I wouldn’t like the library system because it requires you to treat things a certain way.
If we think of it from the perspective of a book (since we’re talking about libraries here), if I borrow a book from a library, I have to treat it well and return it in a condition that somebody else can read it.
If I own a book, I can do whatever I want with it, I can burn it as firewood, I can cut out the words that I don’t like from all of the pages, or I can just scribble all over it with a permanent marker, it’s my book after all.
A library economy doesn’t mean you can’t own anything. If you want to own something you can make it or check it out indefinitely. For an example of this, let’s think of checking out a phone.
You’d check it out indefinitely, and you can consider it yours. Since there’s no money or profit incentive, the phones are designed to be durable, easily repairable, and have interoperable parts. Because the library is the means by which we manage the commons, parts are readily available and you can return the broken part (or entire phone) to be recycled and get the replacement.
Dude. Capitalism kills innovation. I hate that myth so much. Capitalism is more likely to stifle innovation than create it. The goal of capitalism is profit and nothing else. Innovation requires risk, which could cause a loss of profit, so it’s a last resort. It’s more profitable to hinder your opponents than to create something innovative.
For example, much of our innovation in our society comes from research universities. These are, generally, outside of capitalism. They do research and make discoveries for the benefit they bring to society, or sometimes just to improve our knowledge. They don’t do it for profit.
Humans like to improve things and to learn things. There’s no need for it to be profitable. Creating a system that prioritizes this is possible, but it isn’t capitalism.
From competitions, individual interests, passion, necessity, etc. We don’t need money or markets for people to seek innovation. A library steward should also be responsible for automating means of production as best as possible, which would also drive scientific advancement.
The problem then is that all of those, besides nececities aren’t really good at encouraging any innovation.
Yes, inventing something like a heater so people don’t freeze to death or a plow to make tending to a field easier could come out of necessity.
But the dangerous part is that it creates a risk of people just going “yeah, we are comfortable enough already” and the technological development just stopping. If you go back 40 years and 99% of the people would have said that they are perfectly fine living with a CRT TV and a landline phone. There would be no reason for doing any research into any further technology
Part of it is my personal feelings about the current technology. I’m using a phone that is around 4 years old now and sure some of the new foldable phones do sound interesting, but I really have no need to upgrade mine, it makes calls, I can watch YouTube videos, look up where I want to go, and play some games. I don’t really see a need for anything to change for something new and if someone asked me to pitch in for research in phones I would ask why?
As for what drives innovation, I won’t deny that any of the examples that you listed drive innovation, but I guess it’s more about the pace of it.
Right now the companies pour resources into creating a product that meets requirements and that the customers will pick over the competition and give money to the company that created a product that they wanted
Using your example is the perfect illustration that capitalism isn’t good at creating innovation. The market for phones has settled and the market leaders have no reason to use resources to create something new that might even be better. That would risk their money and it’d also risk their dominant position in the market. It’s more efficient (if profit is your measure of efficiency) to hinder competition.
If profit isn’t the incentive and experimentation is, people will play around with new ideas and create new things, much of which will suck but some won’t. Just look at makers online. They invent new things just for the fun of creation. Sure, some profit from viewership online (we’ve all got to survive and we live in capitalism), but not by focusing on the profit of a product. Occasionally something groundbreaking comes out of those spaces, and frequently they create small innovations that improve things.
The same stuff applies to open source software. Reddit became horrible because it was chasing profit, but now we have Lemmy, Mastodon, and the rest of the Fediverse entirely independent of profit motives.
My problem with my example is with the individuals in our society.
I honestly have no idea why people still want to buy the newest models of phones since they don’t really bring anything new to the table.
But, in my opinion, it’s a failing of the individuals rather than a failing of an economic model. There really is no negative for a company to release new models with minor updates if there are enough dumbasses that will give them money for it
I feel you with existing tech, my phone will probably last me quite a while even though folding phones are pretty cool. I might have some software suggestions for contributing to phone development, but I’m not particularly interested in that either.
If we had a library economy, I’d seek out other areas I’m passionate about and contribute my piece there instead. I feel like I have a lot to contribute to computer science, and would love to drive innovation in that area. I also like my current job. I’d continue to do what I do now, even without the coercive force of money; though I’d probably scale back my working hours. Instead of asking yourself “why would I contribute to that”, ask yourself “what do I want to contribute to”. That’s the idea behind a library economy in a moneyless society.
My problem in that regard would be that there is nothing that I’m passionate about.
Sure, I have 100s of different interests that I have dabbled with, but for all of them, I have stopped at some point, before forgetting about them entirely or picking them up again sometimes years later.
Without considering how your free use however you want effects others?
Define the others, I’m not out here throwing trash on the streets or smashing windows, I don’t mind helping the people in my community or lending the things that I own to them.
If there’s one copy of a book in a town and its your cherished thing, that’s fine.
If you’re the only person in town with a copy of a library’s worth of books and you aren’t willing to share any with your community to borrow, you’re allowed to do that, but you sound like someone who doesn’t really want to be a member of a community.
