Who would spend resources to go look for something if it wasn’t scarce, i.e. it was a superabundant good that is available without effort like apples in the garden of Eden?
well, if apples in the garden of eden are superabundant, but it takes saying a prayer to get to the garden of eden, do you say that apples are scarce and superabundant or do you say something more sophisticated?
You are redefining the apple as not being superabundant, in the sense that it now requires an act of production in order for the good apple to come into existence. That means that in the garden of Eden the supply of apples is zero. In order to bring an apple into existence, one must say a prayer. Apples are thus scarce, and it no longer meets the definition of the garden of Eden.
perhaps you misunderstood the scenario. i stipulated that in order to be transported to the garden of eden, a world in which apples are superabundant. an act of production is required.
iotw.
apples are superabundant for those inside the garden of eden as per your original stipulation.
apples are scarce or non-existent for those outside the garden of eden.
it takes an act of production/transportation to arrive at the garden of eden.
That is either excludable, i.e. saying the prayer only transports the one who said it to the garden of Eden, or scarce, i.e. it requires a single act of production to take everyone to the garden of Eden. In the first case it is irrelevant to the discussion. In the second case two options are available, either everyone pays the prayer-sayer in advance of the act of production, in which case they all share the risk of the investment, or they all agree that once in the garden of Eden only the prayer-sayer will be able to consume apples, in which case all the risk and profit is concentrated on one individual, what we may also call capitalism or copyright.
Haha. No kidding. That could’ve been a powerful article and then I read: “Speaking as a white person…”
When do we get to hear from other actual cultures and what they think, I wonder. I’ve always been interested in what black people think about Hollywood (especially Paul Mooney, who is very funny) versus the assumptions white liberals have about their own self-righteousness in telling stories. It’s a whole other slant on the “liberal Hollywood” talk that most liberals accept and conservatives slam.
It does seem that many white liberals have a fantasy of coopting other cultures to make them safer. Look at how they want to make gay culture seem bourgeois enough for politicians to accept, have erased Black Panthers and Malcolm X from history in favor of safer icons, create ridiculous histories about the rich Kennedy family and FDR, fetishize European political systems, become all of a sudden interested in other cultures when they become even somewhat left-wing, filter foreign conflict and war through the lens of a white bourgeois guy Karl Marx (which often becomes a strange Orientalism), control discussion through the privileged medium of academia (which a commenter on this article says is what this young lady is putting to good use), etc.
Could it be that James Cameron is a white guy and doesn’t know other experiences. And the write of the article, if she needs movies to tell her the experiences of other people (instead of real interaction with people not on a recording), probably doesn’t either.