparked:
- Wisdom at the core of governance”— I love this, but how do we design systems that prioritize wisdom over greed? Especially when history shows how persistent self-interest in power can be.
- Building bridges, not walls — This should be our shared goal, but it seems like more walls are being built right now. What gives you hope that this trend can be reversed? And what role might AI play in this process?
- Educate for understanding and purpose — As a teacher, this hits home. I’ve seen young people from many different countries work together, and it showed me how education really can build peace. Also here I believe AI could play a crucial role to build bridges.
A few more questions:
- What global initiatives do you see as promising examples of “education as peace technology”? Especially in areas where education is still scarce?
- You mention aligning AI with human values. Do you believe we need a clearer definition of these shared values before we can embed them in our systems? And do you actually see AI play a role in defining those values on a global scale?
- UBI could unlock a lot of potential, but what are your thoughts on those people who struggle to find their passion or purpose despite having UBI..? How would Abundanism support or enable those who don’t yet know “what they love to do” to find purpose?
Lastly, I love the idea that abundance can unleash our better angels. But we should also be mindful of our worse demons— especially when powerful tech and human flaws collide.
Thanks again for sharing your vision. It's a powerful reminder of what’s possible — and what’s at stake.
Thanks for the encouragement and also the thoughtful comments/questions. Indeed the current trend is away from what is described in the essay, but that’s more reason why we need to try even harder to enlighten our leaders to see the alternative path. Answering all your questions would take another paper but here’s a talk from last week you may find gives some insights. https://youtu.be/Jg6brPvFJGw?si=6sNxVuOHlWe55gEk
Teachers are the key to making the change we seek. One must first understand there is an option before they can act on it. Keep doing the good work.
Regarding purpose, we all have it…the tragedy is that most never have the time to find it as we are stuck in our daily toil to survive. UBI will give us the time and freedom to investigate and discover why we are here. And it will bring us lasting satisfaction, not the temporary gratification of material goods.
Reading this essay, I was deeply moved by its hopeful vision of human flourishing through the end of scarcity. The idea that abundance can unlock creativity, purpose, and connection feels so right — it resonates with a core ideal I have been formulating I call “Optimistic Individualism”.
Much of your ideas run parallel to how I see the future. At the same time, I couldn’t help but feel a persistent reliance on external frameworks—governance, institutions, and social safety nets—to guide this flourishing. While I understand the need for some structure during transition, I worry that leaning too heavily on these systems risks overshadowing something even more powerful: the individual’s natural capacity to grow, create, and find meaning when freed from survival pressures. “Abundanism” itself indicates a reliance on the removal of scarcity as the driver, when it is actually the release of the individual.
From my perspective, true abundance isn’t something that can be managed or administered. It must emerge from within each person. Temporary support may be necessary, but it must never become a cage. The challenge ahead, I believe, is not about designing a framework for people to flourish in, but removing them all together and allowing each individual’s true natures to flourish independently.
That shift—from external frameworks to internal freedom—is, to me, the real key to unlocking the age of abundance.
Agree long term we should give freedom for our better angels of our nature to fly…but first we need to cage the inner demons that we’ve feed for centuries so our kinder side can get strong enough to thrive and adapt to the new environment we will arrive in. Keep pushing for a better future my friend.
My concern is tools are improving exponentially and institutions won’t be able to keep up. This it’s up to each of us as individuals to embrace those angels. It was a privilege to read!
The entire thesis reminded me of "Fully Automated Luxury Communism" - which I'm sure you've read (its never clear how famous that concept is). And, like that book, the analysis of the problem/challenge is spot on - its just that solution is more vague. I liken it to Marx, who had a brilliant and perceptive understanding of capitalism. It's just that his proposed solutions were unclear - if non existent.
I also think the book" Humankind", by Rutger Bregman, could help feed into discussions about whether humans are capable of building a kind society, a society of Bonobos.
looking forward to seeing how this discussion advances.
