[gfodor]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding. The point is you simply will not get certain creative works in this model. They will not be worth the opportunity cost. There is no reality where you get “no scarcity” as well as “all the creative works you would have gotten with scarcity.” (Ie, probably most of those which have led to our present day wealth.)

Your proposed world is to say we ought to just not have people create lots of stuff they would have otherwise, in the name upholding a philosophical principle. Which is fine, but own that, and don’t act as though its the just the deficiencies of others leading to a world where you do not get a endless stream of value from them.

[tomc1985]

I'm willing to lose "some" creative works because of a lack of scarcity. Speaking from experience, artists will always want to create. That is the creative drive. There is no reason that work should not be accessible to all if the technology allows for it.

If it would mean less profiteers, less fakers, less pretenders, less sharks, less debutantes, less tourists... I'm all for it.

There are plenty of ways to profit as an artist without locking up one's work to a privileged few

Will the artistic landscape be different? Sure. But it would be a worthy change.

[gfodor]

What you’re saying is that the artists who are currently paid for their work either will create it gratis or we can live without it. A fairly bold claim to make that this would be a worthy change, given the loss of creative work and loss of quality of life to those who create it that it would yield. Particularly when the counter argument is just to let artists produce work on their own terms, which will arguably be a better local maximum of the version of the world you advocate for and the one we have today.