>I suppose some people think that the world without Scarcity as neoclassical
>economists define it is _dull_ and _without enjoyment_. Never mind whether
>it is possible, since both Doug & Eric think it's _undesirable_.
Where ever did you get this idea? I think that a world "without Scarcity as neoclassical economists define it" would still be a world with desire, and would be a desirable world. My point has been that supplying people with their "basic needs" is not as easy as it sounds, since I think it's highly likely that as "needs" are satisfied, new "needs" emerge. I don't see how that qualifies as being dull or without enjoyment. What I don't understand is how some people thing the nature of "basic needs" is so self-evident.
Doug