Thanks for the feedback. Yes the solution to complex dynamic problems usually take iterative steps. If you agree on the problem please help suggest solutions or steps to solutions. This issue is worth more people thinking about it.
I’m a little short on bandwidth these days but very open to collaboration on these ideas. Feel free to suggest projects or working groups. And ideas for focus of future writings.
Hi Alvin,
Sorry for the delay with my feedback. The expanded length worked well, providing more depth and substance to your arguments around post-scarcity philosophy.
However, there is a BUT! It still comes across to me as far too generic. What would significantly strengthen your piece are concrete, real-world examples that demonstrate both the effectiveness and limitations of your propositions. These examples would help readers bridge the conceptual gap between theory and practical implementation. Without the real world examples, I feel a lack of validation. Here are my suggestions -
1. For your governance with AI as partner section: Include specific case studies where AI-assisted governance has already shown promise, perhaps in urban planning or resource management.
2. When discussing post-monetary value systems: Provide examples of communities or organizations that have successfully implemented alternative value metrics beyond traditional economic output.
3. Regarding Universal Basic Income: Reference pilot programs that have already been conducted, their measurable outcomes, and what they suggest about larger-scale implementation.
The conclusion, while inspiring, would benefit from a more pragmatic framing that outlines tangible results if Abundanism principles were adopted. Rather than solely presenting an idealistic vision, consider:
* Quantifiable projections of how specific Abundanism policies might impact economic inequality, environmental sustainability, or mental well-being
* A phased roadmap showing how we might transition from current systems to Abundanist frameworks
* Potential challenges and resistance points that would need to be addressed during implementation
If you want to drive meaningful change, showing readers the concrete outcomes of adopting these principles will be far more compelling than theoretical arguments alone. Grounding your vision in reality through evidence-based examples will make your case more persuasive to skeptics and provide actionable insights for advocates.
I look forward to your future work on this important topic, particularly the action list and policy recommendations you mentioned for a follow-up piece.
Regards,
Davey
Davey, Really appreciate your feedback on the draft and suggestions for coming papers. As you know I had to make sure the paper is at a length that would not scare most from reading. We must first plant a seed before the tree can grow. More depth will come in future docs and your inputs are very valid. Thanks again for your continued support. 🙏
This is a wonderful “check-in” that builds upon last year’s “Our Next Reality”, and it’s very refreshing to hear a case being made via a visionary framework, as opposed to an argumentative/oppositional framework. Alvin has the requisite knowledge and experience that lend authenticity, and urgency, to his perspectives and I’m sure that the roots of his optimism stretch back to the early days of the networked reality we now live in, at the University of Washington. I was there too, and I feel it – but as Alvin points out, time is running out. He thinks the next 5 years will be critical in shaping what our future looks like, and I have to agree. As an analogy, he leaves me thinking we’re now in the “Help” phase of the Beatles career without knowledge of what lies ahead, although in retrospect we know that everything was already in play. So, will “the next 5 years” result in an “Abbey Road”, or something else? It’s entirely up to us, and I’m now going to go have a listen to Help (the full album, not the “soundtrack”) and engage in a little reflection - followed by a lot of action!
Thanks for your thoughtful comment!
Btw what kind of actions do you have planned?
As expected, well-written. As you admit in the conclusion, perhaps a bit dreamy. I can agree with you on what we SHOULD do, but can we do it? We should eat better, drink less, exercise more, etc. but we don't. I believe AGI will bring fantastic(al) benefits to humanity, but can we make it through the trough of unemployment of white-collar knowledge workers?
Yes, what’s possible is amazing. I wrote this to help wake the policy makers up to both the potential good acting preemptively and harm of staying the current course. We need more to help raise the pressure on the gov so they can see the proper path.
The world needs more of this forward-thinking globally-minded philosophy. We don't have enough philosophers today, when we need them the most. You are a rare and brave one.
