1's and 0's would be just the same as a well designed building.
there are buildings that can house a whole family and there are buildings that are dumb art sculptures that cost 1000x more than they are worth.
ill even go on to say that there are games that can help people learn as everyone learns differently, games are a great way to simulate the "doing" learning method in a safe environment.
I think the point is more that you're paying for information, which can be infinitely and cheaply copied (like a real life Star Trek replicator). Information does not work the same as physical goods, and the market price of information is $0
but that is also unsustainable. who in their right mind would spend time making those things when they get nothing out of it? that is why copyright laws and intellectual property were created, to give business to intelligence.
Oh, something interesting I forgot to include in my previous post... a lot of open source projects are funded entirely with donations, no selling of software. For example, Webpack and Babel get ~$200,000 a year each:
This system works, and is very sustainable (Blender has been around for 26 years, Webpack for 8 years, and Babel for 5 years). And these aren't cherry picked examples, there are quite literally hundreds of thousands of open source projects (and many thousands are decades old).
When I said that information works fundamentally different from physical goods, I meant it. Your intuition about whether it's "sustainable" or not is going to be wrong, since your intuition is based on physical goods.
literally the entirety of the free open source software project does that. youve just been brainwashed into thinking any altruism is cuckery. or any work for the community or "free" must be communism.
FOSS projects are the power of passion and humanity working together on focused projects. like stacking rocks to build a wall as a whole people than just alone.
the entirety of modern technology today would not be possible or function without this free work gifted to the world by millions and millions of foward thinking ungreedy passionate generous intelligent people.
Yes indeed, basically the entire internet is based on open source code: web browsers are open source, servers are open source, all the infrastructure and protocols are open source, all the underlying libraries and APIs (e.g. SSL) are open source, etc.
Open source is the biggest refutation to the idea that money is the only thing that matters, or that development is unsustainable without money. Of course being able to fund open source development with money would be even better, but not by selling software.
If you are being sold software you are more than likely either paying someone to control your devices or are paying someone to profit off of your devices.
cue my favorite FOSS autist big dicky ficki ficki all the paid software demons stallmans mainpage spiel about all the problems of paid&closed source software, privacy, freedom etc.
Yes, money is transient and useless, its only purpose is to trade it for something of value. Glory is forever, and it cannot be bought with any amount of money.
You're misunderstanding. Of course people should be paid for their work. But the correct thing is to pay them for the creation of the product (e.g. IndieGoGo / SubscribeStar / donations / bounties / etc.) That sort of patronage is morally and economically correct, and it has been very common in history:
In the history of art, arts patronage refers to the support that kings, popes, and the wealthy have provided to artists such as musicians, painters, and sculptors.
As for copyrights and patents, perhaps they started out with good intentions but they have morphed into an abomination. They have become so heavily abused to the point that they are stifling the actual creators (and only benefiting the giant megacorps). Copyrights last for the life of the creator plus 70 years after their death. That's completely absurd, and obviously is done to benefit corporations, not the creators.
And because computers and the internet exists, you fundamentally cannot stop the copying of information (which is falsely called "piracy"). And the internet meme culture relies upon a lack of copyright. Copyrights and patents are a severely outdated idea which does not work at all in the modern era and needs to be abolished.
this is a well constructed retort to his discounting of open source software.
it essentially what happens when the work of others can be built upon at no cost to anyone to do so. It is a communalistic system that is not bogged down by the material nature of scarcity in this world for which things like communism are doomed to fail.
When your work is added but costs nothing to you to do so, and you benefit from the work of others, adding to the pile seems fair and even though only 1 out of a million might do so, their work only adds to eachothers.
Yes, communism has only ever worked in two situations:
Small tribes of people who know and trust each other. This works because there is punishment for cheating, and everybody's survival depends on helping each other out. A family can be viewed as a small communistic tribe.
Information (e.g. open source, science, etc.) because the work only needs to be done once (and then everybody benefits), rather than repeated for every physical product. So the costs and incentives are completely different.
Some tribes have been communistic (both historically and in modern day communes). Of course all tribes weren't communistic, but the point is that communism worked for at least some of them.
Well of course they had a loose hierarchy, but the point is that all goods were shared freely among the tribe, not owned by individuals. And if somebody caught a deer, for example, everybody would get equal share of it, even the people who didn't contribute.
Traditionally, the San were an egalitarian society. Although they had hereditary chiefs, their authority was limited. The San made decisions among themselves by consensus, with women treated as relative equals. San economy was a gift economy, based on giving each other gifts regularly rather than on trading or purchasing goods and services.
There were some Native American tribes as well that were similar. But like I said, that only works in very small tightly knit groups, it does not scale at all. So it will always lose to a market based society, which scales spectacularly well.
view the rest of the comments →
RIchard_Gristle_II ago
Anyone that gives CDPR money should be gassed.
DosonTheGreat ago
All of my friends are playing it, but I remain a pure soul.
Killnigs3 ago
McFluffy ago
1's and 0's would be just the same as a well designed building.
there are buildings that can house a whole family and there are buildings that are dumb art sculptures that cost 1000x more than they are worth.
ill even go on to say that there are games that can help people learn as everyone learns differently, games are a great way to simulate the "doing" learning method in a safe environment.
but this cyperdong 2077 is just trash.
