>>12463107Ah okay nevermind, I already found an example:
>>12452061The naïve prediction is then that there's a way to somehow teach people how this heuristic can be used to identify subtler scarcities. Since we don't find infinite intellects in the environment, the logic applies to whatever pinnacle of intelligence does actually occur. Fully unpacked, it would probably make for an interesting method of socializing with geniuses, which is a form of pandering we'll need to accomplish for true post-scarcity anyway.
On a more basic level, it's obviously true. There could be any number of highly intricate implications derived from it, but our natural tendency as Bayesian systems will be to look at familiar things for comparison, polluting our image of the pure ideal we started with. Something has to ground each hypothetical in reality for the heuristic's logic to remain coherent. Everything else becomes another science fiction fantasy.