As an idealist, I support your idealism, and as a pragmatist, I support your pragmatism.
Where I would like to hear more is "Abundanism embraces AI as a governance oracle and co-pilot, complementing human values with superhuman foresight and global understanding."
Keeping this from getting coopted by private interest in today's trajectory and putting guardrails in place to ensure its benevolence is a challenge that needs to be addressed.
As it relates to "With machines handling most production and AI handling most cognitive work, UBI becomes a moral imperative and economic inevitability." Digging into how humans will occupy themselves is important. What thresholds will they be required to give back, by recreating, working, teaching, minding the AI store.. etc.
I'm with you.
Thanks Ben for the support and encouragement. Yes, the world is getting polarized just when it needs to unite.
I’ll for sure write more on the governance co-pilot idea in future essays. 🙏
Alvin, your articulation of abundanism resonates deeply with me. In my work at the intersection of ethics, technology, and humanity, I’ve seen firsthand how systems can either reinforce scarcity and exploitation — or, when built with intention, can scale trust and dignity instead.
In a sense, there is an orchestration — a design choice — toward abundance: systems that empower individuals without extraction, that amplify human potential. Innovation should extend humanity, not commoditize it. It's powerful to frame it this way: technology either serves the logic of scarcity or the logic of abundance.
Yet abundance can be viewed across many dimensions, and systems — technology especially — are never neutral. There is no neutrality, no benign architecture; there is always impact, even if small.
Intentionally designing for abundance sounds like Nirvana. But I’m wary of leaving that design to a small or elite group of architects — empowered (and by whom?) to decide what abundance should look like.
Whose definition are we following? What are the guideposts? Who navigates the gray? Even those with the best intentions can be influenced — or corrupted — by powers less altruistic. Influence can quietly escalate into domination; power can corrode, because humans are imperfect, and many act from self-interest, often unaware of their own proclivities.
Then there’s another tension: does abundance equate to comfort? And is comfort a risk? Could comfort and complacency dampen the hunger for challenge that has been the hallmark of human innovation — the very force that shaped who we are today?
I believe humans need challenge, a cause to believe in, something to strive for. We are driven not just by abundance, but by the necessity to overcome — intellectually, physically, spiritually.
Thank you for putting words to a concept that feels so vital right now. Looking forward to reading more and continuing this conversation.
Margaret,
Excellent point and agree on much of it. This is why I advocate for the need to bring AI itself into the governance process and thus reduce the innate corrupting affects of power. As properly trained AI won’t be self serving as humans and will have learned all of the lessons of history it would have a better chance to design a system that will be less likely to fall into the traps mentioned.
On abundance being only giving comfort, that is certainly not my intent. Agree humans need purpose and curiosity. Those forces are built into all of us. The ages of when the most discovery and invention happened in history is when people had their daily burden of basic needs satisfied. AI will become all our patron so we can enter a new age of cultural and scientific renaissance. 🙏
Interesting clarification — so many folks I know talk about how they associate abundance with satisfaction and peace, and perhaps then I associate peace with comfort; conflating it. Currently, I'm addressing institutional scarcity by design (which I won't go into here but am happy to discuss on a call for context). What I find most interesting about this topic is that people who are principle-based and ethical (as you are) speak about the future very differently than those who seek to exploit and rule — or those who manipulate through fear. I was sharing with Will a short time ago that it's a wonderful time to be alive and see these things forming and to get to be a part of it. It's both inspirational and provocative. I have high hopes for our collective futures! I value your thought leadership.
Thanks for all you’re doing to think through such issues. We definitely need to change institutional design…and the mindset they perpetuate in order to affect the environment they were designed under. We are lucky to be living in this time but more importantly we have a high responsibility to take the needed actions to create the future we all need. There are more of those that want to perpetuate the status quo than those that can imagine a different reality. It’s an uphill battle. We need to recruit more kind souls to the effort. Let’s do chat sometime.
