>>509336539Go one step further. Why is *any other man* useful in an ideal world? If there is no resource scarcity then all other men are sexual competitors whose existence is nothing but a threat.
The ideal world isn't a post-scarcity world because that still has frustrations. Women don't want ugly men around. Men don't want other men around. Sexual competition still exists and the world won't be ideal until that competition has run its course and the last man standing has monopolized all the women.
>but muh inbreedingThat won't matter in a fully automated world. Maybe technology can counteract the problems, maybe the problems don't even need to be counteracted since it doesn't matter if everyone's retarded when it's all being managed by robots anyway. The reality is that we already live in a society where 99% of people don't need to work from a production perspective, the only reason work still exists is because sexual competition still exists, and when it spills over into the economy it forces people to work. If it was just about shelter then I would only need one house and there would be no reason for me to want anyone else to be homeless. Unfortunately we need to survive hypergamy, which means I need as many houses as I can get (to maximize status) and I am incentivized to keep you homeless (because attractiveness is relative).
The rich aren't irrationally greedy, they are forced to behave that way by the sexual system. Sex selects for selfishness. Food/water/shelter etc are PvE and can be solved cooperatively. Sex in a liberal society is PvP and can only be solved competitively. All sexually liberal societies are inevitably competitive societies even in an ideal world. Societies with sexual taboos can be cooperative in an ideal world, but in practice will always have some residual competition due to imperfect enforcement of taboos.