I’m about half way through Nick Bostrom’s “Deep Utopia: Life and Meaning in a Solved World”.

I love it. I don’t love the discussion/socratic sections (skip), but I love the lecture sections.

Anyway, early on he talked through groups of people now/historical who don’t work as a model for what it might be like in a post-work future.

Obvious and helpful. Why didn’t I think of that. I typically read books about retirement/retirees to get thoughts in this space, but that is only one of many groups.

Anyway, talking about this with gpt5.2, there are way more groups of such people than I ever considered:

1. Age-based non-workers

These are groups where non-work is socially expected or protected.

  • Children – play, learning, exploration, dependence
  • Students – learning, experimentation, semi-autonomy
  • Retirees / the elderly – leisure, hobbies, volunteering, caregiving, reflection

Why they matter: They show that meaning, routine, and identity can exist without productive labor being central.

2. Wealth-based non-workers

Groups historically or presently freed from work by assets or inherited position.

  • Aristocrats / landed gentry
  • Rentiers (living off investments, rents, dividends)
  • Trust-fund heirs
  • Independently wealthy early retirees

Why they matter: They illustrate both the appeal (freedom, cultivation, creativity) and pathologies (boredom, decadence, aimlessness) of work-free lives.

3. Socially supported non-workers

People sustained by collective arrangements rather than markets.

  • Welfare recipients
  • People on basic income–like transfers
  • People supported by family networks
  • People with long-term disability support

Why they matter: They show how non-work life interacts with stigma, autonomy, and dignity when work norms remain dominant.

4. Institutional or enclosed non-workers

Groups removed from normal labor markets by institutional context.

  • Monks, nuns, religious ascetics
  • Members of intentional communities
  • Prisoners
  • Long-term patients or residents of care institutions

Why they matter: They demonstrate alternative rhythms of life (ritual, contemplation, routine) not oriented around productivity.

5. Temporarily non-working adults

People in extended periods without paid employment.

  • The unemployed
  • Sabbatical-takers
  • People between careers
  • Stay-at-home parents
  • Full-time caregivers

Why they matter: They highlight how hard it is to escape work-centric identity even when work is absent.

6. Pre-industrial or non-capitalist societies

Cases used to show that work has not always dominated life.

  • Hunter-gatherer societies
  • Subsistence agricultural communities
  • Pastoral or nomadic groups

Why they matter: These are often cited to show lower working hours, stronger social bonds, and different conceptions of necessity and leisure.

7. Creative or self-directed non-workers

People who are not “working” in the economic sense, but are active.

  • Artists with patrons
  • Amateur scholars
  • Gentleman scientists
  • Hobbyists and tinkerers
  • Open-source contributors (in some contexts)

Why they matter: They blur the line between work, play, and self-expression—central to post-work visions.

8. Marginal or cautionary examples

Often mentioned to show risks rather than ideals.

  • Idle elites in decline
  • Long-term disengaged individuals
  • People suffering from anomie or depression without work
  • Those trapped in enforced idleness

Why they matter: They ground the argument by showing that removing work does not automatically produce flourishing.

9. Fictional or speculative analogues (sometimes referenced)

Used illustratively rather than empirically.

  • Utopian citizens in post-scarcity societies
  • Fully automated luxury communism scenarios
  • Star Trek–style post-money cultures

Why they matter: They help readers imagine norms before empirical cases exist at scale.

Wow.

I learned a new word: “Rentier”.

a person living on income from property or investments.

That’s me!

The modern phrase would be financially independent or FI.

I’ve also mentioned to a few different people that I’m a “gentleman scientist”, but that’s not really true.

I’m closer to “idle author” or “sabbatical-taker” or something. Chatgpt calls me a “gentleman scholar”. I like it :)

Years ago, I also used to dream (wish?) I was a medieval monk/scribe, illuminating manuscripts all day. Romanic ideas after reading books like Anathem and Name of the Rose.

In the book, Bostrom also mentioned the fictional “Superfluous man”

a recurring figure in 19th-century Russian fiction: a well-educated, socially privileged man who is intelligent and sensitive but alienated, inactive, and unable to find purpose or meaningful agency in society.

Also new to me, and cautionary.

It reading and working out all day too vain?