[cap-talk] Horton at HotSec '07: How broadly object/capability?

[Neal H. Walfield]

At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:09:41 +0200,
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Rather than wrapping trees in
> membranes that only let through the good stuff and block the toxics,
> we can do the things above: We can reduce incentive for pollution (by
> taxing it), strenghten local economies and improve biodiversity, just
> to give examples.

This is a very real scenario: greenhouses provide the sort of
controlled environment that you suggest.  Presumably, the plants get
exactly what they need and the toxins are kept at bay.  But this
raises the problem of quantifying the goods and the bads.  The study
on which [1] reports suggests that this is quite hard.  From the
article:

  A 10-year study comparing organic tomatoes with rival produce
  suggests they have almost double the amount of antioxidants called
  flavonoids that protect the heart.

  ...

  Dr Mitchell, of California University, said the findings can be
  explained by the availability of nitrogen in the soil. Flavonoids
  are produced as a defence mechanism that can be triggered by
  nutrient deficiency.

This raises the question: what unintended consequences could
capability systems bring?  Could it, for instance, foster a society in
which we have less incentive to build trust?

Neal

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/05/eafood105.xml