Living digitally very inexpensive

[BRUTE]

this is why the idea of "stealing music" online is absurd - it is just copied. for stealing to occur, something must be missing.

So by the same logic, I could tap Brute's electricity since technically the wires are still there and thus I haven't really removed any atoms from Brute's home. Of course one could argue that one is stealing the effort of the power plant in the same way that one is stealing the effort of the musician but apparently that would be absurd

brute is not 100% sure how electricity works, but isn't jacob stealing electrons in this example? it's more akin to "stealing" brute's cable by splicing it, and enjoying the same 300 premium channels without paying for it - brute doesn't lose anything and might not even notice.

or jacob breathing brute's air by standing right next to him when there's plenty of air all around (of course this would be different in a situation where air is scarce - say smoggy beijing or the ISS).

the point is that humans' concept of property was invented to solve distribution problems for scarce resources. using the same concept on non-scarce digital resources is intellectually lazy and nonsensical. IP is absurd and a major threat to creativity.

[workathome]

Heh, I recently read a book where the government basically hands out tiny apartments and subsidies, and most of the people spend all their time in VR games. "CTRL ALT REVOLT!"

http://amzn.to/1SdcO0l

[jacob]

@brute - Nope, all electrons are instantly returned one-to-one---one out equals one in in a completely fungible manner. I'm not emptying your wires of electrons.

The goal with IP is to compensate creativity using the same model as physical property. Without compensation, many creative people would stop creating and eventually there would be less creation as we would only have the kind of creations that people would/could do for free. This is why things like copyright and patents were introduced in the first place. Why bother with R&D if some manufacturer is just going to copy your design? IP is essentially an attempt to privatize creativity to avoid a tragedy of the commons scenario.

It's the creativity equivalent to the same laws that govern money supply which we---in principle---could also just copy around. For example, why don't I get to specify that I have a million bucks in my checking account. It's just digits. Why shouldn't money be free when it costs nothing to copy it? The answer should be obvious. Indeed, it kinda seems to me that the free-argument ignores secondary impacts on the entire system in the same way that a parasite ignores the impact it has on its host.

Of course there are other ways to compensate creativity like patronage or tax-driven grants. Another solution which is the one that internet content has taken is to plaster everything over with ads and/or reduce the quality of the product. That is, "if you're not paying for it, you become the product." Point being though that even if copying creativity is free, creativity itself doesn't come for free. Compare computer games of 1995 (a pay model) to games in 2015 (a subscription model) to see how this transition forced itself. If you change how you interact with the system, the system changes. Le Chatelier's principle. TANSTAAFL.

[jacob]

Heh, I recently read a book where the government basically hands out tiny apartments and subsidies, and most of the people spend all their time in VR games.

It's called college

[enigmaT120]

As an example, the number of annual visitors entering the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness has declined by about 12% from 2010-2014, and had a similar decline in a 6 year period prior to that, 2003 -2010 (there's one year of overlap in the two periods). Anecdotally I've heard there was a 20% decline from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s. The average age of a visitor was 26 in 1969 which rose to 46 by 2009, with something like 2/3's of all visitors being over 40, meaning the decline is likely to continue. Younger people just don't like to be disconnected from their electronics, I guess, and probably dislike the rigor and/or lack of structured activity.

One one hand, better and better: a couple of my buddies and I are planning a trip up in the BWCA next fall, early October. We like the solitude and lack of biting bugs, hence the timing.

The bad side is are people as willing to preserve wilderness areas and native species if they never go out to appreciate them? Why should I care if they clear cut the last of the old growth so long as I can see pretty videos on my TV?

[IlliniDave]

One one hand, better and better: a couple of my buddies and I are planning a trip up in the BWCA next fall, early October. We like the solitude and lack of biting bugs, hence the timing.

The bad side is are people as willing to preserve wilderness areas and native species if they never go out to appreciate them? Why should I care if they clear cut the last of the old growth so long as I can see pretty videos on my TV?

One of the interesting things is that off-season/winter usage (Oct-April) is actually up about 1%/year over the last 5 years (still very small compared to summer). I've never been in the park in the fall, but it's something I definitely look forward to.

