Nostr Web Client

It’s not tho. Setting a house on fire is destroying the house. Consuming the house by living it is not destruction.

Destruction implies that the good is rendered unable to provide value to the owner. I can use (consume) a house for a decade and then sell it to someone else that can continue to consume it. This is not true if I destroy the house.

Maybe this is more so the case for perishable goods like food, but even then I would draw a distinction. When milk or butter is recalled by Costco and they have to destroy the product, this is not the same as people consuming the milk or butter. Destruction is wasted or lost value while consumption is delivers value and fulfills a human need/want.

Mentat 6mo ago

Aren’t all homes depreciating from the moment they are built? Doesn’t living in a home cause some of it to wear and break down faster?

I can’t think of anything created that ultimately doesn’t have an expiration date.

Sure it’s over longer time scales than a fire but it seems the principle seems the same.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

DRE 6mo ago

Yes things get worn out and require maintenance. That is different from destroying a good in which case value is not derived. Value is extracted from consumption. The same is not true about destruction.

Scrapping a pair of shoes at the factory because they didn’t meet quality controls is not the same as someone using the shoes for 2 years and deriving value from it, even though at the end of the 2 years, they both will end in the same landfill.

The principle is the same, but I think it’s worthwhile to point out that in one instance value is derived and in the other it is not. Especially since a lot of people won’t get there on their own.