[mdlug-discuss] Ethanol vs gasoline economy [Was: [mdlug] Automotive technical info ...]

[allen]

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>> From: allen
>>     
>
>   
>> Socialism converts private ownership into common ownership, into a 
>> commons. Where there's a commons there's always a tragedy of the 
>> commons.
>>     
>
>  Just as a note, in software, where duplication and distribution is
> (to a first approximation, at least) free, the commons can't be exhausted
> and the tragedy doesn't arise. This is one of the reason open-source
> software works so well.
>   
And why, among people who don't quite understand it, engenders 
flinty-eyed suspicion.

Since open-source software has value - otherwise why would people use 
it? - and it's free, the not-unreasonable-assumption is that there's a 
catch. The suspicion generally revolves around the observation that that 
which is too good to be true, isn't, despite the best efforts of those 
selling the too-good-to-be-true commodity, i.e. socialism.

Of course, open-source software isn't free so much as it's so cheap 
that, for all practical purposes, it's free. Of the various components 
of cost in software it's the labor that's free.

Duplication and transportation costs are cheap enough to be considered, 
for all practical purposes, free although the distinction is worth 
keeping in mind. When computers and bandwidth were both much more 
expensive then they are now the cost of duplicating/moving a given 
volume of bits was worthy of consideration. But between Moore's law and 
the communication bandwidth analog of Moore's law, both those costs have 
dropped faster then our utilization has increased.

That's not to say the trend will necessarily continue or won't, at 
least, be temporarily reversed but over any reasonable period of time, 
just like almost every other commodity, the price of 
computation/communications will continue to decline.
>  It's worth noting that if the same principles could be applied to
> material objects, a lot of current economic models would break down.
> One reason why things like 3D printers and nanotechnology could make
> for interesting times in the future.
>
>   
It's not so much "if" but "how fast" and "how far".

The history of economic progress can be summed up as "making stuff 
cheaper" although I'm not certain that "free" and "lot's cheaper" are 
interchangeable. Also, I'm less certain then you that the arrival of the 
messiah, i.e. when material objects become free, will necessarily result 
in the "kid in the candy shop" future you anticipate.

Allen's Law (Allen's Law? Yes, why not?) of Conservation of Agony states 
that any decrease in pain is offset by an increase in pain, usually in 
an unanticipated area, so that agony is conserved. Examples are ubiquitous.

Decreases in travel time are offset by increases in the time needed to 
get to the point of departure, or, once embarked, result in inescapable 
proximity to cologne addicts or crying children. Cheaper food of greater 
variety and healthfulness results in food becoming a form of 
entertainment as well as an agent of social stratification, i.e. organic 
food versus the *other* kind, organic food-eaters versus 
Cheeto's-eaters. Cheaper communication propels an entertainment industry 
that gives scope to aspects of human nature less savory then even 
politics does.

I'd better stop. I'm starting to frighten myself with thoughts of a 
horrifyingly utopian future of peace, plenty and tranquility, populated 
by people with perfect teeth, bodies and psyches, with all the hair they 
want where they want it and none where they don't.

Allen