4 ms·

I think the author falls into the 'it's better to have cake than to eat it' camp. Of course wealth in this case is toxic - you miss the point of it.

airstrike 8y ago
> Of course wealth in this case is toxic Says who? That is not an axiomatic truth. You'll need to provide evidence.
- pesmhey 8y ago
  >Definition of toxic (Entry 1 of 3) 1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation toxic waste a toxic radioactive gas an insecticide highly toxic to birds 2 : exhibiting symptoms of infection or toxicosis the patient became toxic two days later 3 : extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful toxic sarcasm 4 : relating to or being an asset that has lost so much value that it cannot be sold on the market You can't eat cake that's gone bad because you've kept it in your cupboard too long. Even though we're using a metaphor here, literally - in the very definition of literal - if you don't eat your cake, it actually does become toxic, defeating the purpose of having it in the first place. edit: btw, I think we're in agreement. I'm advocating for thoughtful consumption.
SilasX 8y ago
So, you're saying that the worst possible thing someone can do is produce but never consume?
- xenocratus 8y ago
  Isn't consumption essentially you letting someone else be on the producer side? I agree that for one entity it might be good to produce and not consume, but it makes no sense as a general statement. Production and consumption can only exist together. Sure, we have to put some thought into what we consume, but consumption in/by itself can't be "evil"
- pesmhey 8y ago
  To follow the food analogy, I'm saying that you've gotta eat to have energy to be productive to make food to eat. In other words, you have to produce in order to consume in order to produce in order to consume, and so on. The worst possible thing would be consumption sans production - that's cancer. Can you think of examples where you would produce without consumption? I can't think of any. Even intellectual discoveries consume information. My answer to your question would be that it would be the most impossible thing someone could do to produce but never consume.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Needing to consume is a complication from the core insight. If necessary, replace with someone who consumes at subsistence level. - Person A works X amount, and consumes typically. - Person B works X amount, and consumes at subsistence. Judging solely from the perspective of other people, which person is better to have? Or, for another example, the sun produces without (economically-relevant, purchased) consumption. What if someone were like the sun, and charged for sunlight, but never spent the money? They just left the money in the bank forever.
    - pesmhey 8y ago
      Between person A and B, the 'better' person to have would be the one who produces more valuable stuff. Better is a tricky way to talk about this though, because these two people might have different inherent capabilities. The most ideal answer would be that person A and person B should each find their ecological niche where their consumption and production of resources are in optimal balance. The 'better' person to have in this case would be the person most suited to your same niche. If your statement had been 'produces X amount', and not 'works X amount', then my answer definitely changes. Less consumption for the same amount of production is always better, because in aggregate it means more resources for consumption, and production goes up. Or maybe not? I'd be interested to think about a good counterpoint. Even the sun consumes - it consumes hydrogen, helium, lots of stuff. And that stuff is localized to the sun. Perhaps we'll figure out a way to add fuel from somewhere else to the sun one day, but as of right now, the sun consumes an ultimately limited amount of stuff. We have a pretty decent understanding now of the relationship between the sun's consumption and production of resources. If someone were like the sun, and charged for sunlight, then they would HAVE to spend the money on acquiring more hydrogen. If they left the money in the bank, then they wouldn't be able to produce the sunlight that earns them money.

airstrike 8y ago

> Of course wealth in this case is toxic Says who? That is not an axiomatic truth. You'll need to provide evidence.

pesmhey 8y ago
>Definition of toxic (Entry 1 of 3) 1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation toxic waste a toxic radioactive gas an insecticide highly toxic to birds 2 : exhibiting symptoms of infection or toxicosis the patient became toxic two days later 3 : extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful toxic sarcasm 4 : relating to or being an asset that has lost so much value that it cannot be sold on the market You can't eat cake that's gone bad because you've kept it in your cupboard too long. Even though we're using a metaphor here, literally - in the very definition of literal - if you don't eat your cake, it actually does become toxic, defeating the purpose of having it in the first place. edit: btw, I think we're in agreement. I'm advocating for thoughtful consumption.

SilasX 8y ago

So, you're saying that the worst possible thing someone can do is produce but never consume?

xenocratus 8y ago
Isn't consumption essentially you letting someone else be on the producer side? I agree that for one entity it might be good to produce and not consume, but it makes no sense as a general statement. Production and consumption can only exist together. Sure, we have to put some thought into what we consume, but consumption in/by itself can't be "evil"
pesmhey 8y ago
To follow the food analogy, I'm saying that you've gotta eat to have energy to be productive to make food to eat. In other words, you have to produce in order to consume in order to produce in order to consume, and so on. The worst possible thing would be consumption sans production - that's cancer. Can you think of examples where you would produce without consumption? I can't think of any. Even intellectual discoveries consume information. My answer to your question would be that it would be the most impossible thing someone could do to produce but never consume.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Needing to consume is a complication from the core insight. If necessary, replace with someone who consumes at subsistence level. - Person A works X amount, and consumes typically. - Person B works X amount, and consumes at subsistence. Judging solely from the perspective of other people, which person is better to have? Or, for another example, the sun produces without (economically-relevant, purchased) consumption. What if someone were like the sun, and charged for sunlight, but never spent the money? They just left the money in the bank forever.
  - pesmhey 8y ago
    Between person A and B, the 'better' person to have would be the one who produces more valuable stuff. Better is a tricky way to talk about this though, because these two people might have different inherent capabilities. The most ideal answer would be that person A and person B should each find their ecological niche where their consumption and production of resources are in optimal balance. The 'better' person to have in this case would be the person most suited to your same niche. If your statement had been 'produces X amount', and not 'works X amount', then my answer definitely changes. Less consumption for the same amount of production is always better, because in aggregate it means more resources for consumption, and production goes up. Or maybe not? I'd be interested to think about a good counterpoint. Even the sun consumes - it consumes hydrogen, helium, lots of stuff. And that stuff is localized to the sun. Perhaps we'll figure out a way to add fuel from somewhere else to the sun one day, but as of right now, the sun consumes an ultimately limited amount of stuff. We have a pretty decent understanding now of the relationship between the sun's consumption and production of resources. If someone were like the sun, and charged for sunlight, then they would HAVE to spend the money on acquiring more hydrogen. If they left the money in the bank, then they wouldn't be able to produce the sunlight that earns them money.