Alvin,
Thank you for this article - it offers a hopeful vision of the future that deeply resonates.
While I share your belief in a future of abundance, I worry that without systemic redesign, abundance could inadvertently enable new forms of exploitation.
There seems to be an assumption in the article that technological abundance will naturally lead to shared prosperity. However, our human experience has shown that we can engineer artificial scarcity even in abundance. For example: (1) Healthcare - financial incentives engineer artificial scarcity, (2) Housing - cities like London and San Francisco maintain scarcity through speculative investment and zoning laws despite vacant properties.
This reflects a failure of incentive architecture - systems that optimize for proxy metrics (profit, growth) that diverge from human and planetary well-being.
In an article that I (co-authored with AI) have posted on Substack (Escaping Moloch: A Civilizational Framework for the Unified Commons Network, https://timothygoh.substack.com/p/escaping-moloch-a-civilizational), this dysfunction is framed as Moloch - a metaphor for emergent coordination traps where rational actions produce collective harm. The article proposes a structural redesign (the Unified Commons Network, or UCN) that aligns with your vision.
Your emphasis on collective agency aligns closely with UCN’s design principles. Both frameworks reject zero-sum logic and envision a world where cooperation replaces competition.
The Moloch and UCN framework is an evolving thought experiment (e.g., the “civilisation-as-AI” concept was inspired by your recent talk (Alvin Wang Graylin | The US - China AI Arms Race | May 28th, 2025, https://youtu.be/Jg6brPvFJGw)) - and I'm sharing in the hope that it adds to the conversation.
The article on Moloch/UCN (https://timothygoh.substack.com/p/escaping-moloch-a-civilizational) covers:
a) Defining Moloch (emergent coordination traps)
b) Design principles for a post-Moloch system (UCN)
c) Implementing UCN (transition strategies, challenges, success metrics)
d) Anticipated critiques of UCN
Looking forward to seeing how this discussion evolves.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and for writing on this shared vision in your article.
Quick clarification, abundance can be had with new advances in technology, but for us to achieve true abundance, we have to fundamentally change our mindset away from one of scarcity and hoarding. Then change our actions to align with this new mindset. We have the ability in us but it will require conscious and deliberate effort. 🤝✊
Thanks for the clarification. I believe we are aligned - mindset change then actions and importantly actions to ensure that changes are enduring/adaptive - to prevent relapse. The last bit implies systemic change - yes, very conscious and deliberate.
💯
Hi Alvin,
Thanks for this inspiring read! I really appreciate your optimistic tone — also present in Our Next Reality. It motivates me (as a non-academic reader and a parent) to learn more about emerging technologies and how they might reshape not just society, but also the lives of our families and communities.
I fully support the vision of a post-scarcity future. But I do wonder — could abundance also risk making it harder for people to find purpose or meaning? Might it lead to a loss of appreciation for effort, or a lack of drive to meet challenges?
There’s also a striking contrast between the collaborative, hopeful world you describe and the current geopolitical climate, where nations seem to be leaning more into self-interest than shared values. Yes, we should be aligning our systems for global benefit — yet many systems appear headed in the opposite direction…
Your idea of centering society around dignity, cohesion, and shared well-being deeply resonates. But in today’s world, it feels like nationalism and individualism often override these ideals
Some quick thoughts and questions that your closing vision sparked:
- Wisdom at the core of governance”— I love this, but how do we design systems that prioritize wisdom over greed? Especially when history shows how persistent self-interest in power can be.
- Building bridges, not walls — This should be our shared goal, but it seems like more walls are being built right now. What gives you hope that this trend can be reversed? And what role might AI play in this process?
- Educate for understanding and purpose — As a teacher, this hits home. I’ve seen young people from many different countries work together, and it showed me how education really can build peace. Also here I believe AI could play a crucial role to build bridges.
