[CWuestefeld]

When a real physical constraint is lifted... the thing to do is spend effort inventing ways to realise this advantage.

That's a little too glib. I think we are better off not looking for more ways to use our ability to kill more people faster. The right response to the atomic bomb wasn't to use it more, but to find ways to avoid using it.

I don't completely disagree with you, so I suppose there must be more nuance to it than either of us are picking up right now.

[hxa7241]

But we are not talking about harmful stuff are we? The whole question here is about making good stuff. If we have deemed it good to make, how can it then be bad to have more use of it? That seems a rather insurmountable puzzle, which an overlooked nuance seems unlikely to cover.

(A common answer might be: the bad effect is that it harms producers' ability to make money and survive. But this is circular: it only harms them because they are using a system that means they will be harmed.)

(A more sophisticated response would be to give the example of betting tips: there is info that is not really nonrival. But there we are not valuing the info as itself, but as it works as part of a system of rules of a game. That is not really like the info in question.)

It is reasonable to be cautious about practical matters, but these corporate interests have turned it into the grossest FUD. Ignore them and be forward-thinking.