Live together or die alone. We can be a civilization one day, or we can keep being monkeys throwing sticks at each other in the dirt, but with smartphones and smog.
If there’s one copy of a book in a town and its your cherished thing, that’s fine.
If you’re the only person in town with a copy of a library’s worth of books and you aren’t willing to share any with your community to borrow, you’re allowed to do that, but you sound like someone who doesn’t really want to be a member of a community.
In that case, it’s all on a case-by-case basis.
There are some books that I would just give away since they would be taking up space, there are some books that I wouldn’t mind lending to anyone at any time, and there are some books that I would only lend to someone that I know personally.
Live together or die alone. We can be a civilization one day, or we can keep being monkeys throwing sticks at each other in the dirt, but with smartphones and smog.
Sure, but we were never meant to be a global one, I’m perfectly fine with being a part of a certain tribe of monkeys that is ready to throw sticks at another tribe for our way of life.
If you don’t value the thing for it’s intended function why are you bothering to take one?
Also, if you destroy or misplace the thing, there’s no reason to give you different things. If you want another thing, you are going to be made to work for it.
If you don’t value the thing for it’s intended function why are you bothering to take one?
That’s beside the point, the point is that I don’t borrow things because I like to have the ability to use them however I want and according to my current needs.
I have a paint can that I can’t get open, but I own a flathead screwdriver. It’s not the intended purpose of a flathead screwdriver, but I can use it as a prybar to open the paint can, if the screwdriver breaks, now I have 2 pieces of metal to use for something else.
I don’t mind working, but I would like to work for a currency that I can use to buy things that I will own and see to use however I see fit for it to be used.
Define “right” in this context please. If you mean legal right, we’re talking about an entirely different system that would have different laws. The rights you have now may not apply. If you mean moral right, what gives you the moral right to consume resources that need not be consumed that could serve others also? Those seem like some pretty horrible morals if that’s what you believe.
This just shows a total failing of your creativity or critical thinking skills if you can’t even put aside your current ideas to consider what other things can happen. You can’t consider another idea if you aren’t willing to put aside preconceived notions. You aren’t even saying the other system is bad or wouldn’t work or anything. You’re only saying you can’t even consider anything that isn’t exactly what you have now. It may improve your life or it may not, but you can’t even consider it because it’s different.
I wouldn’t like the library system because it requires you to treat things a certain way.
If we think of it from the perspective of a book (since we’re talking about libraries here), if I borrow a book from a library, I have to treat it well and return it in a condition that somebody else can read it.
If I own a book, I can do whatever I want with it, I can burn it as firewood, I can cut out the words that I don’t like from all of the pages, or I can just scribble all over it with a permanent marker, it’s my book after all.
A library economy doesn’t mean you can’t own anything. If you want to own something you can make it or check it out indefinitely. For an example of this, let’s think of checking out a phone.
You’d check it out indefinitely, and you can consider it yours. Since there’s no money or profit incentive, the phones are designed to be durable, easily repairable, and have interoperable parts. Because the library is the means by which we manage the commons, parts are readily available and you can return the broken part (or entire phone) to be recycled and get the replacement.
Then the question is where does the incentive to do it that way and the incentive to innovative come form?
Dude. Capitalism kills innovation. I hate that myth so much. Capitalism is more likely to stifle innovation than create it. The goal of capitalism is profit and nothing else. Innovation requires risk, which could cause a loss of profit, so it’s a last resort. It’s more profitable to hinder your opponents than to create something innovative.
Here’s a good breakdown of some of this.
For example, much of our innovation in our society comes from research universities. These are, generally, outside of capitalism. They do research and make discoveries for the benefit they bring to society, or sometimes just to improve our knowledge. They don’t do it for profit.
Humans like to improve things and to learn things. There’s no need for it to be profitable. Creating a system that prioritizes this is possible, but it isn’t capitalism.
From competitions, individual interests, passion, necessity, etc. We don’t need money or markets for people to seek innovation. A library steward should also be responsible for automating means of production as best as possible, which would also drive scientific advancement.
The problem then is that all of those, besides nececities aren’t really good at encouraging any innovation.
Yes, inventing something like a heater so people don’t freeze to death or a plow to make tending to a field easier could come out of necessity.
But the dangerous part is that it creates a risk of people just going “yeah, we are comfortable enough already” and the technological development just stopping. If you go back 40 years and 99% of the people would have said that they are perfectly fine living with a CRT TV and a landline phone. There would be no reason for doing any research into any further technology
Can you explain why you feel that way? What do you think drives innovation currently?
Part of it is my personal feelings about the current technology. I’m using a phone that is around 4 years old now and sure some of the new foldable phones do sound interesting, but I really have no need to upgrade mine, it makes calls, I can watch YouTube videos, look up where I want to go, and play some games. I don’t really see a need for anything to change for something new and if someone asked me to pitch in for research in phones I would ask why?
As for what drives innovation, I won’t deny that any of the examples that you listed drive innovation, but I guess it’s more about the pace of it.
