... but your proposal would reward them equally. o_O
I don't really understand what your objection is. Do you think that Nsync deserves more money that van gogh, or vice versa? I don't know, which is why i suggested rewarding them equally.
Which is a value judgment that asserts that Van Gogh and Nsync are of equal artistic merit. Equal payouts is not some magically value-neutral point.
No it's not. But neither is letting the free market decide. If you do that, you're asserting that Nsync is worth 10 million times more than Van Gogh.
So paying Nsync 10 million more times than Van Gogh is a value judgment, but paying them the same by fiat is not? I repeat, equal payouts is not some magically value-neutral point.
I don't think this problem is solvable short of time machines. The ideal solution would be to say that Van Gogh's art, though less popular immediately than Nsync, definitely wins out in the long-term. Furthermore, it has a solid impact on the progress of art, and has a much stronger impact on work by other artists. So, what you do is you have some means of tracking the influences on any new works, and use that to give them a cut of the profits. Like a pyramid scheme, you see.
And then you send that money back in time to when the guy was still alive.
The issue is that it's easy to say "This person's work was significant" when it's already been a hundred years and you can SEE what has been done with it. However, I doubt you could reliably predict what will, in a hundred years, be considered significant. It may be possible to have experts predict this sort of thing with some degree of accuracy, but a system such as that would struggle to maintain relevant and non-corrupt.
The Star Trek universe had very visible differences in power and rationing. The captain's quarters were still the best quarters and the captain had immense power compared to some dude who sold drinks. Despite essentially endless resources, nobody had unlimited access to those resources.
Further to that point - we don't see a lot of average Federation citizens in Star Trek. It's not unreasonable to suggest that they have the resources to provide everyone on Earth (or a similar highly populated and developed world) with a home, a replicator and access to a holodeck type facility. In some ways that is "post-scarcity", but there are still things that are being rationed. Power is one of those things, but also stuff like the chance to get off whatever planet you were born on and go off exploring. The thing is, we never see the (presumably billions) of people who are happy to replicate KFC Double-Downs and have holodeck sex all day, because the stories in Star Trek aren't about them.
This is pretty much exactly what happens in Peter Watts' book Blindsight. Most humans choose to enter permanent comas and live in a VR paradise where they can do anything.
The human race promptly goes extinct within a decade or so.
Brian888 on
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
The Star Trek universe had very visible differences in power and rationing. The captain's quarters were still the best quarters and the captain had immense power compared to some dude who sold drinks. Despite essentially endless resources, nobody had unlimited access to those resources.
Further to that point - we don't see a lot of average Federation citizens in Star Trek. It's not unreasonable to suggest that they have the resources to provide everyone on Earth (or a similar highly populated and developed world) with a home, a replicator and access to a holodeck type facility. In some ways that is "post-scarcity", but there are still things that are being rationed. Power is one of those things, but also stuff like the chance to get off whatever planet you were born on and go off exploring. The thing is, we never see the (presumably billions) of people who are happy to replicate KFC Double-Downs and have holodeck sex all day, because the stories in Star Trek aren't about them.
This is pretty much exactly what happens in Peter Watts' book Blindsight. Most humans choose to enter permanent comas and live in a VR paradise where they can do anything.
The human race promptly goes extinct within a decade or so.
Does this lead to the question that adversity is necessary for growth and survival?
Posts
I don't think this problem is solvable short of time machines. The ideal solution would be to say that Van Gogh's art, though less popular immediately than Nsync, definitely wins out in the long-term. Furthermore, it has a solid impact on the progress of art, and has a much stronger impact on work by other artists. So, what you do is you have some means of tracking the influences on any new works, and use that to give them a cut of the profits. Like a pyramid scheme, you see.
And then you send that money back in time to when the guy was still alive.
The issue is that it's easy to say "This person's work was significant" when it's already been a hundred years and you can SEE what has been done with it. However, I doubt you could reliably predict what will, in a hundred years, be considered significant. It may be possible to have experts predict this sort of thing with some degree of accuracy, but a system such as that would struggle to maintain relevant and non-corrupt.
This is pretty much exactly what happens in Peter Watts' book Blindsight. Most humans choose to enter permanent comas and live in a VR paradise where they can do anything.
Does this lead to the question that adversity is necessary for growth and survival?