this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2022
7 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43939 readers
561 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IMO, if choice is being prioritizes over more important things like sustainability, then yes, there can be too much choice. Economies of scale, efficiencies of scale, etc all work better when you're only producing one type of product. This is more applicable/important in some things than others, and the amount of choice should vary accordingly.
For example: There's a reason the Soviets built so many identical apartments in their affordable housing program, it was use the budget to build more housing and accommodate more people, or build more varieties of housing for the sake of being different, but less overall.