At some point and at times I encounter people for which evolution is a boody battle of the surival of the fittest. However the true conception of “fit” also includes capability to cooperate most passionately. It seems to me that something similar here is happening with the word “scarce” where it is invented and explained in one connotation and then a more general technical definiton is used but the “other connotations” are largely ignored.
The reading of the article was a little jarring because I could easily come up with a system where there are restraurants that let you eat each and every kid of dish on the menu as much as you want. They are called buffets. Even if I were in a traditional restaurant I could order up all the foods. But even if I ordered all of them I proably would not eat 24 meals in one sitting. My stomach is not infinite. I realise that this is also why getting banned from a buffet is way of making fun of someone being a big eater. Buffets work only if when people are given free reign to take as much food as they need they take only a finite amount instead of all of it. There is a certain limit amount of food that if you take it you are a net negative to the retaurant as it it in their interest to not accept you as a customer.
But if people take only a moderate amount we don’t need to track on person to person basis on who takes what what amount. One person taking potatoes doesn’t make the other person unable to pick those. When a buffet takes market share from a portion serving restaurant it reduces scarcity. When the product is “one person eating” it makes no longer sense to talk about how much a portion of rice costs. When you pay for a buffet you have less options to choose from but this is the good kind of limitation, you are forced to take all of them instead some of them.
Now in a sense when there is portion serving restaurant and a buffet opens next to it, technically now there is more opportunities to use the same money to receive different products. So scarcity has increased. But this makes no f sense with the standard connotation of the word. It would make even less sense that forcing the buffet to close down via community legistation would be in some sense improvement because scarctiy would have decreased especially if you could choose to have an equivalent meal from the buffet at the same price that a portion at the other restaurant would cost.
But if there is a price difference it might be that customers migth like the product difference more than the price difference (in either way). In that sense one of them might be outcompeteed “naturally”. When there is only one restaurant alive that means less products to choose for so scarcity is decreased. If you happen to be one that would have preferred the other kind of restaurant the others have in effect chosen for you that you don’t get to make the choice on how you want the terms of your meal to go. So instead of having the optino of enjoying the kind of meal that you like you are driven back to all the other activities you coudl be doing instead of having a meal. But it can be easy to think that the “fallback” activity is slightly less fun than having a meal woudl have been, so one can end up hoping that the situation woudl have been more scarse.
It also seemst that scarcse and degenerate are close ot being synonyms.
At some point and at times I encounter people for which evolution is a boody battle of the surival of the fittest. However the true conception of “fit” also includes capability to cooperate most passionately. It seems to me that something similar here is happening with the word “scarce” where it is invented and explained in one connotation and then a more general technical definiton is used but the “other connotations” are largely ignored.
The reading of the article was a little jarring because I could easily come up with a system where there are restraurants that let you eat each and every kid of dish on the menu as much as you want. They are called buffets. Even if I were in a traditional restaurant I could order up all the foods. But even if I ordered all of them I proably would not eat 24 meals in one sitting. My stomach is not infinite. I realise that this is also why getting banned from a buffet is way of making fun of someone being a big eater. Buffets work only if when people are given free reign to take as much food as they need they take only a finite amount instead of all of it. There is a certain limit amount of food that if you take it you are a net negative to the retaurant as it it in their interest to not accept you as a customer.
But if people take only a moderate amount we don’t need to track on person to person basis on who takes what what amount. One person taking potatoes doesn’t make the other person unable to pick those. When a buffet takes market share from a portion serving restaurant it reduces scarcity. When the product is “one person eating” it makes no longer sense to talk about how much a portion of rice costs. When you pay for a buffet you have less options to choose from but this is the good kind of limitation, you are forced to take all of them instead some of them.
Now in a sense when there is portion serving restaurant and a buffet opens next to it, technically now there is more opportunities to use the same money to receive different products. So scarcity has increased. But this makes no f sense with the standard connotation of the word. It would make even less sense that forcing the buffet to close down via community legistation would be in some sense improvement because scarctiy would have decreased especially if you could choose to have an equivalent meal from the buffet at the same price that a portion at the other restaurant would cost.
But if there is a price difference it might be that customers migth like the product difference more than the price difference (in either way). In that sense one of them might be outcompeteed “naturally”. When there is only one restaurant alive that means less products to choose for so scarcity is decreased. If you happen to be one that would have preferred the other kind of restaurant the others have in effect chosen for you that you don’t get to make the choice on how you want the terms of your meal to go. So instead of having the optino of enjoying the kind of meal that you like you are driven back to all the other activities you coudl be doing instead of having a meal. But it can be easy to think that the “fallback” activity is slightly less fun than having a meal woudl have been, so one can end up hoping that the situation woudl have been more scarse.
It also seemst that scarcse and degenerate are close ot being synonyms.