Thanks for hanging in there, Marcia. I think we are getting closer to sync.

My use of "excess baggage" is even more mundane than getting rid of divides. It's hard, especially for us who argue current events so passionately, to mentally slip into a future several centuries from now in which our arguments don't matter. Mental noodling about a post-capitalistic economic system has no bearing on the next election; being able to say "it doesn't matter" is intellectually liberating. Coming up with some good ideas for building on the successes of capitalism wouldn't invalidate capitalism. It's all science fiction.

"Does it even need defending given its succes in today's world?" Yes, capitalism in a free society needs to be defended because of the likes of extreemists like al-Quaeda,

I just meant intellectual defense. I made a point of "surrendering" in my opening post by acknowledging that capitalism & free markets had brought us this far. I'd like to think that it's a sign of respect to want to build upon that success. A child's success doesn't invalidate his/her parents.

You're probably right that even in a future when nobody need lift a finger to survive and live comfortably, some "game", with a scoring system, will be developed to keep things interesting. It's human nature that a large number of people will be content to coast and sit on the couch watching the 24th century equivalent of TV--that's where the holodeck comes in, I guess. But others will still want to create and learn and explore. The trick is to design a society that allows that free choice.

Maybe what triggered so much opposition in the discussion of a future in which people could choose to be idle is that it goes against the Puritan morality that's intertwined with the present capitalistic economic ideology. As far as morality goes, I require it to demonstrate its usefulness against the tangible criteria of harm--if people can choose to be idle without harming others, prove to me the immorality of it (without resorting to supernatural concepts like souls and God's will). In this instance I would argue that it's immoral to make people jump through artificial hoops when it's unnecessary, because it demeans people to take away their freedom to conduct their own lives as they see fit. In other words, if it becomes possible someday for people to live without working for others, then there's a moral imperative to provide that choice. (I thought conservatives believed in respecting individual freedom? Hmmm?)

I guess my frustration comes from not being able to move the discussion beyond 20th Century mindsets (the baggage) to consider what possibilities might open up in the 24th, given a starting premise like abundance. But I'm getting over it....

(I hope I didn't make it worse now. Darn it, Robert, I'm not perfect yet. lol)

Me neither, Marcia, me neither. Sorry I got a little testy there in the middle.