Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Free lunches Message-ID: <28200172@inmet.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 01:32:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.28200172 Posted: Wed Oct 16 01:32:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 07:40:41 EDT References: <1712@dciem.UUCP> Lines: 87 Nf-ID: #R:dciem:-171200:inmet:28200172:000:4279 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Oct 16 01:32:00 1985 >/* Written 8:07 pm Oct 8, 1985 by mmt@dciem in inmet:net.politics.t */ >/* ---------- "Re: Free lunches" ---------- */ > >>To be wrong is not teh same thing as to be irrational. A great many >>people believe in a free lunch. It is difficult to disbelieve it since >>-- >>Laura Creighton (note new address!) > >Laura is always rational, but, as here, she is frequently wrong. >It is insufficient jsut to follow Heinlein and repeat "There's no >such thing as a free lunch" in every other posting. There is (in >both the literal and the metaphoric sense). > >We all live for free. We obtain energy from the Sun (free), and all >we make or do is based on how we use the degradation of this energy >into heat (barring a little energy from nuclear fission). Anything >we do with out physical bodies is based on this "free lunch." If we >can't get enough energy, we can't do much. Oops! I left my photosynthetic symbionts in my imagination. I don't know about YOU, but I find it very tough to extract food energy from the sun (other than by employing energies of my own). That this results in a NET gain in energy for me doesn't mean I didn't pay for it. >We organize. That is free. By organizing, we can make better use of >all this free energy that the Sun gives us. We can extract energy deposited >millions of years ago, and use it to gather rocks that can be converted >into metals. It's free, if you can induce people to work together and >help you. It's also free if you can summon up the pure metals by staring at the ground hard and muttering "something for nothing.... something for nothing", so? >Why do you say "There's no such thing as a free lunch?" Do you imply >that if I want to improve my circumstances in one respect, I must reduce >them equally (or more) in another respect? That can't be true, for there >would be NO material wealth if that were the case. Do you imply that I >must expend effort to get what I want? Fine, but that effort represents >energy I acquired free, by eating lunch. Do you mean money? Ah... there's >the rub. Okay, Martin. Look at it this way. You must expend energy in order to get energy. The energy you got originally was given to you by someone else (probably parents) who themselves had to expend energy to get it. And so on, back to whatever dawn there was. So think of it this way: there was ONE free breakfast -- but there are NO free lunches, no free dinners, and no more free breakfasts (that we know of). >What is money? Simply a means of coercing (or, if you like, inducing) >someone to do for or with me what she would perhaps not do otherwise. I think the difference between coercion and "inducing" ("induction" would have had the wrong connotations) is pretty important. For example, if someone offered me a million dollars, (or for that matter, all the money on the planet) I doubt I'd be willing to torture a small animal (a puppy, say) to death. On the other hand, what to do about the gun held against your mother's head by the person who wants you to torture? >Where does money come from? ... Yes, but I mean initially? It was (and >remains) a substitute for barter. I want what you have or can do more >than I want this thing or the effort I may expend doing something for you. >Money isn't wealth. Money is a communications medium, an aid to organization. >It's only good when you can get or do something with it. > A very good point about money. >Yes, there is a free lunch. Life as an organized society is NOT a >zero-sum game (which I suspect is closer to the meaning than are the >straw men I have been beating). Organization itself creates wealth, >and is the only effective means of doing so on a grand scale. It is >the flow of that free energy that gives us all our organization, whether >it be social, or just the organization of materials into our high-tech >toys. > >So please, let's hear no more from the cult of Heinlein. I can understand your personal dislike of how Heinlein phrased things: he's a blunt man, not willing to sugar coat anything when he's right, and tending to be just as firm when he's wrong as when he's right. But that doesn't excuse Heinlein-bashing -- not when he's RIGHT, and there is STILL no such thing as a free lunch.