3 ms·
Uh huh. That's all well and good until someone decides to apply that reasoning to something else, like, say....the Internet. You really think all that wireles
by Nrsolis 9y ago
Uh huh.
That's all well and good until someone decides to apply that reasoning to something else, like, say....the Internet.
You really think all that wireless spectrum is finding it's best use sharing cat videos? High-bandwidth video emojis?
They aren't making any more RF spectrum either.
One man's "common sense solution" is another man's "free market distortion".
And there is PLENTY of land to go around....so.....bad example. You could give nearly every single person on the planet plenty of room to live in Texas. That's without going vertical into multi-story buildings.
Ultimately the best use of people's labor is whatever they want to do with it. If that's buying houses, great. Beanie babies, faberge eggs, gold ingots, whatever.
Do you really need all that crap you own?
- Cretin2 9y agoSure you can "nearly every single person on the planet plenty of room to live in Texas" but they would be devoid of infrastructure and it would be incredibly expensive to service people's homes if they're spread out across the states. It's a cop out to say 'there is plenty of land' when it requires a hell of a lot of work to bring it modern services. If you think your simplistic land argument is a good one you should revisit other beliefs as well.
- kunimu 9y agoIgnoring some arguments about whether the Internet is a "human right", it's not on the same level as land, land is a prerequisite for shelter, which is a vital human need. The creation of false needs does not overrule the necessity of satisfying true needs. "The Internet" is not a commodity; access to the Internet is a commodity. Although by some definitions undeveloped land isn't a commodity either, the fact that it is in fixed supply and humans need it. The usage of that land and even habitable but uninhabited houses for the whims of speculators is in my view such an egregiously horrible fact, so divorced from any notion of rationality of moral standing, that I would advocate it should not be used for such a purpose at all. It is on the same level as pollution - the squandering of resources that can be used here and now (homes and land) or in the future (stable climate, natural resources, atmospheric purity) for profit, exchange, trade which caters not to any human needs, vital or not, false or true, is a truly horrible system that deserves to be opposed. I don't understand why you support such a system with so many unable to meet even their basic needs.
- khuey 9y agoI am not aware of any ways in which wireless RF spectrum is required for humans to survive. The rest of your post is non-sequiturs that I'm not going to bother engaging.
- petre 9y agoRadio announcements of hurricane warnings and other natural disasters for example.
- imtringued 9y agoDoes the amount of required spectrum for this rise with a higher population or does it remain constant?
- heavenlyblue 9y agoRF spectrum is highly regulated, by the way.
- Nrsolis 9y agoLess than you might think. It's treated like real-estate with RF "zoning rules". But very wide swaths of the RF spectrum are essentially a free -for-all. You could argue that the most valuable parts (UHF) are used for stuff that could only be described as "non-essential" e.g. cat videos.