[DougF]

It sounds like a good time to explore space and expand our minds,

you have to do something to keep you busy or you will just sit on the porch and waste away.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

If all resource and energy problems are solved, where will that leave the human race? ... Do we have a possible role to play in the universe that has nothing to do with the struggle for survival?

....Once you're in no immediate danger of dying from hunger, it seems humanity settles down to a slow simmer of sloth. Obviously, there are exceptions, and plenty of them. But a thousand in a population of millions, is pitifully few, and telling of the average

....How will we bide our time?

So going back to my first post above, lack of scarcity may not *inhibit* creativity (that is, be necessary to generate it), but it will lessen its value.

There was an intellectually snobbish screed by an art critic in the SF Chronicle last week dismissing Dale Chihuly's amazing glass works because they didn't *mean* anything:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Baker, SF Chronicle, 7/5/08

Perhaps dreamy color, glossy surfaces and flamboyant design - the signal qualities of Chihuly's work - should be enough. But in a culture where only intellectual content still distinguishes art from knickknacks, they are not.

Of course I love Chihuly, so I think Mr. Baker is an idiot for his incredibly elitist opinion of what constitutes art, but it does beg the question:

If *meaning* is required to create art and there's no conflict, no problems to solve, no causes, no reason for being, then is there any *joy* left in being creative?

I'll be a positivist and say that if its pretty, I like it, so maybe there's hope for us!

In any case, what is there for people to do if they're not creative? Competition maybe? We could all start playing golf I guess....

Painting: The art of protecting flat surfaces from the weather, and exposing them to the critic,
Buffy

[TheBigDog]

Great question. I think even with abundance of energy there is still a question of distribution. Lets say that this energy source is used to power the electrical grid. There is still the cost of maintaining the grid to be considered, so the power is not free, but the cost is down considerably.

Electric does not help with transportation. With the infrastructure as it is the best solution that I see is using this electric power to produce hydrogen, and then use the hydrogen for most transportation needs. This would require retrofitting current cars, trucks, trains, planes, etc. This gives us the green effect and utilizes the infinite energy source to provide energy when and where it is needed.

OK, so all of that is done. The only thing that has really changed is economics. We have reduced the price of things be reducing the energy cost (not eliminated). The overall effect of such a shift in economics would be interesting to track. But it would not solve all of the world issues, it would only change the motivations.

And for those who think the oil industry would stop, think again. It would slow down over time, but look at how reliant we are on petroleum by-products. We might like giving up gasoline and diesel, but not plastic!

As for other changes. It would not make any more food grow. It would not make supply chains any shorter. It would not improve medicine. It would not change the nature of human beings. But it could give us increased time to focus on those issues, and a new economic model to try and make changes for the better.

Bill