But what makes you think that? Using our own civilization as an example (since, you know, that's the only example we have to go on), the more advanced a civilization becomes, the more resources it tends to consume. Especially since the more advanced a civilization becomes, the larger population it is able to support as lifespans increase and premature deaths decrease. So who's to say that the level of resource consumption of an interstellar civilization hasn't scaled up with its advancement? I mean, maybe they have to strip mine whole planets to meet the resource demands of their civilization. And if there are multiple such civilizations relatively close to each other, I could certainly see them fighting over planets to colonize and consume. And that fighting need not necessarily take the form of open warfare. It could also mean intense negotiations like we see between nations here on Earth over mining rights and such.
Really this only applies with technomagic like dilithium crystals that magically poop out large quantities of antimatter that are fit for consumption. This both makes travel easy and creates a finite resource that everyone needs access too.
In reality, the technological advancement required to get between stars (and here I mean both with traditional rockets and with seemingly impossible FTL) would be so advanced that a society capable of doing it regularly won't have resource problems almost by default.
Being able to harness enough energy to get around the galaxy
requires a near-total mastery of both energy and matter. This doesn't mean that there are no civilizations that are suffering resource problems and are trying to get to the stars. It means that civilizations that are in this predicament like us
can't get to the stars.
There would be no resource wars because the civilizations that are resource starved are stuck in their home systems or those that happen to be astronomically very, very close. Therefore those civilizations that are zipping around the galaxy aren't going to pick fights with those that can't over resources because they don't need them.
Plenty for all doesn't guarantee there still won't be conflict. Just because there will be enough to go around doesn't mean someone out there isn't still going to try to control the supply in order to profit from it. That's where conflict and negotiation will come into play.
To put it more simply: even when there's enough to go around, there will always be someone who doesn't want to share or that wants a bigger piece of the pie than everyone else.
As expanded on by other people, this actually circumvents the literal meaning of post-scarcity. There would be no supply to fight over in a truly post-scarcity intergalactic civilization. When you can harvest the unlimited energy of the countless stars and turn it into matter on demand then the word supply is meaningless.
Yeah, I was saying that too. I was also responding to the idea that even if we achieve a post-scarcity society, I don't see that doing much to reduce conflicts over resources since there will always be those that try to hoard those resources and other that try to stop them (either out of a desire to build their own hoard or to genuinely help others).
Again, resources don't really mean anything in this context. There are an infinite number of stars and planets and even if it were impossible to whip up whatever matter you want on the fly (which really isn't impossible, just extraordinarily difficult) then it still doesn't matter. There are more stars out there than all the grains of sand on every beach in the world. And most of those have planets. Even if you *had* to mine out planets and stars there are so many of them that the supply is in fact, infinite. Much like air in Tim's example below.
I think you are underestimating the definition of "post scarcity." Economics only exists because of scarcity, being the study of systems used for the allocation of scarce resources. "Post scarcity" means that all of the resources are like air is now. There is no saving it, no system for distributing it, no being forced to do without it, no hoarding it, nothing. Air doesn't even register as a resource in economics because it is not scarce (an economic definition of scarce). You are using a more common and colloquial definition. Something like "well, there's enough of it." For something to be "not scarce" in economic terms it has to be so abundant that it literally can't all be used.
In the Star Trek universe, due to apparently endless energy supplies and replicator technology there is nothing that qualifies as a scarce resource, therefore there is literally no economics at all. That's the "post scarcity" world. The writers keep inserting economic themes and trying to justify them, but those plots pretty much fall apart under analysis (except maybe in TOS, where the replicator concept isn't so ubiquitous).
To be fair, there are two levels of post-scarcity that we can talk about. I myself have pointed out that the US could be a post-scarcity society if we really wanted to do that but that's a different kind of post-scarcity than that in the
Star Trek world, which you excellently elaborated on here.
Fair point.
Actually, I think we might already be technologically advanced enough to create a post scarcity society and all we need is the political will to crush the wealth hoarders.
But that might be a topic for a seditious manifesto...
Yup, but even this is a different kind of post-scarcity than that which an interstellar civilization would have.
We have enough wealth and technology to end hunger and give everyone shelter and so on. We do not have enough wealth and technology to zip through the stars willy nilly. So there's two levels to post-scarcity and galactic civilizations have to reach the second level almost by definition to become galactic civilizations.
I'm really surprised though that no one has made the argument (that I've seen) that ideological motivations would be sources of conflict.
