Re: Scarcity and limitedness - again (was: Re: [ox-en] Commons in a taxonomy of goods)

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
2010/7/1 Stefan Merten <[email protected]>

> Hi Diego!
>
> This is one of the debates which seems to pop up again and again.
> However, this debate is important.
>

I agree


> In this project we are trying to include scientific methods.


Excellent.


> For example the word "free" you are using all the time is probably one
> of the most overloaded words in the world.



yes, but I am using it in a very specific way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_good


And for this we
> need to be specific and need to understand why the "common" meaning is
> not enough for the things we are trying to grasp.
>

The wikipedia definition is exactly what we need.




>
> > scarcity, as normally defined,  is the consecuence of natural limits
> > and social economy production/distribution system
>
> This is a nice example for thinking in the old paradigm. StefanMz' and
> my claim is that with the new paradigm we need to challenge this
> "wisdom" and to replace it by something which is more suitable.
>

 why?


> > The fact is that peer production or other production system will not
> > put a end to scarcity, at least until will find other energy and
> > material sources
>

do you have something to say here?


> >
> > Peer production could reduce scarcity,  we use could generate a better
> > distribution system using peer production, but we could not continue a
> > infinite growth path.
> >
> > You can call that "limits", ok, but that will  not change the fundamental
> fact.
> > You can try to change the use of the word scarcity, if you don't like
> > it, but the facts will continue to be there.
>
> From this I understand that you at least accept that there are two
> concepts StefanMz (and I) using different words for.


ok


> AFAICS you are
> not proposing an own word for limitedness


no



> so I'll stick with the
> different words developed here.
>


ok, with limitedness

you did not give arguments to change scarcity or commons/free goods



> Your claim now is that these concepts are equal and because of this it
> doesn't make sense to talk about them separately.


no, that is not my claim

I am not making any claim

You write an  article proposing to change scarcity/common_good
definition (trying to explain peer production).

I do not see yet the need to change that definition.




> That could be a
> valid claim but I'll try to explain why IMHO it is misleading at best.
>
> Most of limitedness is due to a certain societal configuration which
> *can* be changed by human action.


ok


> As in StefanMz' example more apples
> *can* be produced if they are needed.


yes, but you will have less oranges


> Or you *can* invest in new
> technologies to solve the need for more energy. If you like this is
> the field of politics in a post-scarcity world.
>


we are not in a postscarcity world, now humankind is desperately searching
for new energy sources, and there isn't nothing obvious in front of us.




> Now the concept of scarcity enters the scene. Scarcity describes a
> situation where despite better knowledge there *won't* be more apples
> - for instance to keep the prices high.


you are inverting cause-effect here

you will need to  invert first and then you have quantities and then prices.

ok, they are "unknown differential equations", and everything is related,
but you have a time delay in inverstments => production. Tree growth is not
due in a minute.

you can choose if you will have (in the future)  cheaper apples or cheaper
oranges, but if you have a limit in human work time or in capital
investment, or in technologies, you can not produce every good you could
want at the price you want.



> There *won't* be new
> technlogies for new energy sources such as natural energy sources. And
> they won't because the fundamental societal configuration prevents
> this
>

united states by now are making huge investment in solar/wind energy
sources, some europeans countries are doing the same. China also.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html?_r=1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4481665/Barack-Obamas-New-Energy-Plan-For-America
http://energiaadebate.com/security-tops-the-environment-in-china%E2%80%99s-energy-plan/



AFAICS in your understanding you are neglecting this and say this is
> all "nature" and thus can not be changed.


we, as a part of nature, could make a lot of changes.

but we have limits

some "natural", some not, we could produce more goods, and distribute them
better, but we can not produce everything we want without limits, and that
is ussually called scarcity.




> IMHO this is how the old
> paradigm tries to sell things to people. It is always easy to say that
> *my* decision is really the will of God.
>

I do not believe in good. I think Darwin gives us a good description of
nature. Science not religion. Nature not heaven :)




However, if this would be correct you should really stop fighting for
> anything because laws of nature or the will of God can not be changed.
> In this case you simply have to accept that millions of humans are
> starving.
>

as  I said, we could make a lot of changes


> Our claim is that they *can* be changed because they are effects of
> human action.


we can make a lot of changes, but not every change we can imagine.


Our further claim is that they *won't* be changed as
> long as there is scarcity -


I think we could stop starving, but we could not stop all kind of scarcity.

So, there is not a magic solution for stoping scarcity.
We have limited work avaibility, we have limited capital resources, etc.

we could organize better, yes.

but we could not have infinite physical goods production.


> i.e. the societal configuration prevents
> this change.
>

societal configuration prevents a lot of changes

but there are lot of changes that are limited by other means.


>
> Peer production is clearly part of the new paradigm we are discussing
> here.


yes


> You can see that it *does* change the societal configuration
> because today we have high quality products which in several ways
> would not have been possible by the old paradigm.


yes


> And this is not by
> chance but because the old paradigm *prevents* such products.
>

we have now, more people,  more capital, better technologies, Internet, etc

peer production is part of a new era

as in industrial revolution, we will have social configuration changes

but, we will continue living in a scarce world



> Under scarcity

mmm


under actual economic configuration


> it makes sense to deliver a low-quality product because
> next time you can sell another one which may be a little bit better.
>

ok

but a lot of people will be watching black and white television, and using
insecure cars

ok I do not have  tv in my house, we dont need color, digital, 3d television

we dont need individual cars

etc

as in cuba, we can have all people eating, with health, etc if we put and
end to capitalism and consumism

I agree

I am not sure if peer production will put an end to consumism

I am very happy with my i7 processor, my 23 inches monitor, my color  laser
printer.



> Under limitedness such an approach doesn't make sense and that is why
> under peer production there is a steady progress to the highest
> possible quality. That you have this quality not from the start is an
> effect of limitedness but not of scarcity.
>

I agree, we could live better.

 please give to us your new scarcity definition, and your limitedness
definition




> So still to me it makes much sense to distinguish scarcity and
> limitedness - especially in this discussion.


ok

could you provide us an example of how  you would rewrite
scarcity/common_good/free_good wikipedia pages?

and write limitdness one


> If you have a better word
> for scarcity then you are free to propose it.


By now, I agree with wikipedia definition, I am listening you.


> Until then I'll stick
> with the current meaning developed here and hopefully I was able to
> explain why distinguishing these concepts is fundamental for
> understanding peer production.
>
>
I do not see how wikipedia definition put us a limit to understand peer
production.

-- 
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]