5 ms·

Yes, because artists and creative writers make up the upper echelon of our society, and Wall Street bankers, doctors, lawyers, politicians and business executiv

Yes, because artists and creative writers make up the upper echelon of our society, and Wall Street bankers, doctors, lawyers, politicians and business executives are staying at the bottom of the social ladder. (To be fair, one can say bankers, lawyers, politicians and business execs are constantly engaging in creative work, as in creating new ways to circumvent any obstacles, including laws and regulations, to accumulate more wealth and influence ^_^)

dkrich 13y ago
Creatives go beyond the arts. People who are able to contribute new inventions and create new industries are creatives too. I think the point is that when technology becomes so advanced to make the cost of most everything trivial, you'd have to be pretty extraordinary to create any new invention of value.
- Cookingboy 13y ago
  Yes, people who are more innovative at their trade usually end up a step ahead, this has been true throughout our entire civilization and is not a new discovery. I don't think that's what Asimov meant though, if you read the context of his prediction, I actually think he meant creative arts, since all "necessary" functions and jobs of the society would have been automated under his prediction.
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    The immediate extension of this line of thought (IMHO) is to ask what is "art" and what is "necessary". Architecture seems like an example of both. Also, I think scientists definitely qualify as "creative workers", and will do so as long as there are unknowns in the universe (like how the brain works, what the universe is made of, stuff like that). For example, wouldn't you call Einstein's work "creative"?
Helianthus 13y ago
I don't think Asimov necessarily meant 'elite' to equal 'upper echelon,' and I think we do a disservice in thinking of Wall Street bankers, at least, as in the 'upper echelon' of our society--they're just rich, not respected except in the fleeting respect for money. (Though I share your ^_^)

dkrich 13y ago

Creatives go beyond the arts. People who are able to contribute new inventions and create new industries are creatives too. I think the point is that when technology becomes so advanced to make the cost of most everything trivial, you'd have to be pretty extraordinary to create any new invention of value.

Cookingboy 13y ago
Yes, people who are more innovative at their trade usually end up a step ahead, this has been true throughout our entire civilization and is not a new discovery. I don't think that's what Asimov meant though, if you read the context of his prediction, I actually think he meant creative arts, since all "necessary" functions and jobs of the society would have been automated under his prediction.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  The immediate extension of this line of thought (IMHO) is to ask what is "art" and what is "necessary". Architecture seems like an example of both. Also, I think scientists definitely qualify as "creative workers", and will do so as long as there are unknowns in the universe (like how the brain works, what the universe is made of, stuff like that). For example, wouldn't you call Einstein's work "creative"?

Helianthus 13y ago

I don't think Asimov necessarily meant 'elite' to equal 'upper echelon,' and I think we do a disservice in thinking of Wall Street bankers, at least, as in the 'upper echelon' of our society--they're just rich, not respected except in the fleeting respect for money. (Though I share your ^_^)