The question is really whether or not society should be turned into a massive exchange of commodities, or whether society has always been a massive exchange of commodities. Literature is just one aspect. Look at the Chinese version of "The Bachelor", where the girl said she'd rather cry in a Mercedes than laugh on the back of a bike. Look at how universities are dropping program after program in the humanities. Look at the values (or lack thereof) of the majority of humankind.

I'm not sure what the reasons are. Is it perhaps a natural result of overpopulation that the survival instinct kicks in and goes into overdrive? Is the way that technology has increased the speed of life a factor in the death of art and high culture? Have people always been this way (as Cicero liked to bemoan: o tempora! o mores! ) ?

My personal opinion (without denying the validity of any of the questions) is as follows: increased global competition has contributed to materialism, just as increased global advertising has. More people realize that they "lack" more things than ever before, and the imminent collapse of revealed religions has made the traditional impediments to materialism ineffective (Muslim extremism and Christian fundamentalism are acts of desperation). Western culture has, for several generations now, fostered a level of egotism and immature self-centrism that has spread like a cancer around the world.

If the reduction of all human activity to economic transactions continues at this pace, the reaction will become more intense and destructive. This reaction will not be Marxist, because Marxism, like capitalism, places an undue emphasis on economic activity. Rather, it will manifest as a rejection of material culture, a rejection that many may say is long overdue.

People need to put more emphasis on what they think, what they do, where they go, what they experience and how they interact, rather than with what they have. Note that the rise of materialism goes hand in hand with the retreat of individuals into the cyberspace of the Internet.

The problem is that, in the absence of revealed religions, it is up to each individual to find the discipline and moral strength to reject the reduction of all activity to a monetary sum. It is up to the individual to meditate or commune or pray, to share ideas, to engage in the cultural debate, and to live up to their potential. Each individual must become a mature adult, rather than a spoiled child. Is that easy? No. It is hard. The axiomatic conclusion is that most will fail. The sad epilogue to that failure is that harsh and childlike dogmas will replace this amorphous moral state, and harsh dogmas always lead to suffering and death.