Re: free vs. common (was: Re: [ox-en] A name for a peer-production-based society?)

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
>
>
> Wow, this is revolutionary!
>
>
yes in fact it is,  it is called information society as time ago we have
insutrial society.



> Infinite data transfer and storage with no physical constraints!
>
> Google, Amazon, etc. will want to talk to you immediately.
>
>
they have what they need, and when they want more they get it.




> I need to get my silly ISP involved so he can stop caring about how
> much I download.
>
>
is worried?



> And I'd sure like one of these infinite-capacity drives...  But if
> they are not composed of matter, and don't take up any space at all, I
> wonder how they can even be seen...
>

my computer has less than 3 kg

and can store more than 160 GB



> > yes, but physical medium for computers and connections allready exists or
> > could exist for the people included in info soc.
>
> I saw a statistic the other day showing only 1 in 100 people owns a PC.
>
>
could be



> We currently use physical networks to carry data between these rare
> machines.  Those networks have very real limits of bandwidth and
> response-time.
>


yes, and?


>
> And we use clunky, overheated, dusty hard-drives to store very small
> amounts of that total data.
>
>
>



> But if you are correct - if we have been fooling ourselves about such
> material constraints, then each of us will soon (or are you saying we
> already are?) carry around a *local* copy of the entire internet at
> all times, which was instantaneously updated in real-time with no lag
> and no actual costs of any sort.
>


why could we want to store all world data in our hard disk?

we have a lot of info available in internet.



>
>
>
>
> >
> >> You might say software is silicon-based while fish are carbon-based.
> >>
> >
> > we have enough silicon for everyone, but not enough fish
>
>
> I wonder why you compare the source of one (silicon) with the object
> of the other (fish).
>


I am only speaking about what other say


>
> Couldn't we at least compare silicon to carbon or computers to fish?
>
> But either way:
> 1. Neither silicon nor carbon are infinite.
>

and? we have more than we need



> 2. There are currently not enough computers nor enough fish.
>

every day computers cost less and fish cost more

I have all the computeres I want,  I could need to sell one computer to buy
fish for one month, eating fish every day.




> 3. There *could be* enough computers and enough fish if we humans knew
> how to work together,


we know how to work together, probably we can do better

we have enough computers for all people included in "our society"

we dont have enough fish



> but since Capitalism requires Profit, and since
> Profit requires Scarcity,



scarcity  is not something that depends on profit.

every human society and every animal society and every ecosytem in our
universe "suffer" scarcity



> there is no chance we will ever have enough
> unless we solve the problem of co-ownership.
>
>
>
>
distribution problem is not directly related to scarcity problem

we can see what is probably the firts egalitarian society in the universe:
cuba, and we can see scarcity.
we can see USA and we can see scarcity


life wants to grow

and will do, until it reach a limit

so life will be always at a limit

we call scarcity to that limit



>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >
> >> In both cases here are real limits to the number of copies because of
> >> the physical constraints of:
> >>
> >> 1. space: you can only store so many.
> >>
> > we have exponential growing digital density
>
> Even so, datasets will continue to grow and storage will always be an
> issue.
>


a cheap issue


>
> Another reason storage will always be an issue is the degenerative
> nature of the physical medium: hard-drives, CDs, DVDs, magnetic tape,
> 'flash' memory, etc. all have limits on the amount of time they will
> hold data in a stable manner.
>
>
at exponetial rates storing the past is always less than to store actual
production.



>
> But it will never reach infinity.  All I'm saying is that every form
> of design must reside in our physical world - otherwise how could we
> even have contact with it?
>
>
you are right, but thats not the relevant fact

we always need air to breathe, but is not relevant (until we do not have it)





> >
> >
> >> 3. mass: each copy must reside on a mineral substrate.
> >>
> >
> > exponential growing density
>
> That does not change the fundamental property of data: it *MUST* be
> hosted in the material world.  There are no exceptions!
>


and?



>
> This is a very sloppy and even dangerous claim because of the massive
> energy and therefore environmental impact caused by all of these
> electric machines and all the resources dedicated to keeping it
> running.
>
>
we consume a lot more energy in other activities




> Secondarily, just because you may be able to personally 'afford' such
> things doesn't mean most people can.  Most people cannot.
>

could be, and?




>
> If there are no limits, then why don't you instantly download the
> entire internet onto your hard-drive?
>
>
I dont need to do that,
 in fact is easier to find things in google than in my hard drive.



> >> It is quite possible to allow fish to duplicate themselves
> >> (self-unfold) to trillions of copies.
> >>
> >
> > it happens, but no at enough velocity, because growth limits.
>
> Are you saying growth has limits?  If so, then I agree.
>
>
in fish



> But that is not why we lack abundant fish.
>
> The reason is caused by governments run by corporations steered by
> profit which requires scarcity.
>
>
not at all, we are eating more fish than earth could generate





> We could easily farm enough fish to feed everyone in the world many
> times over if we knew how to co-own (share or multiplex) property.
>
>
but if we make farms in every ocean, we will destroy a lot of others thing
in our ecosystem.






> But the corporations that do co-own, do so in a very centeralized
> manner caused by their mistreating profit as though it were a reward
> for them to keep.
>
> They operate the governments directly, and those governments create
> legislation (such as the US Farm Bill) that artificially keeps price
> above cost by purposefully decreasing abundance by (for instance)
> paying farmers to NOT grow on land that is provably arable.
>
>
that is another kind of problem. a big one, but it will require a lot of
writing.



> We cannot solve or even address this issue until we realize and admit
> that the Material Means of Production (Physical Sources) must be in
> the hands of those that intend to use the outputs of those Means.
>
>
?? you dont like work division?




> I'm talking about the consumers that pay for product now will in the
> future organize to pay for production - and at that time, when the
> payers are the owners,


you dont like workers to own factories, but consumers?

you dont blame capitalists?



> and when profit is being treated as an
> investment from he who paid it, those organizations will not have the
> filthy goal of withholding abundance to prop-up price, for their goal
> will be *product* instead.
>
>
do you like consumer cooperatives?



> > we dont need cd or dvd, but we have more than we need
>
> Who is this 'we' you speak of?  I personally need some DVD-R media right
> now!
>
>

we have bigger pendrives now. you could use them



>
> >
> >> In both cases there is no limit in potential, but there is a very
> >> definite ceiling on the number of copies you can finally instantiate
> >> into the physical world.
> >
> >
> >
> > yes, but now we have  costly fish and cheap bits.
>
> The bits seem cheap to you, but for the Earth as a whole they are very
> expensive.
>

by now fish are more expendive to the earth than bites.



-- 
Diego Saravia
[email protected]
NO FUNCIONA->dsa-AySywPH+/[email protected]


[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]