For example, many citizens are thinking that everything is up to an architect, whether or not they think it aloud in their minds, it must be affecting them. The popularization of computer games contributes to the unconscious desire for life's editability and morphosis into something that is transciently appealing and yet permanently functional, much as 2-dimensional sprites, and corporate and religious ikona. The citizen of the future in my mind is highly mobile, with resources sufficient to secure temporary residence of dreams, or permanent satisfactory migrancy. The individual budget typically will pay for electronic utilities and any neurological stimulation that may be necessary. The future encourages the ethics of Zen consumerism, because in my mind at least, there is no shortage of consumers. Some would place this in a resource shortage category, where there is some tipsy math to be on top of the ball. Some of the priveleges that are bought these days don't actually cost much money, once someone is pushed through a few hoops. So it's kind of interesting. Maybe there's an abstract "social architect" box which refers to the upper crust, and "modular citizens" somewhere in the middle. Perhaps it would be beneficial to make "modular citizen" apply to as large a cohort as possible. It makes consumer items fashionable, and promotes the idea of a mobile society. And there will be more incentive for meaningful or meaningless differences between consumers competing for consumer value, resulting in shades or degrees of qua-permanent consumer identity. The more we transcend the innate prejudices of fixed consumer identities, the more modular citizenship is realized. That is not to say that this citizen has become an architect (although he may be deluded), but it certainly does seem like it makes life more compatible with social planning, not in a negative sense, but in a sense of allowing those with wealth to naturally control the structure of communities. If that energy is not burned on this kind of affair, it seems likely that it will be put towards more disastrous ends. In this sense it seems that Bill Gates has set a good example, even if some large percentage of his resources are not used on "mortal affairs". Perhaps even Bill Gates has not realized the nature of information. Or has money become a form of evolution? Beyond the supposed or apparent surfaces of economic reality? That seems superficial. Extracting from this, maybe someone could learn something about economics.