This era is already ending. I’m 31 and teens don’t know more about computers than most of my friends, and they definitely don’t know more about technology than 25-year-olds.

They might use different technologies and systems–more text messaging, less email–but they don’t have a fundamental basic knowledge of anything that older folks don’t. By contrast I understand computers like my father never will.

New technologies, as they’re developed, seem likely to me to be adopted as widely by people in their 20s and 30s as young folks.

Your thinking seems to assume that there is an upper limit to desire.

If I am indeed thinking , my thought is more along the lines that desires can be achieved in ways other than money. Look at Linux and other open source software. People work on it, but they don’t get paid.

Also, your thinking seems to assume that the only entities on the planet capable of doing human work are humans. I think even before the middle of this century, that won’t be true for the vast majority of current human jobs.

For example, Brad Pitt gets paid millions of dollars per picture. But I think before mid-century it will be possible to produce a movie with a CGI Brad Pitt that is completely indistinguishable from the real Brad Pitt. So who is going to pay the real Brad Pitt, if CGI Brad Pitts are available for free? And even if they do pay Brad Pitt, who is going to pay $10 to see a Brad Pitt movie with the real Brad Pitt if a 1000 CGI Brad Pitt movies are available for free?

Again, if everyone had a billion-dollar trust fund and was immortal there would still be competition for relative status and or scarce resources.

There might be competition among humans, but there needn’t be among machines. How are the humans who want to compete going to be able to compete with the machines who will work for free, and with the “open source” humans who are also willing to work for free (even if that does not include the entire population of humans)?

There are currently recipients of philanthropy who are well above subsistence income (not only through things like strict social welfare, but also through arts grants, etc.)

Yes, because, for example, the members of symphony orchestras aren’t all immortal billionaires. If they were all immortal billionaires,

Even if we were all billionaires, I am not convinced that there would not be trillionaire philanthropists.

If I was an immortal billionaire, I’d be too embarrassed to accept money from a trillionaire philanthropist. (I think. I hope to be in the position to find out, but I was probably born 50 years too early.)

Again, if everyone had a billion-dollar trust fund and was immortal there would still be competition for relative status and or scarce resources.

There are currently recipients of philanthropy who are well above subsistence income (not only through things like strict social welfare, but also through arts grants, etc.) Even if we were all billionaires, I am not convinced that there would not be trillionaire philanthropists.

For instance, if further technological advances and additional materials and energy could sustain my life indefinitely, why would I at any point become sated?

I agree you wouldn’t. I think technological advances will be available within this century such that you can sustain your life indefinitely. So what other things would people demand money for, if they are already immortal?

Even if your desires are to work merely for power or philanthropic ends an individual requires resources to attain those ends.

What philanthropic end is there if everyone is born with a billion dollar trust fund?

And how could individuals obtain power if everyone could obtain whatever it is these individuals are selling for virtually nothing?

In Asimov’s early works*, the Spacers are extremely individualistic societies. One of their planets even has a population of only 10,000 people, each of them living completely on their own, served by armies of robots. This culture eventually dies out. By contrast, protagonist Elijah Bailey lives on earth in domed cities with communal eating halls, and a rigid bureaucratic class system that regulates everything. They eventually overtake the previous space colonists (the Spacers) and spread out into space to become the Galactic Empire.
Much later (in the series), the Galactic Empire, corrupt and inefficient, collapses, and this is the start of the Dark Ages, a reversion to barbarism. Only after a millenium of chaos does a new and improved Second Galactic Empire spring up. And this is all predicted and planned by the protagonist, Hari Seldon, through analysis of the collective behavior of humanity as a whole.

On the other hand, in Dune, a totalitarian Empire is deliberately created by Leto II, and exists for thousands of years in order to suppress humanity so deeply that it eventually explodes in a Minsky moment; the enforced stability must give way to raging instability. To Herbert, the resulting Scattering of humanity in space, very similar to Asimov’s Dark Ages, is not a temporary reversal to barbarism in order to create a new Empire, but rather the end goal in itself. The chaos and the fact that interconnectedness is very low ensures humanity’s survival.

This line of thinking is completely alien to Asimov, with his power-behind-the-throne Foundation controlling everything, and in turn being secretly controlled by the Second Foundation. Asimov’s Hari Seldon and Herbert’s Leto II can both look into the future, but one does it through scientific analysis to predict exact events, while the other can only glimpse unpredictable trends and does his very best to make the course of humanity unpredictable. One creates instability to end in stability, the other does the complete opposite.

* The End of Eternity is a notable exception.

They are financially sated.

I wouldn’t argue that it is not possible to renounce worldly possessions, desire for additional resources, and all that. But I suggest that it is unlikely-to-the-point-of-impossibility that it will become a universal attitude. (Much like Robin’s argument above about sustained near-zero population growth rates.) It is simply not a resilient aspect of human nature and sociology. Even in a society where every child is born with a billion dollar trust fund there would still be invidious comparison. Further, even sans social competition, it is not necessarily rational that individuals should at any point choose to forgo additional resources. For instance, if further technilogical advances and additional materials and energy could sustain my life indefinitely, why would I at any point become sated?

Even if your desires are to work merely for power or philanthropic ends an individual requires resources to attain those ends. Resources being scarce (at some point), they must be competed for in a marketplace.

You are positing that our wants are not unlimited. You will not have to look far to find that there are many deca-millionaires who are not financially sated. In fact, likewise deca-billionaires.

They are financially sated. What they aren’t is satisfied with doing nothing. Bill Gates is financially sated. Warren Buffet is financially sated. The Waltons are financially sated. What they aren’t is satisfied with is doing nothing.

Why would this change if we were all multi-millionaires?

Ugh, I hate to do this, but there was a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode that addressed this. A millionaire (among others) was frozen and sent into space right before he died. When the Enterprise found their ship, the millionaire was depressed because money was irrelevant. But he realized/acknowledged that it was never about the money, even in his own time. It was about power.

People will work even after money becomes obsolete…which it may even in the lifetime of some who read this. They will work because doing nothing is boring.

Do you really think that if everyone had the equivalent of 20 million dollars (in today’s dollars) there would be any need for such thing as an “economy”?

Yes. While I think there is something to what you’re saying (and perhaps think what you are saying should be true), I do not think it is the case.

On the first day of many students’ first economics class they will learn some variation of: “Economics is the study of how individuals and societies satisfy their unlimited wants relative to their limited means.” You are positing that our wants are not unlimited. You will not have to look far to find that there are many deca-millionaires who are not financially sated. In fact, likewise deca-billionaires. Why would this change if we were all multi-millionaires? As has been noted, the mean human income is already many multiples of subsistence levels, why should anyone be striving for more now?