Re: Death of Leisure? (was Re: Trans-extropian principles)

Tim Freeman (
Fri, 2 Aug 1996 05:52:16 -0700

Robin Hanson wrote:
>Just because things will get competitive doesn't mean you can't have
>fun indefinitely if you choose. Just get rich enough before the
>transition, and resist the urge to spend it all or copy yourself.

Then Tim Freeman wrote:
>Well, maybe. If property rights hold up well enough, then yes, I
>suppose that might work. If the pleasure-seeker is too slow in
>adopting advanced technology, then I suspect their property rights
>would be violated somehow.

Then Robin Hanson wrote:
>Most of us don't protect our property rights by adopting advanced
>technology. We don't keep up on the lastest kinds of weapons to
>protect ourselves from predators. We hire other people to do that.

The advanced technology I had in mind wasn't weapons; I agree that you
can hire out self-defense. The technology I had in mind was various
ways to enhance productivity of a given set of natural resources. As
you state above, making copies is one example. Changing how
motivation works is another example that might defeat the pleasure
seeker more directly by making the pleasure seeker seek something

If your personal productivity lags far enough behind the productivity
of the intruders, then the costs of self-defense might go up faster
than you can afford. Of course, the technology for self-defense would
be advancing too, which might push it down. I do not know the
ultimate outcome.

It is said that life expands to fill the available niches. If the
pleasure seeker is far enough behind, then in comparison with the
competition he will start to look like a niche rather than like life.
Technology might indefinitely forestall the natural outcome, or it
might exacerbate it. I do not know.

Tim Freeman