Log in

View Full Version : There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch



apathy maybe
30th June 2004, 04:17
There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL) is one of Robert A. Heinlein's* most famous quotations. Let us examine it closely and see where it stands up, and where it falls down. (Ignoring the double negative.)

The TANSTASFL is basically this,
"Everything worthwhile has a cost. Whenever you think you are getting something for nothing, look again - someone, somewhere, somehow is paying for it. Behind every free lunch there is a hidden cost to be accounted for."1
In most cases this does apply. Most definitely in a capitalist society, but also in a socialist one to a lesser extent. That 'free' education (that most of you didn't get) was paid for by the tax payer (or someone anyway).

This principle is used by capitalists to argue that socialism and most definitely communism wouldn't work. You can see in a capitalist society how this applies; when someone thinks there is a free lunch, generally the tab is being picked up in China, India or by the poor of their own country. It's how capitalism works.

It doesn't prevent Socialism from working however. Sure, there maybe no free lunch. But seeing as we all work for government (and we don't get paid), they should pick up the tab. As you can see, under socialism the principle still applies, just the burden is falling equally on all shoulders rather then just the poor.

Under a Communist society it starts getting difficult. The principle still applies, but in different ways. These I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

Ultimately where there is no free lunch, the impact falls on the environment. Sure you can have a new plastic bag every time you go shopping, but where did the oil come from? and where is that plastic going?

This principle doesn't apply to digital (you know what I mean, don't be difficult) things. If something is stored digitally it can effectively be copied an unlimited amount of times, with little or no cost to anyone. (Which is why "music piracy" isn't, it is more akin to someone copying the music to CDs then handing them out then someone stealing CD's. But both examples are in the real world, the Internet is not the real world.)

It also doesn't apply if you created a robot that was capable of finding material then building stuff out of it. Send it off to Mars, come back in 20 years and have a perfect city awaiting ('cept for that fact that you can't breath the air and a few other minor points). In this case it is not Humans that are losing anything, it is the ecology and environment (though some would argue that 1) Mars doesn't have one and 2) that humans are superior anyway).

Do as search for there Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch (http://www.google.com/search?q=there%20ain%27t%20no%20such%20thing%20as% 20a%20free%20lunch&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) on Google. You'll find it being used for a number of things, from ecology to capitalism. Enjoy.

*for those of you that don't know, Heinlein is a (was a?) Science Fiction author (a good one too, but not the best). He was also not a socialist. Do not let this detract from the rest of my post.

1) Shamelessly lifted from http://www.mgtaylor.com/public/2001/tanstaafl.html, why bother writing stuff when someone already has?

Rex_20XD6
2nd July 2004, 04:42
You know free lunch at school... the taxs payers are the ones who pay! yeah i didnt read what you said, but i think i got what your talking about, right?

apathy maybe
2nd July 2004, 12:42
All the kids get a free lunch. All the parents pay taxes. The lunch is paid for with those taxes. Therefore the lunch isn't really free.

What it does is enable the kids of poorer parents to have a lunch.

DaCuBaN
2nd July 2004, 19:48
There's no such thing as a freebie - period. Even in a 'gift' economy, you may well receive wonderful kindness from your comrades, but I think you really should feel obliged to reciprocate regardless.

The ideals of communism and capitalism really don't differ much here: They only differ on the fact that one promotes the accumulation of wealth in smaller and smaller circles, whereas the other spreads it.

Nothing in life is free, nor should it be. For you to get a 'freebie' under any political or economic system, somewhere along the line, in some way, someone has had to 'pay'.

CommieBastard
2nd July 2004, 21:38
Ultimately, the cost is not purely monetary. The monetary costs represent the labour being carried out by someone, somewhere. Where and when labour is not committed by a person, but rather purely by automotons or animals it is effectively free, as no person need pick up the labour tab. However, it might then be argued it is required that someone maintain said machines and animals. I can see no reason, though, that we should not eventually create machines that can maintain machines, in fact this seems to some degree technologically plausible now. As for the environmental costs, there is no reason why most of the pollutants we create in our industrial processes should in fact be created, the reason we use polluting techniques is because they are cheaper to do. In capitalist societies the incentive to pollute is therefore higher profit margins, in socialist/communist societies it is to produce a greater output per input. If we look logically at the current processes used to create the resources we as humans use, there is no reason why there should not be a system in which both labour and pollutant costs are drastically reduced. The reason they are not is simply that our societies are not logical, and run on the inherently illogical desires of whichever individuals are in charge.

As an extra point, it has been shown that due to advances in technology the cost per energy unit of solar energy in small scale projects in some areas of africa would be lower than the diesel generators that are in widespread use.
Though there is still an ecological cost to solar generators (in their production) i would imagine this is lower than that for diesel generators, and i doubt there is much of a running ecological cost.

apathy maybe
3rd July 2004, 05:10
The ecological cost is the final cost. Even if you produce a machine which will do everything for you (even maintain it self), eventually the cost will fall on the environment.

And to ideas, you can get an almost free distribution. The Internet is a wonderful thing.

DaCuBaN
3rd July 2004, 05:44
The internet isn't exactly economical.... It's thousands and thousands of computers running all over the world connecting into thousands of other computers, each sending little electrical pulses (or converting electricity into light) to symbolise the data it represents.

Ideas, at least in this form, do have a cost. All the more reason to get out onto the streets :)

CommieBastard
3rd July 2004, 08:44
Even if you produce a machine which will do everything for you (even maintain it self), eventually the cost will fall on the environment

i did not dispute this, i said that the cost to the environment of machines can be severely reduced from what it currently is. However, i see no reason why we should not expect in the future to have technology that entirely removes this problem.