The concern you bring up is one that the BWCA crowd is attuned with. With so few kids going and getting "hooked" (as I did and my father before me) people are concerned there will not be enough voices in the future to keep the preserve intact. The controversy over Polymet's efforts to secure mining permits along the Kawishiwi River is seen by many as the first salvo of that war.

[JL13]

Playing video.games all day is not pleasant in the long run because you end up controlling everything.

Not sure I follow your logic here. Do you mean you get used to being in control?

[Ego]

Heh, I recently read a book where the government basically hands out tiny apartments and subsidies, and most of the people spend all their time in VR games. "CTRL ALT REVOLT!"

http://amzn.to/1SdcO0l

Not sure if he is fanning the flames of controversy or if it is really a controversy but I saw this on his website...

http://www.nickcolebooks.com/2016/02/09 ... publisher/

I like creativity and thought he engineered a very creative twist on the abortion debate. How many stars would you give it?

[workathome]

Heh, I recently read a book where the government basically hands out tiny apartments and subsidies, and most of the people spend all their time in VR games. "CTRL ALT REVOLT!"

http://amzn.to/1SdcO0l

Not sure if he is fanning the flames of controversy or if it is really a controversy but I saw this on his website...

http://www.nickcolebooks.com/2016/02/09 ... publisher/

I like creativity and thought he engineered a very creative twist on the abortion debate. How many stars would you give it?

I think it was well written. I think I gave it 4/5. Maybe includes too much information about acting for my interests, and some of the characters are perhaps a little thin, but makes up for it with lots of gamer and Star Trek nerdish references. His pretend future reminds me a lot of Idiocracy and can be pretty funny, and is a bit politically incorrect in a similar way. He definitely sets up the ending for a sequel or information wanting, which is perhaps not entirely satisfying.

[BRUTE]

The goal with IP is to compensate creativity using the same model as physical property. Without compensation, many creative people would stop creating and eventually there would be less creation as we would only have the kind of creations that people would/could do for free. This is why things like copyright and patents were introduced in the first place.

no. copyrights and patents were introduced as tools of censorship by monarchs. good book on this topic: Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine.

brute isn't against creativity and rewarding creators. brute is just convinced the actual IP laws have exactly zero to do with helping creatives and creators, and are actually doing a disservice to them and society as a whole.

just a few examples: large parts of pharmaceutical research now does not go into developing new drugs, but into developing all kinds of similar compounds that need to be copyrighted. otherwise a competitor could reverse-engineer anything, change a single molecule while preserving the medical effect, and sell it. so companies copyright dozens or hundreds of combinations. patents are used as a legal tool to bully smaller firms into submission, because even if they're in the right, they can't afford the legal costs. most big companies now have IP arsenals so they can retaliate in case they're being sued, suing back and making a deal. longer and longer copyright keeps lots of art and culture out of the public domain, because companies like disney lobby for extension of laws. the song "happy birthday" was until recently copyrighted and people were sued for playing or performing it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/busin ... judge.html.

if there was an honest interest in supporting new creations, brute would be all for it - patronage, kickstarters, subscriptions services, whatever. but using the completely unrelated term of "property" is just conscious misdirection. US courts have even decided that copying copyrighted material is not "stealing" and usage of the term is unfounded.

as it currently stands, both copyright and patents are so broken that brute would rather see the system abolished and the supposed goals of protecting/encouraging creatives be reached some other way.

same as with the war on drugs. the proponents had decades to show any positive effects at all, they failed, abolish it.

[JamesR]

Since I already largely live mostly at home & on the computer inexpensively, the notion of promoting that over living in the real world offends me!!!!

That's already happening. As an example, the number of annual visitors entering the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness has declined by about 12% from 2010-2014, and had a similar decline in a 6 year period prior to that, 2003 -2010 (there's one year of overlap in the two periods). Anecdotally I've heard there was a 20% decline from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s. The average age of a visitor was 26 in 1969 which rose to 46 by 2009, with something like 2/3's of all visitors being over 40, meaning the decline is likely to continue. Younger people just don't like to be disconnected from their electronics, I guess, and probably dislike the rigor and/or lack of structured activity. Quetico Provincial Park, which is adjacent to BWCA to the north in Ontario, has seen even larger declines in the number of visitors despite having a much stricter quota system (fewer visitors per day allowed) and much more desirable experience (if solitude and disconnectedness is your thing) because it's even more remote.

