This research doesn't imply the non-existence of a Great Filter (contra this post's title). If we take the Paper's own estimates, there will be approximately 10^20 terrestrial planets in the Universe's history. Given that they estimate the Earth preceded 92% of these, there currently exist approximately 10^19 terrestrial planets, any one of which might have evolved intelligent life. And yet, we remain unvisited and saturated in the Great Silence. Thus, there is almost certainly a Great Filter.

I've not read the Rifkin book, so it may have a response to the criticism I'm about to make of your rendition of the key idea.

"The margin" is a concept that is set in a temporal context. That is, the margin is about a decision being made. Historically, economists think primarily of the short term margin: changed to production that can occur without changes in capital (and so, prototypically only using variations in inputs such as labor, energy, and raw materials). This is where marginal cost can fall to zero.

But economists also recognize two further changes, which can be classified as medium and long term margins, but which is which often depends on the structure of the industry. One type of change is the application of additional capital. Typically, this is the medium term margin. The second is competitors entering or exiting the market. This is usually the long-term margin. At this margin, marginal costs never ever fall to zero.

Under a condition of zero short-term marginal costs driving prices below the long-term average cost, competitors will exit the market or differentiate themselves. In the former situation, you eventually arrive at a duopoly or monopoly. In the latter situation, you end up with monopolistic competition (which I think is a fairer description of most consumer goods, for example).

Thus, I think the idea of prices generally falling to zero because short-term marginal costs fall to zero is misplaced. To put it simply, marginal costs are not total costs.

The place the rubber hits the road on this problem is that companies who would receive payment under this approach will not sign up to a system that causes their holdings of cash in the system to decay, if there are other alternatives.

Most companies that today accept bitcoin don't hold bitcoin for a while but immediately transfer it into dollar. It's not really a problem for a person who doesn't plan holding currency for a while.

On the other hand the aspect that you don't want to hold the currency for longer periods of time might reduce speculators in the market and produce a currency with less price fluctuation then bitcoin.

This seems to me that it significantly raises transaction costs without significantly creating benefits. The value paid in cash in our real economy today will be equal to the sum of the cash payment plus the net present value of risk-discounted future payments in your model. That means that there is zero benefit to the parties involved, but introduces a transfer of risk, and increases the complexity of the transaction.

The place the rubber hits the road on this problem is that companies who would receive payment under this approach will not sign up to a system that causes their holdings of cash in the system to decay, if there are other alternatives. You can compare this to inflation in, say, US dollar holdings. The difference is that the US dollar is already widely accepted. It does not have a problem convincing people to accept it. Your system will.

Historically, one of the features that made any commodity more likely to become a currency was that it would not decay. For example, precious metals typically won out over comparably divisible commodities like grain because metals don't rot after a year or so. A currency that rots doesn't seem like a winner.

Seconded, this was my reason for suggesting one a day. I believe there are over 800 articles, so even at one a day that'll take a few years! [Edit: Correction, it seems there will be about 300 articles - see link below.]

Once a day was pretty much the original pace as well.

I think there's something in business that is similar to the hero-sidekick dichotomy you suggest. In business, I see people who are great individual contributors, but their career path "upwards" takes them into management, at which they suck. The notion that being good at managing doers is "higher" than doing has a parallel in supposed superiority of heroes to sidekicks. It's not a promotion to go from sidekick to hero: it might very well be an awkward misalignment.

Is there something underlying both of these? It might be something about leader-follower and the prestige that comes with being a leader.

I am a maybe. How will I know who you are?

I don't know if it's hard wired, but I think pretty much everyone in our family was told an unusual circumstance concerning their birth (you had a prehensile tail, you were found on the doorstep, you were bought from Babies R Us, etc) which was maintained as long as possible. Play in general is certainly hard-wired, so why not play with the truth?

The macaroni story has an interesting side consideration though - what are you planning on telling her about where meat comes from? (Assuming she eats meat).

I told mine as soon as I thought she'd comprehend the meaning of the words, wanting to see what the pseudo-tabula-rasa would think about the idea of eating animals, but I guess she had figured it out due to it being called "fish" and "chicken" and we don't really eat other meats. She did seem mildly discomforted when confronted with it but not enough to stop eating - pretty much how adults react.

Honestly, for the vast majority of children I don't think it matters what you tell them. Personally I find it interesting to lie and see what age they figure it out at. I regularly lie, use sarcasm, tease, etc... to children as a way of messing with them, as one might to a gullible friend. It's a game, and I think young children benefit from being exposed to a rich behavioral repertoire.

However, I can imagine a certain sort of child who takes it a little too seriously - so you basically have to use discretion. Never, ever tell a real lie to a child, where something real is at stake, if you want them to trust you. If you think the kid is putting real importance to the idea of santa such that they'd actually be upset when they figured it out, don't lie to them. Don't take the game too far.

I guess it helps if the child knows that you are in the habit of tricking them into believing ridiculous things and playing mind games, as is often the case for kids who I associate with. That doesn't mean that the children know it's a game - I often say things that are true but sound ridiculous to avoid that situation. It's that they are uncertain about whether I'm telling the truth or that I'm messing with them, and that uncertainty is in itself a game.

It start with little lies like "I ate your toy...oh wait, it's coming out of my ear" and gradually escalates to more plausible things like "there's a rabbit leaving chocolate eggs everywhere". You're aiming for a situation such that they're comfortable with it and when they figure it out, they feel like "Gaah you got me" rather than hurt. And then they keep playing along.