I definitely don't define "reasonable scarcity" as "much like things are now," but that would be my preference. Limitless abundance has the ironic problem of not incentivizing new development (definitely in the sciences/economics; many folks have pointed out that some "starving artists" would actually probably do better if they could create art without concern for their next check), and at the extreme, it becomes like that first attempt at a world by the machines in The Matrix.

"Human wants are unlimited." - core principle of economics

Material abundance is something we're almost all striving for in our daily lives, so it would be hypocritical to say that's not what I want. Revealed preference > cheap talk.

There's still plenty of scarcity in the world, in terms of relationships, creative endeavors, leisure activites, etc. We only get to do one thing at a time, so it's not like our choices stop mattering.

I think that limitless abundance is only possible if there is either no time, or unlimited time. As long as it takes time to acquire something (or travel somewhere) and our lives are limited by time, there will not be any true abundance.

Therefore I go for reasonable scarcity, because I have not seen any evidence that we can beat time or that it does not exist.

There's always going to be dick heads on this planet, so removing all scarcity wouldn't just solve wars and make us all hold hands, but I imagine it would solve at least some problems.

I imagine there would always be someone to stand between the resources and the end user.

As far as a world where everything is good goes, I don't think that's possible. I think the human experience demands that we experience negativity. That's why we all react to situations in proportion to our individual history instead of humanities shared experience. IE I may get upset when my food order is wrong, while also being aware of the fact that someone just starved to death somewhere on the planet.

My brain has been wired by dystopian science fiction to view this as a trick question.

Obviously everyone "wants" limitless abundance, however I don't think I would choose it.

Far greater social problems would be created in a limitless abundance world. The acquisition of goods that happens in a reasonable scarcity world provides a common shared purpose for most humans. It centers people and gives them goals and things to work towards.

We are far too secular, with far too little spiritual centering to survive in limitless abundance. Excess and sloth would breed more and more extreme excess that would end like the Calhoun Mouse Utopia.

Anyway, the universe is a proof-of-work structure.

As an engineer, if I had no problems to solve I would be miserable. I think we need at least a little struggle; I would say we're almost prewired for it. Maybe things like scientific discovery and advancement could provide enough of a goal, but betting on that sounds like a gamble.

how do you define reasonable scarcity? We don't live in reasonable scarcity, we lived in imposed scarcity because we are enslaved by the governments and interests that those enable.

we could reasonably produce A FUCKTON more energy than we currently do, but we are trapped in our minds and way of thinking from 3 centuries ago.

If only we can free our minds and ourselves from the shackles put on by our "society" we have limitless opportunities and then scarcity looks a lot different than it does now.

Why do you do this shit on a day when I work.

Scarcity

When you have abundance, you tend to skimp on gratitude, which is a pivotal factor for living a life of contentment.

However, when it comes to mindset, one must have an abundance mindset. E.g. I WILL BE WEALTHY. There is enough sats for all of us

abundance would be better

If there is limitless abundance, wouldnt people hoard things just out of pettiness?

Everything is abundant in the world, but we humans are the ones who make it scarce by not sharing it with those in need.

If everything were unlimited and free, no one would want to work. The world would come to a standstill. Abundance can't be for everyone at the same time, and I can't even imagine what it would be like if it were!

I would choose scarcity, as it brings challenges, and challenges drive the pursuit of improvement. Without scarcity, we would be stagnant. A good example is the increasing need for energy for Bitcoin.

Limitless abundance would be nice to live a life creating art/music/things.

Still, some things (like land) would be valued differently from person to person so there would likely cause issues.

Either way for me really. Reasonable scarcity is more like the one we're living. I can't complain.

Scarcity. If you have abundance, you will also have abundance of energy, which will eventually turn earth and its ecosystem into a ball of molten magma (really plasma).

"Let me restate that important point. No matter what the technology, a sustained 2.3% energy growth rate would require us to produce as much energy as the entire sun within 1400 years. A word of warning: that power plant is going to run a little warm. Thermodynamics require that if we generated sun-comparable power on Earth, the surface of the Earth—being smaller than that of the sun—would have to be hotter than the surface of the sun!"

if abundance means intergalactic space travel, that sounds great and would help keep the earth from overheating, but that also means aliens have abundant power to reach and colonize / terraform us.

So, all in: scarcity.

Truly limitless abundance? That has to be the only sensible answer surely?

The problem with providing things for free is that doing so has to be centrally managed, and central management cannot allocate scarce resources efficiently.

But if those resources are not scarce, there is no problem allocating them. In fact, by definition there is no need to allocate them, there will just be enough of them there for you and everybody else, forever.