Right now the companies pour resources into creating a product that meets requirements and that the customers will pick over the competition and give money to the company that created a product that they wanted
Using your example is the perfect illustration that capitalism isn’t good at creating innovation. The market for phones has settled and the market leaders have no reason to use resources to create something new that might even be better. That would risk their money and it’d also risk their dominant position in the market. It’s more efficient (if profit is your measure of efficiency) to hinder competition.
If profit isn’t the incentive and experimentation is, people will play around with new ideas and create new things, much of which will suck but some won’t. Just look at makers online. They invent new things just for the fun of creation. Sure, some profit from viewership online (we’ve all got to survive and we live in capitalism), but not by focusing on the profit of a product. Occasionally something groundbreaking comes out of those spaces, and frequently they create small innovations that improve things.
The same stuff applies to open source software. Reddit became horrible because it was chasing profit, but now we have Lemmy, Mastodon, and the rest of the Fediverse entirely independent of profit motives.
My problem with my example is with the individuals in our society.
I honestly have no idea why people still want to buy the newest models of phones since they don’t really bring anything new to the table.
But, in my opinion, it’s a failing of the individuals rather than a failing of an economic model. There really is no negative for a company to release new models with minor updates if there are enough dumbasses that will give them money for it
I feel you with existing tech, my phone will probably last me quite a while even though folding phones are pretty cool. I might have some software suggestions for contributing to phone development, but I’m not particularly interested in that either.
If we had a library economy, I’d seek out other areas I’m passionate about and contribute my piece there instead. I feel like I have a lot to contribute to computer science, and would love to drive innovation in that area. I also like my current job. I’d continue to do what I do now, even without the coercive force of money; though I’d probably scale back my working hours. Instead of asking yourself “why would I contribute to that”, ask yourself “what do I want to contribute to”. That’s the idea behind a library economy in a moneyless society.
My problem in that regard would be that there is nothing that I’m passionate about.
Sure, I have 100s of different interests that I have dabbled with, but for all of them, I have stopped at some point, before forgetting about them entirely or picking them up again sometimes years later.
Gimme back my headphones jack
The Wright brothers were fairly wealthy business owners before kittyhawk. You don’t know what you are talking about re: “innovation motivators”
That’s cause you’re selfish.
Well I’m sure he’s the only one. This system sounds great.
Selfish for wanting to own the things that I use and having the right to use them however I want?
Without considering how your free use however you want effects others?
Absolutely.
Humans are social animals, hyper-individualism is antisocial.
Contrary to what the oligarchs tell you, greed and selfishness are character deficits and personal failings.
Not that they haven’t spent the last century propagandizing attempting to rebrand them into virtues like the Orwellian rational self-interest.
Define the others, I’m not out here throwing trash on the streets or smashing windows, I don’t mind helping the people in my community or lending the things that I own to them.
If there’s one copy of a book in a town and its your cherished thing, that’s fine.
If you’re the only person in town with a copy of a library’s worth of books and you aren’t willing to share any with your community to borrow, you’re allowed to do that, but you sound like someone who doesn’t really want to be a member of a community.
Live together or die alone. We can be a civilization one day, or we can keep being monkeys throwing sticks at each other in the dirt, but with smartphones and smog.
In that case, it’s all on a case-by-case basis.
There are some books that I would just give away since they would be taking up space, there are some books that I wouldn’t mind lending to anyone at any time, and there are some books that I would only lend to someone that I know personally.
Sure, but we were never meant to be a global one, I’m perfectly fine with being a part of a certain tribe of monkeys that is ready to throw sticks at another tribe for our way of life.
If you don’t value the thing for it’s intended function why are you bothering to take one?
Also, if you destroy or misplace the thing, there’s no reason to give you different things. If you want another thing, you are going to be made to work for it.
There’s always a bellows that needs pumping.
That’s beside the point, the point is that I don’t borrow things because I like to have the ability to use them however I want and according to my current needs.
I have a paint can that I can’t get open, but I own a flathead screwdriver. It’s not the intended purpose of a flathead screwdriver, but I can use it as a prybar to open the paint can, if the screwdriver breaks, now I have 2 pieces of metal to use for something else.
I don’t mind working, but I would like to work for a currency that I can use to buy things that I will own and see to use however I see fit for it to be used.
Ok man. The use of money does indeed enable you to be a loner misanthrope that is ambivalent about your reputation.
Other “social” systems rely on being “social”
Define “right” in this context please. If you mean legal right, we’re talking about an entirely different system that would have different laws. The rights you have now may not apply. If you mean moral right, what gives you the moral right to consume resources that need not be consumed that could serve others also? Those seem like some pretty horrible morals if that’s what you believe.
Yes, I mean a legal right, and I would like to have that legal right in the future, thank you very much.
This just shows a total failing of your creativity or critical thinking skills if you can’t even put aside your current ideas to consider what other things can happen. You can’t consider another idea if you aren’t willing to put aside preconceived notions. You aren’t even saying the other system is bad or wouldn’t work or anything. You’re only saying you can’t even consider anything that isn’t exactly what you have now. It may improve your life or it may not, but you can’t even consider it because it’s different.