this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
7 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23217 readers
178 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
replaceable@hexbear.net
VILenin@hexbear.net
SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
khizuo@hexbear.net
Wakmrow@hexbear.net
7
[Hypothetical] Infinite (Raw) Resources versus Infinite Knowledge? (hexbear.net)
submitted 4 months ago by GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

There are two groups of people. They're each given a magic/alien/divine trinket.

Group A's trinket can instantly produce any raw resource. A raw resource is anything that could exist without a humor labor process (cooking, blacksmithing, woodworking, etc). If something absolutely requires human labor to be put into it to exist, it can't be made by the magic box.

Group B's trinket can make one gain a hypothetically "perfect" theoretical understanding of everything. Essentially, if there was a Universal PhD in Everything (medicine, engineering, etc.), they would obtain it without any effort. It works on anyone, and this knowledge is implanted instantly.

If given all the time in the universe, which group would survive the test of time or come out on top of the other? This has been stirring in my brain for a while, and I want to hear your thoughts.

I personally lean Group B because they wouldn't have to discover or painstakingly engineer anything, and could immediately set their sails for technologies they know to exist. But at the same time, Group A would never have to worry about scarcity, so they could dedicate all of their time to infrastructure and research unlike Group B which still has to deal with scarcity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If we were to 'game' this out, the only way Group A loses is there is some sort of extremely early game or mid game conflict wherein Group B annihilates all of group Group A with like, a nuke or bioweapon.

In every other scenario, Group A wins simply because they can expand their population exponentially to the point that Group B literally has to expend all of their limited resources attempting to contain group A. More hands means more laborers and researchers than group B can ever actually muster.

Basically, Group A never has opportunity cost, while Group B does.