Comment by ghushn3

Comment by ghushn3 2 days ago

Why? Why is not "everyone has access" and "wellbeing for everyone" the reward for inventing the future?

Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future?

If Waymos make the world better and safer and more convenient, why are they not simply something we figure out how to make a public good?

In Star Trek you didn't have to pay to take the turbolift or transporter around large spaces, everyone got the benefits of the technology.

Dylan16807 2 days ago

> Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future?

Well obviously we want a lot of the benefit to be the latter. But if you don't have some of the former, then almost no multi-billion-dollar-cost inventions get made in the first place.

Reply View 2 replies

ghushn3 2 days ago

Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention.
Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining.
Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay.
I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood.

Reply View | 1 reply
- Dylan16807 2 days ago
  
  > Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention.
  That was government-funded. Most projects aren't that lucky. And are any governments funding self-driving cars?
  > Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining.
  I said multi billion dollar cost. Not multi billion dollar benefit. He's not an example.
  > Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay.
  Have they made any inventions that required a billion dollars or more? Ten billion?
  But you saying "makes billions" is exactly what I'm talking about. It's great that they don't pay a lot of money to executives and the workers own things. But the company invested money and the company profited. It didn't all go to making the world a better place.
  You avoid particularly wealthy people when a coop can self-fund, but the coop is still trying to profit off the result of the research. And if a risky research project ever can't be self-funded, then whatever/whoever makes the loan might make a huge profit. If that incentive isn't there, the loan doesn't happen and the research doesn't happen.
  > I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood.
  It doesn't require it, but if you make it possible to profit off research then you end up with much more money spent on research.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

Nasrudith 9 hours ago

You are referencing fiction unironically as an argument which is a rather worrying sign for your connection to objective reality. You also don't have to worry about logistics in RTSes, but that isn't an argument for revolutionizing military strategy.

As for why it isn't something you can figure out how to make a public good? In order for it to truly be a public good you have to either make it as one in the first place via the public sector or at very least pay a large sum of money in order to buy it out (which you have already objected to). Otherwise it is just plain stealing.

Reply View 0 replies