quote: Original post by nobodynews

What is the point? I don''t want *A* woman, I want someone who is special, who makes me feel special because I know their individualism. What if I made a chair or painting for a friend? It becomes an item which has special meaning for US. Also, without individuality, who would even WANT to design a chair, a chair that CAN''T be their own because anyone can have it?
I want a utopia, but that doesn''t mean we still can''t have individuality.

A lil'' debate??? Why, sure!!!

I love that this society is so alien it would bend the brain of our Western dominated civilization.

Keep in mind that there are many cultures that pride the group over the individual. The West, and America in particular, can be said to worship "hyperindividualism." As a result of this, scarcity and uniqueness are exalted-- even when they''re detrimental, impractical, and harmful concepts.

A few things can be surmised about s&s''s hypothetical culture: These are a people who have somehow stopped ranking themselves based on material possessions. Keeping up with the Jones'' was bread out because of the utter futility of trying to do so.

They may believe that to simply breathe, experience pleasure, and be alive in plenty is enough. Consumerism then would be dead. Consumerism is driven by stoking insecurities and rampantly inflating desire: that''s the aim of commercialism, to convince you to buy things (you mostly don''t need).

Replication technology would have probably caused the eventual collapse of the free market worldwide. It probably started out simple: Practical items like food, medicine, and clothing were duplicated. But this soon extended to other items. Business interests would have fought ferociously against this (look at AIDS drugs and patents involving 3rd world countries as an example).

The people who value uniqueness would have ultimately given over to practicality. For decades or even centuries niche consumer goods markets might have thrived. It would ultimately be the children of successive generations, however, that would make this work.

They would have grown up amid plenty. The concept of artificial scarceness-- especially that created to assuage someone''s ego-- would have drawn reactions ranging from the perplexed to the downright offended.

The children would eventually be a new people, as different to us now as we would be to pre-Agricultural Revolution nomads. Our values and beliefs would be quite alien, but just as with all humans I bet we could find several common threads.

It''s actually a civilization that I wish I could live in...

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by bishop_pass

Regardless how your society is supposed to function, there will be a seething undercurrent of material desire. In fact, because of the difficulty in satisfying it, it will be sought after all the more.

Actually, this all depends on who''s still around. You could look at this as a steady transition, or an abrupt change. Consider who we were before the Industrial Revolution. Almost everything-- was handmade. Societies held craftspersons in high esteem. As machinery steadily advanced, we became more and more expendable.

Economics teaches that things are valuable because they''re rare. But the Replication Revolution would force fantastic changes in economics, creating a shockwave of philosophical thought that would eventually saturate the culture. What was once inconceivable would eventually become normal. (Humans are quite elastic.)

Consider your art example. I''m the sort of person that doesn''t at all value original works. I''m very utilitarian. It''s the essence of the thing that moves me, and I derive zero pleasure from unique ownership. I love space art, for instance, but whether it''s an original or a copy is no matter to me if the quality is the same.

The status stuff that goes with unique ownership to me is actually a bit perverse (environmental degradation and all..). So in me you have a prototypical citizen of this fictional society. Chalk it up to years of being poor and watching too much Star Trek, I guess.


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

S&S,

One thing to think about: In an age of replication, what prevents originals from being copied endlessly, and thus eliminating the need for subsequent craftspersons?

If you create one chair, it''s likely that that chair template could serve successive generations. Much like Europeans who have homes in their family that date back to the 1500s (versus America, where you''d be hard pressed to find average folks living in homes predating the 1900s).

This might actually be the expression for the unique / new that bishop was talking about...

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by Wavinator

A few things can be surmised about s&s''s hypothetical culture: These are a people who have somehow stopped ranking themselves based on material possessions. Keeping up with the Jones'' was bread out because of the utter futility of trying to do so.

But are we sure of this? If so, why the 3k limit? Are the inner workings of this society self imposed by unanimous decision? Everyone agrees to this? Then once again, why the 3k limit? I suspect the consumption mechanism of this economy has been imposed by a subset of its population.

Regarding rarity, by eliminating it, you have essentially made a rare item even more rare. What a tantalizing quest for our ''enlightened'' citizens! You see, it is not only the ownership of a rare item that satisfies, it is the puzzle of finding it.

Sunandshadow, as for the chair and the six duplicates arranged around the craftsman''s dining room table, let us hope this is not the case! Life is rich in texture and subltle nuance. Each chair, although of the same design, should have its own unique character, visible within its grain and texture. By having them all the same, you have effectively removed variety from our sensory inputs.

To answer both Wavinator and Bishop_Pass: People get bored, people enjoy designing new and different chairs, and people have different opinions of what''s esthetically pleasing. So now you have ten thousand types of chair available at the mall - how often do you think you''re going to see the same one in two people''s houses? I wear almost all mass-produced clothing, but it''s really unusual for me to see someone else wearing the same clothing because most people have different taste than I do.

Also, do you admire an artist''s ability any less if their art is duplicated? Every time someone makes a cool new chair they''ll probably have a party thrown in their honor because everyone''s bored and wanting something new to look at and an excuse to party, in addition to genuinely admiring the artist''s talent. Maybe the whole social structure will depend on how good and prolific a craftsperson you are.

