[tempestn]

I agree that it would be terrible science, but since that seems so clear - the bicycles could barely power the screens in front of them at the speed the people were riding, let alone the greater world - I gave them the benefit of the doubt and assumed that they're literally make-work. The (presumably uneducated) riders may believe they're doing something necessary, but this could be a picture of a dystopian post-scarcity future when both work and scarcity are imposed artificially simply to keep people in line.

[Evolved]

Agreed. I didn't take from this that they were powering society for the 1%. I took that they were powering their own world and earning currency to keep them otherwise entertained. If you look at the small picture of what was going on, it is easy to see that perhaps they were cycling to power something to just to earn said currency in order to enjoy futuristic creature comforts like not having to watch commercials, eating healthier food, dressing up their avatar, etc. However, I took the idea of cycling as a way to occupy people's time and found that it could easily be a way to reduce or eliminate crime. If people are always riding in order to earn money to buy trivial things then they really have no time to be doing anything nefarious. I noticed nobody was watching a news channel or reading a newspaper which leads me to believe the trivial things (skipping commercials, food that is healthier and thus more expensive thus requiring more riding, and dressing up your avatar) are just enough to keep them satiated but not enough to invoke any feelings of unrest that could foster rebellion within the system (for the most part).

[lucideer]

I see this as part of the point of the episode. It's about control: the cycling is supposed to be pointless, many of the riders may even be aware of this, but speaking out against it just gets you... well... [spoilers]

[Torgo]

other than being post-scarcity, I'd say recycling is literally almost this. it's not actually all that valuable as an activity and functions more as penance for the sin of consumerism.

[tempestn]

Do you have references for that? There are many challenges involved in recycling, and it's certainly far more valuable to reduce consumption and increase re-use, but any review I've seen still shows recycling having a significant net environmental benefit.

[Torgo]

No that's basically exactly what I mean. If you really care about the environment you'll reduce consumption. If you sort of feel bad about the environment, you'll sort your trash but keep buying mountains of throwaway products that can be nominally reclaimed. It's still a massive waste of time, effort and material even if somebody can reclaim the material for other worthless products like direct-mail flyers or whatever later. There is no path to sustainability that does not entail consuming less.

[icelancer]

Only certain materials are truly valuable - they're the ones people pay to recycle. Metal-based recycling is incredibly valuable to the population and environment.

[akvadrako]

And on top of that, it's valuable enough that you don't need to worry about it, because eventually someone will mine the trash for the metals they need.