Nobody is saying that. What people are saying is that since its advent, fewer people per KWh produced have died from nuclear power than coal, even if you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Fixed that for you. It doesn't matter how old some specific technology is.
1) With more people being productive and willing to spend their hard earned money, there'll be greater demand for more workforce.
2) Why rely on unreliable inheritance, when you have 4 previous generations to help in time of need?
3) The key point is sound investment. It's being smart that pays off, not being old.
Refrigerator is a functional device, while iPhone and iPad are partially (for some people even mostly) fashion devices. For the former it matters how it works, for the latter it matters that everyone else can identify it's iPhone/iPad and not something else similar.
Apple makes fashion products, they put great value on unique looks, on trademark. Hence it's important for them, that people can tell which is which from a distance.
1. Of, relating to, or forming a base; fundamental: "Basic changes in public opinion often occur because of shifts in concerns and priorities" (Atlantic).
2. Of, being, or serving as a starting point or basis: a basic course in Russian; a set of basic woodworking tools.
But after that first number of years, there were no more changes to the environment, but the mutations continued at a very similar rate.
This is not surprising. After all, just because the environment doesn't change now, doesn't mean it definitely won't change in the future. If there were no mutations, a sudden change in environment would be more likely to wipe out the whole population. With the mutations it's likely that a change will affect different members of the population differently, providing a possibility for part of the population to survive this change, even if another part vanishes.
I just started reading up on the BitCoin infrastructure and it's quite fascinating. I have some education in economics, but economy is not my main field, so cut me some slack. From what I understand, this shouldn't be a problem and here's why I think so.
While what you're saying is true for "real" economy, it's quite different for BitCoin. When someone's suddenly dumping a lot of currency, greatly devaluating it, you have a reason to believe that this currency suddenly became less scarce. (Alchemists discovered a way to turn lead into gold, gold miners found rivers of gold, USA is printing dollars like there's no tomorrow, whatever.) So you want to get rid of the currency based on reasonable expectation, that it will never return to previous value and dumping it will provide you more benefit.
The key here is you predict the currency will *keep* devaluating until it's no longer useable. However with BitCoins you are not left in the dark and there's no central authority that can screw you up. You *know* the rate at which they are created, because it's governed by two unchangeable variables:
- 50 BitCoins per block (for first 210k blocks, decreasing after that, read FAQ)
- and 6 blocks per hour (self-regulating by the adjustable difficulty of making the blocks)
Furthermore there's a hard cap of 21 million BTC, so there's no way for someone to mint more than that.
The alternative is worse: laws that have good intention, but end up having good economic reaction only in short term. While in the long term the reaction would be completely reversed, making the consequences the opposite of what was intended. This is quite common in economics.
1a) Regarding DDO, see your link:
For certain products, premium products are priced at a level (compared to "regular" or "economy" products) that is well beyond their marginal cost of production. Economists such as Tim Harford in the Undercover Economist have argued that this is a form of price discrimination.
1b) Regarding Valve: you give a discount to the segment that is fun. There are no rules you can't segment customers this way. While your goal isn't to cover more market with the highest possible price, this isn't a requirement of price discrimination (see the examples in the wikipedia link).
2) Your words:
the inventive structure might deter people from getting into these games because "well if I'm not good at it, I might end up paying more for other games I'm more interested in/better at"
No, you won't pay more for other games. You just won't pay less if you aren't fun to play with.
3a) Appeal to authority is not an argument. And if it was, it wouldn't be an argument you can win, when the original idea is by someone with much more authority than you.
3b) Commenting is not the kind of consideration I was talking about.