3 ms·

It's not zero-sum. These improvements are externalities, they are permanent and apply to all other uses of computing. Similarly, one can point out all the adva

It's not zero-sum. These improvements are externalities, they are permanent and apply to all other uses of computing. Similarly, one can point out all the advances that the Apollo program brought that are unrelated to space travel. COVID brought in lots of scientific insights that will bear fruit regardless of whether we have to deal with any other coronaviruses in the future.

paulgb 6y ago
Sure, and smoking is responsible for advances in lung cancer research. It's the broken-window fallacy, though. The resources that were reallocated to lung cancer research due to smoking could have been used for other things.
- incrudible 6y ago
  > It's the broken-window fallacy, though. The broken window fallacy does not consider the benefits from improvements of technology that may result from destruction. Suppose that smashing a bunch of windows would lead to permanent improvements in glassmaking efficiency. In that case, the benefits in the long run would far outweigh the short term costs. Of course, that's not a given with any form of destruction, but I am arguing that it is the case with cryptocurrency.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    The fallacy does account for that. In a counterfactual where the windows were not broken, the effort spent improving the efficiency of glassmaking would have been directed (by the invisible hand) to improving the efficiency of something else.
    - incrudible 6y ago
      It doesn't account for that. If it did, it would assume improving the efficiency of one thing is equally valuable to improving the efficiency of any other thing, which is absurd. Like I said, not all destruction is destined to create excess value, but some destruction is, and I am arguing that this is the case here specifically. A counterfactual where this money would've been spent on something even more beneficial doesn't really matter. It wasn't spent that way and it could also have been spent in numerous other ways that are even less beneficial.

paulgb 6y ago

Sure, and smoking is responsible for advances in lung cancer research. It's the broken-window fallacy, though. The resources that were reallocated to lung cancer research due to smoking could have been used for other things.

incrudible 6y ago
> It's the broken-window fallacy, though. The broken window fallacy does not consider the benefits from improvements of technology that may result from destruction. Suppose that smashing a bunch of windows would lead to permanent improvements in glassmaking efficiency. In that case, the benefits in the long run would far outweigh the short term costs. Of course, that's not a given with any form of destruction, but I am arguing that it is the case with cryptocurrency.
- paulgb 6y ago
  The fallacy does account for that. In a counterfactual where the windows were not broken, the effort spent improving the efficiency of glassmaking would have been directed (by the invisible hand) to improving the efficiency of something else.
  - incrudible 6y ago
    It doesn't account for that. If it did, it would assume improving the efficiency of one thing is equally valuable to improving the efficiency of any other thing, which is absurd. Like I said, not all destruction is destined to create excess value, but some destruction is, and I am arguing that this is the case here specifically. A counterfactual where this money would've been spent on something even more beneficial doesn't really matter. It wasn't spent that way and it could also have been spent in numerous other ways that are even less beneficial.