Two great Hitchhiker's Guide mistakes

Okay, so, this has been on my chest for at least three years now, and by God does it need to come off. Do pardon the spelling: it's Microsoft, don't you know.

In the very first Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radiodrama (and possibly the corresponding book; I don't quite remember) Douglas Adams walks us down at least two paths of reasoning concerns two specific subjects, which on examination are clearly false but which I have never heard of refuted (though I havn't really thought where to look). One of these subjects is somewhat important to the plot, the other merely part of some comic relief that Adams nonetheless appears to take quite seriously.

I'll start with the one that makes me least uncomfortable. It occurs during a brief and whimsical disertation on the universe, with statistics and "some information to help you live in it." Area: infinite. Rainfall: none, because in an infinite area there is no up and down through which rain may fall. Imports: none, for in an infinite area there is no outside from which to import. Exports: (see imports). It's all very clever and clearly a joke, or it would be where it not for the narrator's comments on population which for me always served to break the immersion. Population: none. "We know that there are an infinite number of planets, but that not all of them are habitable. Therefore there must be a finite number of habitable planets." Any finite number divided by infinity is basicaly zero, he says, making anyone you happen to meet in your travels merely "the products of a deranged imagination." But WHY? Why in the context of infinity should ANYTHING be finite apart from localy? Nothing is infinite in a single galaxy, but in an infinite universe there are infinite galaxies, and in their aggregate an infinity of all possibilities being realized at once for now and ever. There may be a constraint at work preventing habitable worlds from making up a higher "percentag" of this infinity, but that doesn't mean they aren't just as infinite as everything else. You'll bump into them less frequently, but you'll never stop bumping into them.


Now for something that's actualy kept me up at night once or twice. It concerns a remote fictional planet called Magrathea whose inhabitants once pioneered the industry of planet-making. That is, when a phazmagoricaly rich denizen of the galaxy grew disatisfied with the planets nature had provided for him to live on he would pay the Magratheans to build him a new one made exactly to his specifications. The story goes that this venture became so succesfull that Magrathea grew to be the richest planet in the galaxy while everyone else became impoverished. But... WHY? I mean, you can sort of rationalize it and say these superich became so infatuated and lustfull over these perfect "dream planets" they spent themselves all into pauperhood, but when has anything like that ever happened in a real economy? To my knowledge, never. Furthermore, when have economies ever been so dependant on their super-rich as opposed to the (on aggregate) greater wealth of their middle and poor classes? The rich own and maintain large companies, the loss of which can be temporarily devestating to an economy, but these are swiftly replaced in a market swarming with would-be competitors. The fact of the matter is that even all the most wealthy people, even when put together, probably do not spend more than all the less wealthy people put together. That is, on products and services. Presumbly they've bought their share of politicans. Indeed, advancing causes or corruption in the political sphere is probably the most a very rich person can do to affect society as a whole. Otherwise he's just a big fish in a very big sea.

But you know I doubt anything like this was running through Adams's mind. I'm thinking he was just parroting the conventional wisdom that economics is a zero sum game that must have as many losers as winners; in the which I nor anybody may prosper but at the expense of another. This runs into great contrast with reality where no two parties ever engage in a voluntary trade unless both believe it will do them at least some good. Otherwise, why trade? Why do so many people engage in it willingly if at least one party involved is destined to lose out? The answer to these questions should present themselves, so what the heck, Dougy? Was it a joke? Could you maybe have tried to make it funny?