>Some of those , like arts and philosophy and exploration and adventure would not generate an income, and would be done for free/fun.
Why would they not generate income? Currently all of those activities are done both for fun and for profit.
Why would they not generate income? Currently all of those activities are done both for fun and for profit.
My idea would be in the struggle to accumulate/protect capital, in a world where human materialistic needs are perfectly met. The money will flow into highly risky creative projects. Where the vast vast majority of projects are expected to fail, funded by highly diversified funds.
Virtually everyone would be expected to obtain/raise money working for these funds on creative projects. It would be considered the 'norm'.
Kickstarter for example could be beginning of this
We're quite far from that utopian world.That will take long political struggle. My guess is that when we're there , machines will probably surpass humans even in the arts.
Even if not,as far as i know ,the "youtube economy" i.e. people who earn full time salary on you tube is quite small. So i'm a bit pessimistic about it filling the economy.
The point is that money making projects will be so rare, that people would have no choice but to put money into projects that have the remotest chance making money. Funds will fund millions/billions of projects on the basis of finding one superstar project. They would diversified on a massive scale. This would be better than letting money flounder.
That or a kickstarter model where people simply give money to projects that interests them.
And from that pile of money, the industry has quite an efficient ways to find superstar projects. On the other hand, on the surface your way doesn't seem efficient or profitable , and it even goes against improvements we made in that process like using big data.
And with regards to kickstarter, i haven't yet though about how it and the future.
Except that work will be the only work left. So money will have to flow to it.