[extropy-chat] a future safe for us all to be Paris and Nicky Hilton

[Damien Broderick]

In an interesting interview with American sf writer Pamela Sargent,

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue394/interview.html

I find an amusing or perhaps terrifying idea (but yes, I do notice that it 
forgets to factor in self-augmentation, Hard Raptures and the like):

==============


Q: Your comic story "Originals" would seem to have a serious undertone, in 
that you undertake a critical examination of a world where society is based 
not on privation but rather on plenty. As on Star Trek, your characters 
here have matter replicators that fabricate their every need, converting 
any sort of mass into requested objects. Unlike Star Trek, however, the 
people who live in this utopia are just as shallow, vain and dumb as, well, 
people in any age. Seeing how society in "Originals" remains stratified 
according to manners and exclusivity, even in a world of unbelievable 
material wealth, strikes a true chord as well as a humorous one.

Sargent: It always seemed to me that almost all human beings have an innate 
capacity to be total slackers, and I include myself in that group. I have a 
built-in talent for indolence. If it weren't for my writing and the spur of 
needing to make a living, I could easily slack off most of the time. But 
stories and novels, in my experience, impose themselves on you and compel 
you to write them, and a low bank balance provides its own inspiration to 
work harder.

The fact is that a lot of people would not be doing what they do if they 
had plenty of money. How many lottery winners hang on to their old jobs? 
Years ago, I read in an article about John Grisham that he often had 
lawyers come up to him at book signings and congratulate him for being able 
to get out of that profession. Most writers would keep writing no matter 
how prosperous they are­Stephen King certainly isn't in it for the money at 
this point. I suspect that the same is true of most people who have devoted 
their lives to an occupation they love.

But the rest of us? I want a world where everyone is rich enough and 
prosperous enough to be as vacuous as Paris and Nicky Hilton, or Jenna and 
Barbara Bush, for that matter. Now there's a slogan for social change!

Q: I wonder if a society that offered universal wealth, whether in material 
terms, or by way of long life, or by making other things we want available 
in massive amounts, would end up being inhabited by dejected, depressed 
people. Already in our own society we see a people whose standard of living 
is incredibly high (by most historical and even contemporary standards) and 
yet as a society we are fearful, crabby, dissatisfied and 
self-absorbed­given to popping Prozac and Paxil as if they were Pez. Are we 
really suited to the level of wealth of which we dream?

Sargent: I don't know if we can draw any hard and fast conclusions about 
the effects of universal wealth from American culture. Many people who 
might be or seem very well off by any standard are also stressed out as 
hell trying to hang on to what they've got. I know people who actually fear 
extended periods of leisure, some because they've basically adapted to 
being workaholics, others because they deeply fear solitude. We're kind of 
a messed-up culture in a lot of ways; we sure as hell don't leave ourselves 
with a lot of inner resources.