3 ms·

I agree with you but I think you've ignored the economic part of the argument. These aren't choices between equal options, we're strongly pushed to the technolo

by aimor 3y ago

I agree with you but I think you've ignored the economic part of the argument. These aren't choices between equal options, we're strongly pushed to the technological option because last-year's default is now significantly more expensive. The technological option is required to tread water because the world is no longer designed for having children young, or living with your parents, or isolationism. We are, according to the argument, not seeing a just portion of the gains technology brings.

chii 3y ago
> not seeing a just portion of the gains but who paid for and took risk to create those gains? Why should the gains be "just" (aka, shared equally i presume), if the cost of said gains (such as the R&D cost, the risk, etc) wasn't also shared equally?
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  I think GP is talking about gains at scale of society. And at this scale, everyone's heavily missing out on what could be. Even admitting that entrepreneurs and investors should get more of the gains[0], that's only gains on the particular thing a given enterprise brought. But even those people, at the same time, are short-charged by all the other tech being brought to market. There's a lot of ratcheting going on here, key aspect highlighted by GP: > we're strongly pushed to the technological option because last-year's default is now significantly more expensive This is the nature of markets and society as dynamic systems: they adjust to change, incorporate and fixate and eventually become dependent on any new capacity. And since we're not in Star Trek economy just yet[1], the cheapest things are the ones we're doing at scale. If a simple thing is displaced by complex one, over time that simple thing becomes more expensive and less available, until it's all but gone. -- [0] - I have some issue with them getting it exponentially more, indefinitely, way after it paid back the risk - it doesn't seem fair. For extreme examples, see Disney, or various estates, (ab)using copyright to maintain passive income from works of art decades after their authors died. [1] - With replicators and energy too cheap to meter, turning almost all physical problems into "print this document" problems, eliminating supply chains behind almost everything.

by aimor 3y ago

chii 3y ago

> not seeing a just portion of the gains but who paid for and took risk to create those gains? Why should the gains be "just" (aka, shared equally i presume), if the cost of said gains (such as the R&D cost, the risk, etc) wasn't also shared equally?

TeMPOraL 3y ago
I think GP is talking about gains at scale of society. And at this scale, everyone's heavily missing out on what could be. Even admitting that entrepreneurs and investors should get more of the gains[0], that's only gains on the particular thing a given enterprise brought. But even those people, at the same time, are short-charged by all the other tech being brought to market. There's a lot of ratcheting going on here, key aspect highlighted by GP: > we're strongly pushed to the technological option because last-year's default is now significantly more expensive This is the nature of markets and society as dynamic systems: they adjust to change, incorporate and fixate and eventually become dependent on any new capacity. And since we're not in Star Trek economy just yet[1], the cheapest things are the ones we're doing at scale. If a simple thing is displaced by complex one, over time that simple thing becomes more expensive and less available, until it's all but gone. -- [0] - I have some issue with them getting it exponentially more, indefinitely, way after it paid back the risk - it doesn't seem fair. For extreme examples, see Disney, or various estates, (ab)using copyright to maintain passive income from works of art decades after their authors died. [1] - With replicators and energy too cheap to meter, turning almost all physical problems into "print this document" problems, eliminating supply chains behind almost everything.