Lovable leeches.
Ah now here's a thought experiment aimed squarely at an issue that often comes up in evolution.
--------------------------------------------------
Eleanor was delighted with her new broadband connection. Having been used only to dial-up, she loved the fact that now her internet connection was always on, and also that surfing and downloading was so much quicker. And it was a bonus that it happened to be completely free.
Well, to say it was free was perhaps a little misleading. Eleanor paid nothing for the service because she was using her neighbour's WiFi connection, otherwise known as a wireless Local Area Network. This enabled any computer within a limited range, as long as it had the right software and hardware, to connect without cables to a broadband internet connection. It so happened that Eleanor's apartment was close enough to her neighbour's for her to use his connection.
Eleanor didn't see this as theft. The neighbour had the connection anyway. And she was only using his excess bandwidth. In fact, a neat piece of software called Google Magpie made sure that her use of the connection never slowed her neighbour down by more than a negligible amount. So she got the benefit of his connection, but he didn't suffer as a result. What could be wrong with that?
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 244.
---------------------------------------------------
Just this past week, I received a comment on an old post about how "the rational strategy for an individual is to be as much of a free rider as they can get away with." I dismissed that comment rather quickly, but on Friday I'll have a chance to examine this issue in a little more depth. What do you think? Is Eleanor's behaviour really a problem? When exactly does freeloading need to cost?
--------------------------------------------------
Eleanor was delighted with her new broadband connection. Having been used only to dial-up, she loved the fact that now her internet connection was always on, and also that surfing and downloading was so much quicker. And it was a bonus that it happened to be completely free.
Well, to say it was free was perhaps a little misleading. Eleanor paid nothing for the service because she was using her neighbour's WiFi connection, otherwise known as a wireless Local Area Network. This enabled any computer within a limited range, as long as it had the right software and hardware, to connect without cables to a broadband internet connection. It so happened that Eleanor's apartment was close enough to her neighbour's for her to use his connection.
Eleanor didn't see this as theft. The neighbour had the connection anyway. And she was only using his excess bandwidth. In fact, a neat piece of software called Google Magpie made sure that her use of the connection never slowed her neighbour down by more than a negligible amount. So she got the benefit of his connection, but he didn't suffer as a result. What could be wrong with that?
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 244.
---------------------------------------------------
Just this past week, I received a comment on an old post about how "the rational strategy for an individual is to be as much of a free rider as they can get away with." I dismissed that comment rather quickly, but on Friday I'll have a chance to examine this issue in a little more depth. What do you think? Is Eleanor's behaviour really a problem? When exactly does freeloading need to cost?
RSS Feed
