Opening Excerpt

[ColGray]

I think the bigger issue is that on a cosmic scale there is always a physical scarcity of all resources, not just food.

I disagree with that assertion outside of an maximum / equilibrium population scenario. There is a scarcity of easily accessible resources--but even that is predicated on population, time, lack of re-use and our current understanding of what resources are "useful".

If fusion power is available, and we know it's scientifically possible given stars, then the question becomes: can energy and the application of gravonic and/or quantum forces alter matter and elements across states? There's decent evidence, today, to suggest that, yes, matter could, theoretically, be altered given sufficient inputs and energy. So, given a lot of matter and functionally limitless but potentially trickled, energy, the scarcity isn't around resources: it's around easy resources.

I chose to say, yes: we have fusion power and can alter matter from basic inputs because i think it makes for a more interesting story. I think exploring the differences between societies that embrace that and the societies which repress that is interesting. I think it's reflective of our current human condition and draws a neat corollary to current disparities between gender equality, sexual equality, secular equality, personal rights, privacy, the role/rights of the individual vs the role of the corporation and the role of corporations in the public square.

I think exploring the idea of scarcity, in the face of functional post-scarcity, is deeply interesting. That there are people who would impose scarcity on populations because it gives them power doesn't feel far fetched: it feels super relevant to life in 2024 and I like poking that idea and exploring it. If that's not your bag, hey, cool.

 

[Logan Selmes]

I think it's definitely worth exploring.

At the point of altering matter, I think you have billions of individual human gods that supersede all governments, which is basically what a lot of theorists imagine when they talk about post-singularity existence. I have my doubts about that, but such ideas are popular in those circles.

The individual then becomes the supreme force in the universe instead of corporations, including not just entities like Toyota or Costco and their future equivalents, but also large corporations such as national governments with militaries (the old Soviet Union, the contemporary United States or future governments), given the definition of corporation as "a company or group of people acting as a single entity."

Why bother depending on a bureaucracy to do what you can easily do for yourself with good enough technology? At that point of technological advancement, you don't need to get food or resources from anybody other than yourself. Any bureaucracy at all seems redundant.

Instead, you could just go wherever you want with whoever you want, or even nobody else if you prefer, and find/use/alter whatever matter you need without outside influence.

 

[RJM Corbet]

I am certainly not an expert, but my one overriding thought is wether you could intersperse the first 'scene setting' paragraphs within the dialogue below it. It's great descriptive prose, but could it be better with dialogue?

I'm with @The Bloated One

The characters would come more to life if they spoke. The 'flashing' images are all good, but it's a bit like a movie intro -- difference being that once pressed play on a movie, the viewer can just sit back and let it roll, at least for a while, no work or investment required, whereas reading is different and the reader needs a reason to be interested in the characters first, before turning pages?

The earlier the character development can happen the better -- else they're just names ... imo?

But I read it through and found it good and intelligent writing overall