Hiking might be down in specific areas but it's definitely way up in other areas.. Like the PCT. Solution - make a movie that takes place in Boundary Waters Canoe Area?

[simplex]

I'm mostly with Brute on IP. P is for property. However in the digital world, you don't buy any property as a consumer. For example with a kindle book, you "buy" the right to view a book as long as you have an amazon account. With a real book you buy the book. Additionally IP allows you to "own" things exclusively you discovered by research. Compare that to owning all oil fields because you discovered the first.
I think there's nothing wrong with compensating creators, and probably there are better systems than the IP system in use now.

[7Wannabe5]

Why even bother to be born into this world? I wasn't sure how I was going to spend my time if I make it past age 85, but now I will assume I will be devoting my energies to gray panthers guerilla action to unplug and free our great-grand-children's generation from their pods. and release them on to the streets or into the woodlands with red rubber balls and small folding knives, shouting "Don't come back until you are starving and covered with dirt!!"

[BRUTE]

Why even bother to be born into this world?

brute is not convinced it was a conscious choice for most humans.

[enigmaT120]

Why even bother to be born into this world?

brute is not convinced it was a conscious choice for most humans.

And the sooner they can get back into the womb, the better?

[akratic]

Ignoring the derailed part of the thread and responding to the original post:

A preference for digital experiences is a definite advantage for FI because digital experiences can be so inexpensive. Sure they can be made expensive like anything, but in general they are cheap.

I think the same is true of a preference for introverted experiences. It's much cheaper to create a situation where you are alone with a book or laptop (what I might want) than it is to create a situation where 10+ friends come to your lake house to drink, talk, and tool around on your boat (what my brother might want).

The more digital (and introverted and blah, blah, blah) your needs/wants are, the easier FI is going to be. And not just by a little, but more like by orders of magnitude.

[jacob]

I think the same is true of a preference for introverted experiences. It's much cheaper to create a situation where you are alone with a book or laptop (what I might want) than it is to create a situation where 10+ friends come to your lake house to drink, talk, and tool around on your boat (what my brother might want).

It's easier to create the introvert/book experience, but it's not necessarily cheaper.

Cost of book at book store: $15 + ten minutes online
Cost of book at library: $0 (or $2 in bus tickets) + one hour trip
Cost of laptop and hookups: $1000 + $50/month + zero minutes
Cost of one ERE meetup / personal: $5 (milk, butter, and flour) + an hour of so or coordinating spread out over a month of planning
Cost of one ERE meetup / all: $50 total, more if everybody took the bus, less if everybody opted out of the potluck.

The primary issue with extrovert activities is that more than one person is needed and because FIRE is hard, it's tough to find critical mass. If FIRE was normal, creating cheap extrovert activities would be as hard/cheap as a facilitating a game of beer pong at a random college.

[steveo73]

I think the same is true of a preference for introverted experiences. It's much cheaper to create a situation where you are alone with a book or laptop (what I might want) than it is to create a situation where 10+ friends come to your lake house to drink, talk, and tool around on your boat (what my brother might want).

The more digital (and introverted and blah, blah, blah) your needs/wants are, the easier FI is going to be. And not just by a little, but more like by orders of magnitude.

I agree. Our expenses may be high in an ERE sense but that is because we have 3 kids. Our expenses compared to our peers are so much lower. Our activities are predominantly introverted activities like reading.

I can see Jacob's point with regards to extroverted activities potentially being cheap but on the whole it's out to the local pub or restaurant or whatever and it typically costs a lot.

[Toska2]

Living digitally is expensive. Rent, computer, internet, electricity and food all add up. Living in a tent, visiting multiple worlds as one trips on foraged psyclobin is where it's at.

All kidding aside, it's similar to the tourist and traveller arguement. There's something missing from the experience. Until VR has seagulls stealing my picnic food and sprays saltwater in my face, it's a poor substitute.

[BRUTE]

to the tourist/traveler point, that can actually save a lot of money over a "digital lifestyle", if your digital lifestyle is based in an expensive country.