4 ms·

The very cynical counter argument is rarely spoken: Owning my things provides value even when I’m not using them, because I benefit from excluding other people

by jpttsn 6y ago

The very cynical counter argument is rarely spoken: Owning my things provides value even when I’m not using them, because I benefit from excluding other people (my competition) from using them. Example: The sports car locked in my garage helps keep sports cars away from other people, which maintains their benefit of conferring status. It provides utility even if I basically never drive it. This side of human nature is forgotten at our peril.

throwaway316943 6y ago
It’s not even just exclusion. Can you imagine the scheduling nightmare this would induce? Your personal life would be run minute to minute by your calendar. Any time you wanted to do anything it would either have to be booked in advance or you’d have to wait for delivery. This article seems to be written from the perspective of someone who likes spending their time in coffee shops and riding their bike around in circles. Might as well be a hamster in a cage. It’s like the millennial version of brave new world, no sex, boring drugs, and the pervasive feeling that no one knows what they’re doing.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  >Any time you wanted to do anything it would either have to be booked in advance or you’d have to wait for delivery. oh my special personality defects will probably mean I won't ever be able to go anywhere, do anything, and will eventually starve to death under this system.
- TT3351 6y ago
  I believe the implication is that AI handles this complicated work
- ohthehugemanate 6y ago
  I do not like the future described in the article... but the scheduling nightmare is not currently the reality with by-the-minute cars, bikes, scooters, meals, groceries, apartments, personal tech, server infra, or home services. What makes you think it would be for other classes of product? If anything it's done away with some of my previous scheduling constraints. No more oil changes or tire rotations! No more grocery trips! Etc etc. Personally I don't like it because in a renter world, the owners have an extraordinary amount of power.
  - throwaway316943 6y ago
    I can’t imagine being able to schedule whether I want to play guitar, exercise, read, or start on a new woodworking project. I pick up my guitar few times a day to practice, not at set times. I exercise either in the morning or the evening depending on my mood and my plans. I’m usually working my way through a few books at a time so I may choose any of them to read. I work on projects when I can squeeze an hour or two in or when I wind up with a free afternoon. None of that would ever happen if I had to block out time for it or wait for the necessities to be delivered. Hell, half the time I don’t even know what I want to build until I rummage through the various fasteners and bits of scrap wood laying around and something strikes my fancy. The same goes for cooking, some of the best meals I’ve made were whipped up from the ingredients I had on hand. A perfectly planned life would be devoid of happy accidents.
Frost1x 6y ago
This is critical. As long as we operate in a highly competitive climate, private ownership and rights associated with it become a necessity. Ownership not only legally guarantees your rights but denies others rights (your competition). Even with a well optimized sharing economy inside a highly competitive environment, you'll look for ways to break the optimization process favorable to yourself. If everything schedules at my whim I'll be sure and use the most scarce and difficult to obtain resources to lock them down and trade that time to others for something else I want. Short of living in a post scarcity economy, it would never be feasible.
- collyw 6y ago
  I feel that "post scarcity" requires some definition. In the west very few people go hungry and the vast majority of people have a mobile phone - something that was an expensive status item just a couple of decades ago. It feels like if we made everything "post scarcity" by today's standard, we would have a load more things that people would be striving to acquire. On the other hand maybe post scarcity is what some buddhist monks who give up everything are closer to achieving than anyone in the west.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    it seems possible that food, water, shelter, and even healthcare could be provided to everyone in the near future, but positional goods will always exist. it will never be possible for everyone to live in a manhattan penthouse, be treated by the best doctors, etc., and people will still compete for access to these things.
    - collyw 6y ago
      In Europe, particularly in the richer countries such as Scandanavia those are generally not a problem. A few years ago a friend from Denmark said that the whole country had 16 homeless people. Obviously there are people who have problems but I think those run deeper than just not being able to afford the basics.
    - jpttsn 6y ago

by jpttsn 6y ago

throwaway316943 6y ago

It’s not even just exclusion. Can you imagine the scheduling nightmare this would induce? Your personal life would be run minute to minute by your calendar. Any time you wanted to do anything it would either have to be booked in advance or you’d have to wait for delivery. This article seems to be written from the perspective of someone who likes spending their time in coffee shops and riding their bike around in circles. Might as well be a hamster in a cage. It’s like the millennial version of brave new world, no sex, boring drugs, and the pervasive feeling that no one knows what they’re doing.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>Any time you wanted to do anything it would either have to be booked in advance or you’d have to wait for delivery. oh my special personality defects will probably mean I won't ever be able to go anywhere, do anything, and will eventually starve to death under this system.
TT3351 6y ago
I believe the implication is that AI handles this complicated work
ohthehugemanate 6y ago
I do not like the future described in the article... but the scheduling nightmare is not currently the reality with by-the-minute cars, bikes, scooters, meals, groceries, apartments, personal tech, server infra, or home services. What makes you think it would be for other classes of product? If anything it's done away with some of my previous scheduling constraints. No more oil changes or tire rotations! No more grocery trips! Etc etc. Personally I don't like it because in a renter world, the owners have an extraordinary amount of power.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  I can’t imagine being able to schedule whether I want to play guitar, exercise, read, or start on a new woodworking project. I pick up my guitar few times a day to practice, not at set times. I exercise either in the morning or the evening depending on my mood and my plans. I’m usually working my way through a few books at a time so I may choose any of them to read. I work on projects when I can squeeze an hour or two in or when I wind up with a free afternoon. None of that would ever happen if I had to block out time for it or wait for the necessities to be delivered. Hell, half the time I don’t even know what I want to build until I rummage through the various fasteners and bits of scrap wood laying around and something strikes my fancy. The same goes for cooking, some of the best meals I’ve made were whipped up from the ingredients I had on hand. A perfectly planned life would be devoid of happy accidents.

Frost1x 6y ago

This is critical. As long as we operate in a highly competitive climate, private ownership and rights associated with it become a necessity. Ownership not only legally guarantees your rights but denies others rights (your competition). Even with a well optimized sharing economy inside a highly competitive environment, you'll look for ways to break the optimization process favorable to yourself. If everything schedules at my whim I'll be sure and use the most scarce and difficult to obtain resources to lock them down and trade that time to others for something else I want. Short of living in a post scarcity economy, it would never be feasible.

collyw 6y ago
I feel that "post scarcity" requires some definition. In the west very few people go hungry and the vast majority of people have a mobile phone - something that was an expensive status item just a couple of decades ago. It feels like if we made everything "post scarcity" by today's standard, we would have a load more things that people would be striving to acquire. On the other hand maybe post scarcity is what some buddhist monks who give up everything are closer to achieving than anyone in the west.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  it seems possible that food, water, shelter, and even healthcare could be provided to everyone in the near future, but positional goods will always exist. it will never be possible for everyone to live in a manhattan penthouse, be treated by the best doctors, etc., and people will still compete for access to these things.
  - collyw 6y ago
    In Europe, particularly in the richer countries such as Scandanavia those are generally not a problem. A few years ago a friend from Denmark said that the whole country had 16 homeless people. Obviously there are people who have problems but I think those run deeper than just not being able to afford the basics.
  - jpttsn 6y ago