I''ve read and considered all the previous posts and have come up with a few ideas of my own. First off, It seemas as though the government is in control here. They are deciding how the items are to be rationed and in addition where these malls are located. Is it not conceivable then that the government, realizing the greddy nature of human beings and wanting to suppress feelings of individualism, would allow items to be replicated, then confiscate the originals and destroy them? This would eliminate the quest for rare items and perhaps solve some of the issues stated above, although i do not consider this an ethical action by any means.

Also, somewhere in the back of my mind I am having visions of "A Brave New World" and I am picturing a society fueled by depressant narcotics. The effects of such a drug would dismiss feelings of nervousness and anxiety concerning an indivual''s failure to be unique.This narcotic, being recognized by the government as a tool for maintaining socialism, would be freely distributed at the mall at no cost to any individual''s 3k limit.

Nobodynews and LunarAxis:

Actually I have read _The Giver_. I thought that it set science fiction back about three decades. :< (Useless trivia: there''s actually another book called _The Giver_ about a high school teacher who falls in love with one of his students.) _The Giver_ aside, I just fail to see how giving people lots of free time to make art with, free art supplies, and a Mall with the largest and most diverse selection you''ve ever seen, could possibly result in a society of people who aren''t individualistic.

The stated goal of the government is to make everybody happy, which includes giving them plenty of room to be unique. To twist a slogan: "To each according to his/her comfort; from each according to his/her whim."

quote: Original post by Wavinator

Keeping up with the Jones'' was bread out because of the utter futility of trying to do so.

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
But are we sure of this? If so, why the 3k limit? Are the inner workings of this society self imposed by unanimous decision? Everyone agrees to this? Then once again, why the 3k limit?

Matter replication doesn''t imply inexaustible fuel sources, so a 3K limit could pertain to that. Although I think something like this would be more ideological, in that it''s design is to prevent hoarding.

I could see this being self imposed in cases where ravenous Texas-style American consumption has driven the world to the brink of ecological collapse. Or I could see it in response to epidemic mental health issues (people who have gone insane collecting millions of useless chotchkes )

quote:
Regarding rarity, by eliminating it, you have essentially made a rare item even more rare. What a tantalizing quest for our ''enlightened'' citizens! You see, it is not only the ownership of a rare item that satisfies, it is the puzzle of finding it.

I think what you''re overlooking is the power aspect. You and several like minded folks could get together, manufacture the "rare thing," and hide it in the world in order to go on a quest for it. But it wouldn''t change national politics. It would be much more like geocaching, the new pastime that has arisen from people using GPS systems to hide useless items out in nature-- frivolous, fun, harmless.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by LunarAxis

First off, It seemas as though the government is in control here. They are deciding how the items are to be rationed and in addition where these malls are located. Is it not conceivable then that the government, realizing the greddy nature of human beings and wanting to suppress feelings of individualism, would allow items to be replicated, then confiscate the originals and destroy them? This would eliminate the quest for rare items and perhaps solve some of the issues stated above, although i do not consider this an ethical action by any means.

You have a unique item. I say, "so what" and replicate the same thing. Or nearly the same thing. This means that you can possess no material object that I can''t have. Does this send you spiraling in to depression? If so, I find this reaction very strange.

Why-- other than through the influence of mass marketing-- would someone define who and what they are by what they possess?

quote:
Also, somewhere in the back of my mind I am having visions of "A Brave New World" and I am picturing a society fueled by depressant narcotics. The effects of such a drug would dismiss feelings of nervousness and anxiety concerning an indivual''s failure to be unique.This narcotic, being recognized by the government as a tool for maintaining socialism, would be freely distributed at the mall at no cost to any individual''s 3k limit.

I think you''d have to drug Americans, mostly. We''re the ones with the strongest individuality mythos. Despite the way we live (cookie cutter homes, jobs, communities, hobbies) Americans would be the most vociferous in rejecting the idea of this kind of community.





--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by sunandshadow

_The Giver_ aside, I just fail to see how giving people lots of free time to make art with, free art supplies, and a Mall with the largest and most diverse selection you''ve ever seen, could possibly result in a society of people who aren''t individualistic.

The expression here is what''s noteworthy. Advertising has reinforced the notion that possession of unique items equals status. More rare and more valuable items display success to the world. This creates competitive pressures, and is how you get abominations like a six thousand dollar Mickey Mouse watch (ever read the Lexus and the Olive Tree? I''m paraphrasing the author''s general assertion, which I really agree with.)

Now, artistic expression is another thing entirely, and where I see the individuality of these hypothetical people really shining. You can see the model for this right here in this forum! Imagine if everyone here could create their own game instantly, at no cost: Do you think that we''d all think exactly the same thing? I don''t think so.

quote:
The stated goal of the government is to make everybody happy, which includes giving them plenty of room to be unique. To twist a slogan: "To each according to his/her comfort; from each according to his/her whim."

Funny.

Given the debate so far, though, a legitimate thing to think about: How would these people handle noncompliance? (This is OT, I know, but maybe helps highlight how this civilization works?)



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...