Mystiker ago
I think the point is more that you're paying for information, which can be infinitely and cheaply copied (like a real life Star Trek replicator). Information does not work the same as physical goods, and the market price of information is $0
McFluffy ago
but that is also unsustainable. who in their right mind would spend time making those things when they get nothing out of it? that is why copyright laws and intellectual property were created, to give business to intelligence.
Mystiker ago
Oh, something interesting I forgot to include in my previous post... a lot of open source projects are funded entirely with donations, no selling of software. For example, Webpack and Babel get ~$200,000 a year each:
https://opencollective.com/webpack
https://opencollective.com/babel
And Blender (which is fantastic open source software) receives $1.7 million dollars a year in donations and sponsorship:
https://fund.blender.org/
This system works, and is very sustainable (Blender has been around for 26 years, Webpack for 8 years, and Babel for 5 years). And these aren't cherry picked examples, there are quite literally hundreds of thousands of open source projects (and many thousands are decades old).
When I said that information works fundamentally different from physical goods, I meant it. Your intuition about whether it's "sustainable" or not is going to be wrong, since your intuition is based on physical goods.
Killnigs3 ago
you and everyone on planet earth benefits from FOSS
Killnigs3 ago
literally the entirety of the free open source software project does that. youve just been brainwashed into thinking any altruism is cuckery. or any work for the community or "free" must be communism.
FOSS projects are the power of passion and humanity working together on focused projects. like stacking rocks to build a wall as a whole people than just alone.
the entirety of modern technology today would not be possible or function without this free work gifted to the world by millions and millions of foward thinking ungreedy passionate generous intelligent people.
Mystiker ago
Yes indeed, basically the entire internet is based on open source code: web browsers are open source, servers are open source, all the infrastructure and protocols are open source, all the underlying libraries and APIs (e.g. SSL) are open source, etc.
Open source is the biggest refutation to the idea that money is the only thing that matters, or that development is unsustainable without money. Of course being able to fund open source development with money would be even better, but not by selling software.
Killnigs3 ago
If you are being sold software you are more than likely either paying someone to control your devices or are paying someone to profit off of your devices.
cue my favorite FOSS autist big dicky ficki ficki all the paid software demons stallmans mainpage spiel about all the problems of paid&closed source software, privacy, freedom etc.
Killnigs3 ago
Money being the only thing that matters is a kike subversion of our culture.
Mystiker ago
Yes, money is transient and useless, its only purpose is to trade it for something of value. Glory is forever, and it cannot be bought with any amount of money.
Killnigs3 ago
In bone brother, memento morii.
Mystiker ago
You're misunderstanding. Of course people should be paid for their work. But the correct thing is to pay them for the creation of the product (e.g. IndieGoGo / SubscribeStar / donations / bounties / etc.) That sort of patronage is morally and economically correct, and it has been very common in history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage
As for copyrights and patents, perhaps they started out with good intentions but they have morphed into an abomination. They have become so heavily abused to the point that they are stifling the actual creators (and only benefiting the giant megacorps). Copyrights last for the life of the creator plus 70 years after their death. That's completely absurd, and obviously is done to benefit corporations, not the creators.
And because computers and the internet exists, you fundamentally cannot stop the copying of information (which is falsely called "piracy"). And the internet meme culture relies upon a lack of copyright. Copyrights and patents are a severely outdated idea which does not work at all in the modern era and needs to be abolished.
Killnigs3 ago
this is a well constructed retort to his discounting of open source software.
it essentially what happens when the work of others can be built upon at no cost to anyone to do so. It is a communalistic system that is not bogged down by the material nature of scarcity in this world for which things like communism are doomed to fail.
When your work is added but costs nothing to you to do so, and you benefit from the work of others, adding to the pile seems fair and even though only 1 out of a million might do so, their work only adds to eachothers.
Mystiker ago
Yes, communism has only ever worked in two situations:
Small tribes of people who know and trust each other. This works because there is punishment for cheating, and everybody's survival depends on helping each other out. A family can be viewed as a small communistic tribe.
Information (e.g. open source, science, etc.) because the work only needs to be done once (and then everybody benefits), rather than repeated for every physical product. So the costs and incentives are completely different.
Killnigs3 ago
Tribes are not communistic anyways they are communalistic and tribal.
Mystiker ago
Some tribes have been communistic (both historically and in modern day communes). Of course all tribes weren't communistic, but the point is that communism worked for at least some of them.
Killnigs3 ago
Meh no tribes anywhere ever dont have a hierarchy
Mystiker ago
Well of course they had a loose hierarchy, but the point is that all goods were shared freely among the tribe, not owned by individuals. And if somebody caught a deer, for example, everybody would get equal share of it, even the people who didn't contribute.
A good example of that is the Bushmen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_people#Society
There were some Native American tribes as well that were similar. But like I said, that only works in very small tightly knit groups, it does not scale at all. So it will always lose to a market based society, which scales spectacularly well.
Killnigs3 ago
yeah but the chief or the shaman be getting them antlers bro
Killnigs3 ago
yes