[chmike]

Cc is the open source of creation. I'm fascinated by the power of open source. capitalism pushed to its extream is harmful to humanity. Just look at junk food to convince yourself if you aren't yet. By its incremental enhancement, it leads to exponential growth. It is slow in the start because incremental steps are small, but it leads to a tsunami.

I believe we are on the verge to see a fundamental change in the way the worlds economy is working. This may still take 100 years, but capitalism is doomed because it leads to unstable economical states and it's harmful for humanity (e.g speculation on food).

Lets keep pushing on the snowball and extend that model to other domains. I think that scientists pioneered that model, hence the exponential scientific progress.

[hueving]

It seems you are implying that food which people like to eat (junk food) wouldn't be created in an 'open source' economy. Why?

[chmike]

That is not what I wrote, but it's an intresting question. It probably would but not to the actual extend US is currently facing.

Let's face it. Looking at what happens in science, we see that there is junk science and there are cheaters. So this would probably still exit in a pure open source economy. However, the incentive to create junk things just for the profit would be much smaller. The main reason, in my opinion, is because the reward of junk food creation is unrelated to its added value to humanity. With open source, the succes is more strongly related to the real added value of the product.

Note that the apparent success of junk food is not only due to people liking them. It's also because of strong marketing efforts, manipulating health tests and reports and organisations that should establish health rules, etc. It's also difficult to find healthy food because they saturate the market with it which leaves hardly any room for healthy food.

[john61]

Because in an open source environment the quality of the product is not defined by its commercial success but rather by the fun to create and share it. Therefore it is more in line with its intrinsic quality.

[icebraining]

Therefore it is more in line with its intrinsic quality.

What is this intrinsic quality, and why does it correlate better with the fun during creation than with the decision by people to buy it?

[TeMPOraL]

It's just "quality", and while it may be difficult to say whether it correlates better with the fun during creation than with sellability, the important thing is that quality doesn't correlated with sellability very much. There are way too many other inputs that influence whether or not people will buy something - like marketing, economies of scale and access to distribution.

(Though I'm pretty sure that this hypothetical Open Source McDonald's would exist. It, and other fast food joints, solve a legitimate consumer problem - getting hot and actually tasty food quickly.)

[bobbyi_settv]

Billions of dollars is spent on advertising to get children addicted to sugar and make them lifelong junk food consumers. Who would pay for that in the open source economy?

[hueving]

Are you implying that people wouldn't enjoy the taste of sugar, salt, and fat (key components of any good junk food) without advertising?

[ifdefdebug]

its ok as long as people eat it because they like it... it gets worse when people resort to junk food because they cant afford fresh vegetables, and that is the sad reality for a lot of people as of today

[zo1]

>"it gets worse when people resort to junk food because they cant afford fresh vegetables, and that is the sad reality for a lot of people as of today"

I don't think it's the cost of the food/ingredients that get's people to eat junk/fast-food. Maybe when it comes to stuff such as sugary-drinks, yes. But for food, it's often the convenience that trumps the cost. I'd say that it's actually cheaper to buy fresh ingredients, and cook it yourself, than it is to go out and binge on fast-food.

[TeMPOraL]

It I'm to believe what I read on-line (which is a dubious proposition), it depends on the place. I hear that in the US, McDonald's is actually cheaper than healthy food, especially if you count calories and nutritional elements per dollar spent. In most other places around the world, this definitely isn't the case.

That said, fast food solves an important need, IMO. It's usually a very tasty hot meal you can get quickly. Which is exactly what I want every time except when I'm taking my SO for a romantic evening.

[esrauch]

It is situationally true in the US. Inner city people generally have less access to cheap produce. People who have cars and access to the capability to buy in bulk at places like BJs or Sams also have access to cheaper food, so perversely the poorest end up buying more of their food from small shops that charge more.

[tarancato]

>capitalism pushed to its extream is harmful to humanity. Just look at junk food to convince yourself if you aren't yet.

I've always seen McDonald's regarded as one of the heralds of capitalism, and I still can't find out why.

[nerdponx]

People like conflating "capitalism" with "consumerism" when it's convenient.