Comment: The opposite of scarcity is abundance

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Please disprove physics. (see in situ)

The opposite of scarcity is abundance

At a 5 year old birthday party, the number of cookies set on the table in ratio to the number of girls attending defines whether "cookies are scarce or abundant". Correct?

If we put less than one per person, we know someone won't get one. If we put 25 cookies there with no rules, all the girls will get whatever they want because there will be enough that don't want 5. Additionally, if the girls 'know' there will always be extras, they won't tend to hoard them. Correct?

Right now, 95% of what we make (all inclusive - planned obsolescence, packaging, over promoting, energy, raw materials...) ends up in the landfill within 6 months. The rest becomes a durable good that lasts from 2 years (TVs to phones) to 20 years (refrigerators, cars).

The amount of 'stuff' we produce equates to placing 4 cookies on the table for 5 girls to fight over. (3rd world countries don't get enough while 1st worlders waste or hoard it.)

If we stopped making things with the premise that to make profit they must get retired early, we could produce 20 times what we currently do. If we stopped the waste in the process chains, we could more than triple it again. This is very similar to placing 15 cookies out for the girls at the party. The end result is that people would 'need' 5 to allow everyone to have one but would end up using 8-9 instead. But without all the waste in the system, this would use the equivalent resources of us simply dropping from our current production of 4 to 1.5 or so.

In other words, but wasting less, we actually use 30-40% of current resources to supply the entire world what it 'will want'.

Running those numbers out, I calculated that we could realistically supply 12 billion people on our currently known resources without dipping into the shortage stage.