> With this service you are not paying for the ink.

As soon as somebody develops the technology they will make all the ink on your already printed documents turn invisible too.

It's only half a joke, if this becomes feasible I'm sure the business and marketing folks will have some urgent meetings to bring this along ASAP.

Our financials focused system is good at exerting pressure for people to do stuff, anything, but it fails miserably in promoting reason, instead creating narrow minds narrowly focused on The System itself rather than on the broad set of inputs our minds were originally evolution-made to handle. No wonder that than in turn those narrow minds are much more easily replaced by automated processes.

>for why Pizarro's was so brutal

well, different times and standards etc. but there is a quite bit of difference between brutal genocide to get out of debt vs. not allowing your printer to work unless you keep your subscription with our company so our revenue keeps coming in.

> here is a quite bit of difference

No, same mechanism. Yes, different contexts lead to different outcomes, why would that even need to be mentioned? Did you read what I wrote? Sometimes I hate Internet discussions. Instead of working with one another, the goal seems to be trying to find an interpretation that make sit possible to attack a post/position. If only I can find one flaw in your argument - by using my own most uncharitable interpretation that you forgot to explicitly prevent with several pages of small print - I'm contributing!

How do the different outcomes due to different contexts, which obviously will turn out very different in almost every single different context, make my statement less valid?

perhaps you're going through something at the moment? I just found the example of Pisarro somewhat amusing.

But that said I do think they actually are a bit different, lots of people won't kill someone even if they will pick up a wallet on the street and take the money instead of giving it back to the people. Your example implies people who will do one bad thing for monetary incentives will do the worst thing. Which is why I found it funny and pointed it out, not to imply that people don't do bad things for monetary incentives, just genocide probably needs a little extra push than that.

> How do the different outcomes due to different contexts, which obviously will turn out very different in almost every single different context, make my statement less valid?

Because your statement is black and white. By your logic, if we don't provide literally 100% of everything needed to survive without requiring anything back at all for every person the system is evil.

Real life is shades of grey. Society requires some incentive for people in it to work in order to function. Of course, we can argue about the specifics, but you'll quickly release that if we provide everything for everybody that there is nobody left to do the providing (at least with today's technology).

The pattern, attributed to huge pressure, also shows itself under a somewhat low pressure of everyday life, and even under no pressure at all.

I wonder if it's at all possible for us to develop and install a system that prevents us from exhibiting behaviors learned the hard way by our ancestors (most of which were not even human).

Maybe our digital descendants are able to get it right, if we don't also ground them in survival!

> We can't expect people to act ethically, to their own big disadvantage, while having to live in a highly competitive system that forces them to make money.

Capitalism is a brutal system. It’s becoming more obvious the longer it runs. I don’t have answers, sadly. Only the ability to see and recognize the failure.

If the ink dries out, do they replace it for free?

Yes, you’re also not charged for running cleaning cycles etc

I personally abuse the hell out of HP subscription service as I’m on their legacy free plan. 30 pages a month, and run a full set of cleaning cycles each time because I print so infrequently.