Agree with most of your post except: as long as they know it is not the real thing, they'll want the real thing instead.

The way both video gaming and social media have exploded as cultural forces makes me think inauthenticity won't be a problem for the majority at some point. Many people already seem more than happy to judge themselves by their friend counts, Instagram likes, and go on voyages and have experiences online rather than meet up in real life.

I personally think simulated Venice could well be better than the real thing for most, as long as the real world remains relatively expensive, dangerous, and uncomfortable (compared to sitting in your house). There will always be people who prefer real experiences, but I think that group will continue to shrink.

I think so too, in as much as I noted elsewhere I think a large part (not the whole picture, but a large part) of why authenticity is a big deal today is the perception (though not always, true) that what is authentic is better in some tangible way. While it may be wrong sometimes, that idea persists because it often is true.

But at some point the virtual Venice will be better than the real thing: the temperature will never exceed what you find comfortable even if your travel companions have different preferences; there will never be too many tourists; your hotel room is more luxurious than anything you could hope for in real life; somehow you always find what you were looking for even when you read the map wrong. You always get a seat at your favorite restaurant. The buildings are cleaner. The "flaws" are just at the appropriate level to make you feel it's authentic.

More importantly, virtual plain-old Venice will have to compete with virtual Space Venice, where canals float between islands floating in space, or Renaissance Venice, or Black Death Venice for the horror fans, or Vegas-style Venice, or Godzilla-attack Venice, or Lego Venice, or any number of crazy variations.

Places like Venice are also important to us now because it stands out so much. But to people growing up with higher and higher quality virtual environments it will seem more and more boring and bland when compared to modern re-interpretations.

To put it another way: "My" Superman movie was the first Christopher Reeve one. It's the "authentic" one. I measure the new Superman actors against that one. I measure new Zod's against that one. But it was not first Superman movie, and I haven't even seen the older ones. And to many in my sons generation, it's some old movie that's far too slow-moving that most of them have not seen or heard of.

To take another example: The painting Scream, that to some already is "that painting that looks a bit like the Scream mask".

To generations growing up with virtual Venice 2100 with taller, more impressive buildings, more dramatic bridges, and other "upgrades", real Venice may soon enough become "that boring city that looks a bit like virtual Venice 2100 but isn't as nice".

> Either we use market-based mechanisms (which implies the existence of currencies), or else we turn to socialist-style central planning, in which the government gets to decide who has their aspirations fulfilled and who misses out.

There's nothing in socialism that requires central planning. In fact, there are forms of socialism (e.g. market communism) that explicitly include market mechanisms as one solution for allocation of resources.

So I tend to agree with you that currencies won't disappear until we're well past "basic post-scarcity" aka. nobody needs to go hungry or homeless. To get rid of currency entirely we likely need much more fundamental cultural changes and far more extensive abilities to create what we want.

I don't think "authenticity" will survive as a major driver that long past meeting sufficiently good virtual environments, because while it may have a certain charm, with "good enough" virtual environments, reality can be trounced in other factors. E.g. the real Mona Lisa is utterly unimpressive in person: It's tiny. You can't get really up close to it. Many people who have seen it - me included - mention being left thinking "that's it?" A "virtual Louvre" could easily present a "better than real" version of it that I suspect would quickly seduce people away from caring much about that authenticity.

A large part of why authenticity matters today is that we perceive it as better. But if the "authentic" experience consistently becomes drab and dull and trite compared to the copies, the appeal will gradually diminish.

Even so, in the intervening period, we can certainly move product and services between two categories: One where we merely care about tracking consumption to allocate resources to manufacture and distribution efficiently, but otherwise people can consume what they want, and one where we need to mediate and restrict use because we can not yet meet the full, unconstrained demand without sacrificing something else.

I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting that everyone should get everything they want. Everyone should be entitled to a small apartment reasonably near their preferred location, clothes, food, medical care, and a small stipend for necessaries, without having to prove their worthiness through labor. If you want an apartment in Venice, or a New York penthouse, or a Lamborghini? Then you need to get a job.

I feel like this could work really well for artists. Live on UBI, produce as much as you like, and put it on the internet. If people like it, and you want more money to play with, start a Patreon or similar. Everybody wins.

The venice example would actually work pretty somewhat week with a socialist-style central authority: Make sure everyone can live in Venice for a time, then pass on their flat to the next on the list.