Damn. I spend two minutes reading, and it's obvious this isn't a legitimate SF-86, but a document that's been externally edited. Compare what Wikileaks is trying to pass off as a SF-86:
https://wikileaks.org/cia-emails/John-Brennan-Draft-SF86/John-Brennan-Draft-SF86.pdf
With a real SF-86 form:
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116390
What did your source do to section four? You expect us to believe an original SF-86 goes "one, two, three, five"? What else has the leaker tampered with without making it clear he's making redactions?
Instead of making redactions the old-fashioned way with black bars, Wikileaks is publishing documents with silently erased segments that fail to give the public a way to know how the document was altered. This throws the validity of the entire dump into question, and is extremely misleading and dishonest. Not to mention the fact that strategic redactions are a great way to manipulate public opinion...what else did the leaker excise from--or add to--the originals? There's literally no way to know.
TL;DR: Wikileaks makes spreading disinformation easy.
A handful of people discussing a hypothetical situation is in no way indicative of reality, and ignores a basic understanding of the real world environment of sustainability. Post scarcity implies that resources will be readily available as well as easily found.
It blatantly ignores the fact that as a species, humanities population trends have caused us to use more than we can produce in a given year. That's not post scarcity. That's exacerbating scarcity.
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/earth-overshoot-day-2015
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/07/impending-crisis-earth-to-run-out-of-food-by-2050/
Blind idealism is nice to aspire to, but it's not reality.