A few more questions:
- What global initiatives do you see as promising examples of “education as peace technology”? Especially in areas where education is still scarce?
- You mention aligning AI with human values. Do you believe we need a clearer definition of these shared values before we can embed them in our systems? And do you actually see AI play a role in defining those values on a global scale?
- UBI could unlock a lot of potential, but what are your thoughts on those people who struggle to find their passion or purpose despite having UBI..? How would Abundanism support or enable those who don’t yet know “what they love to do” to find purpose?
Lastly, I love the idea that abundance can unleash our better angels. But we should also be mindful of our worse demons— especially when powerful tech and human flaws collide.
Thanks again for sharing your vision. It's a powerful reminder of what’s possible — and what’s at stake.
Thanks for the encouragement and also the thoughtful comments/questions. Indeed the current trend is away from what is described in the essay, but that’s more reason why we need to try even harder to enlighten our leaders to see the alternative path. Answering all your questions would take another paper but here’s a talk from last week you may find gives some insights. https://youtu.be/Jg6brPvFJGw?si=6sNxVuOHlWe55gEk
Teachers are the key to making the change we seek. One must first understand there is an option before they can act on it. Keep doing the good work.
Regarding purpose, we all have it…the tragedy is that most never have the time to find it as we are stuck in our daily toil to survive. UBI will give us the time and freedom to investigate and discover why we are here. And it will bring us lasting satisfaction, not the temporary gratification of material goods.
Reading this essay, I was deeply moved by its hopeful vision of human flourishing through the end of scarcity. The idea that abundance can unlock creativity, purpose, and connection feels so right — it resonates with a core ideal I have been formulating I call “Optimistic Individualism”.
Much of your ideas run parallel to how I see the future. At the same time, I couldn’t help but feel a persistent reliance on external frameworks—governance, institutions, and social safety nets—to guide this flourishing. While I understand the need for some structure during transition, I worry that leaning too heavily on these systems risks overshadowing something even more powerful: the individual’s natural capacity to grow, create, and find meaning when freed from survival pressures. “Abundanism” itself indicates a reliance on the removal of scarcity as the driver, when it is actually the release of the individual.
From my perspective, true abundance isn’t something that can be managed or administered. It must emerge from within each person. Temporary support may be necessary, but it must never become a cage. The challenge ahead, I believe, is not about designing a framework for people to flourish in, but removing them all together and allowing each individual’s true natures to flourish independently.
That shift—from external frameworks to internal freedom—is, to me, the real key to unlocking the age of abundance.
Agree long term we should give freedom for our better angels of our nature to fly…but first we need to cage the inner demons that we’ve feed for centuries so our kinder side can get strong enough to thrive and adapt to the new environment we will arrive in. Keep pushing for a better future my friend.
My concern is tools are improving exponentially and institutions won’t be able to keep up. This it’s up to each of us as individuals to embrace those angels. It was a privilege to read!
Yup. Please help spread the word so more can join the movement… together we can overcome the institutional immune system. 🤝
Fascinating insight.
The entire thesis reminded me of "Fully Automated Luxury Communism" - which I'm sure you've read (its never clear how famous that concept is). And, like that book, the analysis of the problem/challenge is spot on - its just that solution is more vague. I liken it to Marx, who had a brilliant and perceptive understanding of capitalism. It's just that his proposed solutions were unclear - if non existent.
I also think the book" Humankind", by Rutger Bregman, could help feed into discussions about whether humans are capable of building a kind society, a society of Bonobos.
looking forward to seeing how this discussion advances.
Thanks for the feedback. Yes the solution to complex dynamic problems usually take iterative steps. If you agree on the problem please help suggest solutions or steps to solutions. This issue is worth more people thinking about it.
Is there a set of projects or community or working groups that folks can join to work on these topics?
I’m a little short on bandwidth these days but very open to collaboration on these ideas. Feel free to suggest projects or working groups. And ideas for focus of future writings.