5 ms·

I mean at a minimum their CO2 usage must be astronomical. Likely some of the highest per capita CO2 usage of any human beings ever. Of course they also use the

I mean at a minimum their CO2 usage must be astronomical. Likely some of the highest per capita CO2 usage of any human beings ever. Of course they also use their money to invest in development projects which will I would imagine have significant environmental effects. In the case of Gates he has been widely criticized by people like Vandana Shiva for his agricultural ambitions pushing chemical intensive agriculture all over the developing world, which Shiva says will have massive negative environmental effects. Gates also pushes in I believe the WTO for stronger intellectual property restrictions, which has a side effect of more products in the landfill as they are harder to repair. Bezos has constructed a machine which consumes huge amounts of CO2 (Amazon) in the form of delivery trucks and a flood of cheap flimsy goods which consume energy when constructed and soon end up in landfills. There’s a lot that billionaires do, by virtue of the power they have in this world, which damages the environment.

908B64B197 5y ago
> In the case of Gates he has been widely criticized by people like Vandana Shiva for his agricultural ambitions pushing chemical intensive agriculture all over the developing world, which Shiva says will have massive negative environmental effects. The alternative being more labor intensive agriculture (so requiring more people) and less buffer in case of a bad harvest (so potential famine and instability). > Gates also pushes in I believe the WTO for stronger intellectual property restrictions, which has a side effect of more products in the landfill as they are harder to repair. The alternative is a slowdown in research and development since now the research you paid millions for in payroll and time can now be copied by your competitor with one or two engineers.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Shiva argues that the methods pushed by industry are what weaken food security. Patent protected seeds that cannot legally be collected put big industry between farmers and their food production. She argues for a more resilient food system through seed collection and sharing, biodynamic farming practices that promote healthy disease resistant soil, and an end to fossil fuel inputs in farming. She is advocating for a stronger food system less susceptible to disease and economic disruption. Regarding intellectual property restrictions: I’m sorry but you’ve bought in to the widely held belief that patents promote innovation. Of course the main function of the patent is to strictly regulate innovation. Large corporations buy up every new idea they can, and use their patent portfolios to threaten anyone who might dare tread on their turf. Economically, a world without patents would have more smaller incremental investments as innovation occurs in parallel across many companies in industry. With patents, much fewer players buy up rights to yesterday’s ideas and prevent a sea of competition. Think of the 3D printer. $50,000 when release under patent. $25,000 12 years later when still under patent. $2,000 from many companies three years after the patents expired. $250 and available worldwide from hundreds of companies ten years after the patents expired. There was a LOT of innovation that occurred in the 3D printing space in that decade after the patents expired! I’m sorry I’m in a rush but here is some further reading: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284 https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2013/03/08/neoliberal-plague-aids-and-global-capitalism/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2013/03/08/neoliberal-pl... https://inmotionmagazine.com/global/vshiva4_int.html https://inmotionmagazine.com/global/vshiva4_int.html http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    What do patents (which I oppose, btw) have to do with environmental degradation? and Bill Gates being rich?
