Non-participating is outside of the scope of competition. Do note there is also a "Meta" competition which each of those subjects you mentioned are all vying f

Non-participating is outside of the scope of competition. Do note there is also a "Meta" competition which each of those subjects you mentioned are all vying for market share amongst each other. For example - Twilight fan subculture is dwindling, online gaming subculture is growing. Given a finite, albeit considerably large, number of resources, each subject, at the "Meta" level, competes with each other for the [wo]manhours of eyes spent and invested on it. To get to the bigger point: Within each of those "arenas" you posited, there are few winners and many losers. Money actually is a minor concern even in our society today. Money is a means to an end. A "fictional" fiat currency does not hold inherent value but the purchasing power that comes with it! And actually, amongst professional poker and golf players, the top players have shown time and time again to have already removed themselves from the prize money and are in it for the victory, despite the "Purse" being what every casual observer sees. Wearing the Green Jacket of the Masters means significantly more to many of the seasoned players than the money. In your "abundance-utopia-with-competition" the status is everything, and to be quite honest, it has already been everything. Save for the barest of bones, rags-to-riches stories of people going from dead broke to being successful, many people at the top of their fields would have been fine, monetarily speaking, if they didn't have this success. But the key phrase here is "monetarily speaking." - - More importantly to many people than the money, the mating opportunities do not come to losers. We are closer to chimps than bonobos. That inherently is not a utopia. You're missing this.