1) Some groups will just use the resources of the Machine, while others will work on improving The Machine. Over time, Machines in some areas will be vastly more capable than other areas. This will create haves and have-nots, urge migration and give rise to a system very similar to the current worlds (first-, second-, third-).
2) In your utopia, the corporation has no incentive to build a long-lasting Machine, especially since the Machine can build it's own parts. The corporation may also upgrade Machine capabilities (a new XBox/PS) that make it desirable to upgrade, forcing the town to pony up more money or resources. And what about the people who work at those corporations? Do they not live like the folks with the Machine? Why do they have to work, for money presumably? Again, haves and have-nots.
3) Resources in a local area are finite. What happens when the water runs out?
4) If the Machine removes the need for money, how do the townsfolk pay for the Machine? How does it all start?
You are a technological optimist. Like other technological optimists, there is a basic human psychological need that is not being acknowledged in this solution. That is, the desire to be better than your fellow man: Whether this is at an individual level, family level or society level is less relevant, but so long as this need exists, no amount of technology can fix the problem, as any new technology can be bent to increase, not decrease, disparity.
Much of my writing is meant to be a thought experiment. I think it may be an improvement if groups of people support one another voluntarily, and share in common ownership of critical factors of production.
My writing is a way to explore a class free society (economic class that is) free of wasteful consumerism. It is not necessarily meant to be a literal plan.
However you ask about resource consumption: society already uses resources at an unsustainable rate. I claim The Machine will improve on our resource consumption by reducing consumerism and needless consumption. But the fact that a society with the machine may still be unsustainable does not mean it isn’t an improvement. The Machine only fails if you expect that I am proposing a solution to all problems, which is not the case.
Humans will still have inequality, but I don’t claim to totally solve that. I think The Machine could help reduce inequality, but it depends on how we use it.
Anyway, I’m a bit rushed and I’m sorry I haven’t provided a clearer reply. I just wanted to give you some kind of answer. Thanks for reading my work!
What I was trying to demonstrate is that classes exist because humans want them to exist. Technology cannot solve a behaviour problem. Through evolution, we learn that a certain percentage of selfish actors in a large pool of altruistic actors is long-term stable, which blew me away the first time I read about it.
Finally, have you read Cory Doctorow's "Walkaway"? If not, suggested reading.