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      I believe patents reduce the likelihood of companies building things with compatible, interchangeable parts which makes them harder to repair and thus they are disposed of sooner. I also think it leads to less durable goods such that they come to need repair sooner. For my 3D printer for example compatible parts are available from a number of suppliers and it is easy to repair. Now look at power tools. Proprietary batteries and chargers that change year over year so customers always need to throw out old tools and buy new ones. I assume the battery connectors are patent protected though adapters from China are starting to hit the market anyway. Still grey markets are a bandaid over the real problems.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    Shiva has interesting arguments. > Economically, a world without patents would have more smaller incremental investments as innovation occurs in parallel across many companies in industry. And a complete stagnation in some areas due to the cost barrier of certain research since, as soon as the product will be out someone will start to improve it incrementally without having to recoup the R&D costs.
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      A few things: The world would be vastly better without patents in my opinion. Faster innovation, cheaper goods, less environmental waste. Medical technology would be better and cheaper. High technology like MRI machines would become cheaper, health care would become cheaper, etc. Really massive benefits. It could be that there are certain fields where patents actually help to some degree. In other words an artificial monopoly is the only way to secure enough funds to cross some threshold for viability. Well, fine. We shouldn’t throw out all of the benefits of open innovation just because a few areas will need help. We can recognize what those areas are and provide government funding for investment, like in health care. Then we still get all the benefits of open innovation and we can distort the market with cash injections instead of planet wide distortions on copying.
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  >The alternative is a slowdown in research and development since now the research you paid millions for in payroll and time can now be copied by your competitor with one or two engineers. I'm not going to argue regarding the merit of IP laws, but most analysis indicates that market players ignore most intellectual property, and that replication costs for technology are roughly 60-70% of the cost of the initial research. So you spend a bit more, but end up with a first mover advantage; in network-effect or capital intensive industries, these normally end up being determinative of overall success. But layer that on with other R&D incentives placed in the market. Canadian SR&ED credits subsidize research costs by 15-35%, for instance, so the total delta between first mover and copy-cat implementations drops further. The assumption that IP laws actually increase R&D rates is NOT something that is shown by the academic literature.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    The rate of innovation to me seems key. In my view, the rate of innovation for 3D printing shot through the roof after the patents expired. Do you have any reading recommendations you care to share? Thanks!
WalterBright 5y ago
> their CO2 usage must be astronomical Why? Does money produce CO2? > which Shiva says Never heard of Shiva. > chemical intensive agriculture About half the planet will die without chemical fertilizers. > I believe I need better than that. > Besos has Amazon (not Bezos' wealth) has displaced a number of other companies that provided goods to consumers. I haven't seen any evidence that Amazon produces, on the net, more CO2 than them. It arguably produces less, because it replaces innumerable car trips to the mall with one truck that drives far fewer miles per delivery. > by virtue of the power they have Doesn't remotely compare to the power government wields and accretes daily. Bill Gates has zero power over my life.
- crznp 5y ago
  If you are genuinely curious, you might try this book [1]. On the other hand, if you were genuinely curious, you could have figured out who Vandana Shiva was. [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128176740/inequality-and-energy https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128176740/inequality-...
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    I checked your link. Shiva is not mentioned on the front page, and is not in the author index. > you could have If someone is indulging in Appeal to Authority, it is incumbent upon them to provide a reference, not the reader.
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      > it is incumbent upon them to provide a reference, not the reader. According to who? This is not a debate class. If you are motivated to understand another you may well want to look up what they are saying. What are you adding when you reply with “never heard of her” instead of doing a quick search? I regularly put sources in my comments but this time I was in the middle of other things.
      - WalterBright 5y ago

