A world without scarcity would be a world without sin.

It works for me, I want to invade India for its rubber trees, LOL

Material deprivation is the original sin of economic theology. But economic theology does not take into account that which originates from within. Even when one has all the material possession there is no certainty that one will use the possession to build human society for progress and peace. In fact, it is those who have greater wealth and greater power who have caused more destruction to human civilization. And I think it is because Aristotelian "weakness of the will" or Augustinian "original sin" or Calvinist "total depravity" is inherently present in human being. Human being is good, but there is also a flaw in us.

He is talking of utopia, which unfortunately, is stuff of myth and speculation. However, I don’t think a state of complete material abundance will bring heaven on earth. What is missing completely from this speculation is the condition of people’ attitude towards each other and towards their own self. Theoretically and economically, a world of haves (with no have-nots) may be egalitarian enough…but it will be morally and intellectually defunct and fragile. It will be God’s aquarium with us going round and round in the same fish-bowl. The very moment we start questing this very comfortable existence, the bubble will break. The book takes the basic idea of communism to a glamorous level and we all know how communism has failed in its objectives.

^_^ Howdy!.... murderistic!.... Must have not only the abundance of materialism but also must have the true value of having the richness of wisdom. ^_^ Enjoy!....

Although it sounds logical and reasonable, I believe the theory is flawed. While it is agreed that envy, greed and a want for resources and opportunity causes most murders and wars, I believe that there is a more basic need that is the 'root cause' in play. As humans we have a need to be controlling, be it ourselves, our environment, our children, our spouses, our family or our communities. We have a desire to be the one in control of the group, to be the 'alpha male'. Even in a world of complete material abundance, there would still be conflicts over who would 'control' the material abundance. As mentioned in a response above, there would also be the question of people wanting more vs the uniformity of everyone having the exact same things (food, shelter, and other materialistic items). Some would work hard for the items, some would work less harder, and others would expect to be given what they wanted without doing any work. Such descrepancies in 'fairness' would lead to conflict (wars and murders). A world of material abundance would be nice, although the big question that comes into play is: "How hard do you have to work to earn the materials?"

Material abundance would solve nothing. Too many people want more no matter how much they have. There would always be people with more, so even if they all had enough people would still decide it was unfair because someone else had more. Unless it was designed with complete uniformity it would still be unfair to someone, in their opinion. Complete uniformity would be unfair too. People it seems are always determined to fight about something. As much of an optimist as I like to try to be I am afraid I would have to say that in general people will always hate each other for some reason.