908B64B197 5y ago

> In the case of Gates he has been widely criticized by people like Vandana Shiva for his agricultural ambitions pushing chemical intensive agriculture all over the developing world, which Shiva says will have massive negative environmental effects. The alternative being more labor intensive agriculture (so requiring more people) and less buffer in case of a bad harvest (so potential famine and instability). > Gates also pushes in I believe the WTO for stronger intellectual property restrictions, which has a side effect of more products in the landfill as they are harder to repair. The alternative is a slowdown in research and development since now the research you paid millions for in payroll and time can now be copied by your competitor with one or two engineers.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Shiva argues that the methods pushed by industry are what weaken food security. Patent protected seeds that cannot legally be collected put big industry between farmers and their food production. She argues for a more resilient food system through seed collection and sharing, biodynamic farming practices that promote healthy disease resistant soil, and an end to fossil fuel inputs in farming. She is advocating for a stronger food system less susceptible to disease and economic disruption. Regarding intellectual property restrictions: I’m sorry but you’ve bought in to the widely held belief that patents promote innovation. Of course the main function of the patent is to strictly regulate innovation. Large corporations buy up every new idea they can, and use their patent portfolios to threaten anyone who might dare tread on their turf. Economically, a world without patents would have more smaller incremental investments as innovation occurs in parallel across many companies in industry. With patents, much fewer players buy up rights to yesterday’s ideas and prevent a sea of competition. Think of the 3D printer. $50,000 when release under patent. $25,000 12 years later when still under patent. $2,000 from many companies three years after the patents expired. $250 and available worldwide from hundreds of companies ten years after the patents expired. There was a LOT of innovation that occurred in the 3D printing space in that decade after the patents expired! I’m sorry I’m in a rush but here is some further reading: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284 https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2013/03/08/neoliberal-plague-aids-and-global-capitalism/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2013/03/08/neoliberal-pl... https://inmotionmagazine.com/global/vshiva4_int.html https://inmotionmagazine.com/global/vshiva4_int.html http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...
- WalterBright 5y ago
  What do patents (which I oppose, btw) have to do with environmental degradation? and Bill Gates being rich?
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    I believe patents reduce the likelihood of companies building things with compatible, interchangeable parts which makes them harder to repair and thus they are disposed of sooner. I also think it leads to less durable goods such that they come to need repair sooner. For my 3D printer for example compatible parts are available from a number of suppliers and it is easy to repair. Now look at power tools. Proprietary batteries and chargers that change year over year so customers always need to throw out old tools and buy new ones. I assume the battery connectors are patent protected though adapters from China are starting to hit the market anyway. Still grey markets are a bandaid over the real problems.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  Shiva has interesting arguments. > Economically, a world without patents would have more smaller incremental investments as innovation occurs in parallel across many companies in industry. And a complete stagnation in some areas due to the cost barrier of certain research since, as soon as the product will be out someone will start to improve it incrementally without having to recoup the R&D costs.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    A few things: The world would be vastly better without patents in my opinion. Faster innovation, cheaper goods, less environmental waste. Medical technology would be better and cheaper. High technology like MRI machines would become cheaper, health care would become cheaper, etc. Really massive benefits. It could be that there are certain fields where patents actually help to some degree. In other words an artificial monopoly is the only way to secure enough funds to cross some threshold for viability. Well, fine. We shouldn’t throw out all of the benefits of open innovation just because a few areas will need help. We can recognize what those areas are and provide government funding for investment, like in health care. Then we still get all the benefits of open innovation and we can distort the market with cash injections instead of planet wide distortions on copying.
ABCLAW 5y ago
>The alternative is a slowdown in research and development since now the research you paid millions for in payroll and time can now be copied by your competitor with one or two engineers. I'm not going to argue regarding the merit of IP laws, but most analysis indicates that market players ignore most intellectual property, and that replication costs for technology are roughly 60-70% of the cost of the initial research. So you spend a bit more, but end up with a first mover advantage; in network-effect or capital intensive industries, these normally end up being determinative of overall success. But layer that on with other R&D incentives placed in the market. Canadian SR&ED credits subsidize research costs by 15-35%, for instance, so the total delta between first mover and copy-cat implementations drops further. The assumption that IP laws actually increase R&D rates is NOT something that is shown by the academic literature.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  The rate of innovation to me seems key. In my view, the rate of innovation for 3D printing shot through the roof after the patents expired. Do you have any reading recommendations you care to share? Thanks!

WalterBright 5y ago

> their CO2 usage must be astronomical Why? Does money produce CO2? > which Shiva says Never heard of Shiva. > chemical intensive agriculture About half the planet will die without chemical fertilizers. > I believe I need better than that. > Besos has Amazon (not Bezos' wealth) has displaced a number of other companies that provided goods to consumers. I haven't seen any evidence that Amazon produces, on the net, more CO2 than them. It arguably produces less, because it replaces innumerable car trips to the mall with one truck that drives far fewer miles per delivery. > by virtue of the power they have Doesn't remotely compare to the power government wields and accretes daily. Bill Gates has zero power over my life.

crznp 5y ago
If you are genuinely curious, you might try this book [1]. On the other hand, if you were genuinely curious, you could have figured out who Vandana Shiva was. [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128176740/inequality-and-energy https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128176740/inequality-...
- WalterBright 5y ago
  I checked your link. Shiva is not mentioned on the front page, and is not in the author index. > you could have If someone is indulging in Appeal to Authority, it is incumbent upon them to provide a reference, not the reader.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    > it is incumbent upon them to provide a reference, not the reader. According to who? This is not a debate class. If you are motivated to understand another you may well want to look up what they are saying. What are you adding when you reply with “never heard of her” instead of doing a quick search? I regularly put sources in my comments but this time I was in the middle of other things.
    - WalterBright 5y ago