4 ms·

Let me make my point in a less obtuse way. Most people make decisions about their careers based on opportunity and maximising profit. No one becomes a footballe

by Paul_S 10y ago

Let me make my point in a less obtuse way. Most people make decisions about their careers based on opportunity and maximising profit. No one becomes a footballer to make the world a better place. This would all be fine as long as the capitalist market rewarded choices that make the world a better place. Obviously it does not and it's not the fault of a footballer that we as a civilisation choose to channel our available resources their way and not towards frivolous play like space exploration. If anyone ever figures out a way to make the free market choose the greater good they will win all the Nobel prizes forever (we won't need Nobel prizes after that).

karmelapple 10y ago
Why isn't some entertainment - even if it's somewhat frivolous - for the greater good? An hour spent watching a football game is an hour less committing crime or doing other unsavory acts. But agreed - that person would win all the Nobel Peace prizes.
- dpark 10y ago
  > An hour spent watching a football game is an hour less committing crime or doing other unsavory acts. Not for the vast, vast majority of people watching football. Most people aren't engaging in crime or "unsavory acts" whenever they have to entertain themselves. I think mass entertainment is definitely for the greater good, but not because it reduces crime in any appreciable fashion.
  - karmelapple 10y ago
    Maybe not crime, but also stops people from doing any other bad things. Not to mention the good social bits of being a fan of something and being able to bond with strangers over fandom.
    - AstralStorm 10y ago
      Also stops some people from doing good things - they'd be bored, so they'd either go after politics (yup, either big or local), actual art (ok), maybe make something as in crafts (probably best outcome).
marcosdumay 10y ago
I'm wary of the specific claim about sports (or better, I do almost completely disagree with it). But if you look at the worst offenders, you'll see that the professions that take the most profit normally also take the most power. And in yielding that power, they have a big share on the blame of making their negative utility profession lucrative.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Free markets are the problem, not the solution. You're not going to get much strategic planetary intelligence out of a system designed to maximise short-term profit. The absolute best you can hope for is the occasional individual like Musk who takes a longer view. Politics - which includes economics - is a much bigger challenge than AI. We've completely transformed our understanding of science and technology, but our political and economic thinking would be recognisable to a Roman senator and a medieval banker. Politics and economics are still waiting for a Copernican revolution. Our survival prospects as a species are limited until that revolution happens.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Hmm that doesn't seem to make sense. Free markets (which include the vast majority of countries on the planet) enable people to create wealth. Maybe some sort of mix of a planet-wide initiative and the normal free markets we have would make sense. Calling free markets "the problem" doesn't really do anything for anybody.
  - Applejinx 10y ago
    Free markets are an optimal pachinko machine for distributing capital, that needs no oversight or central direction. It doesn't generate its own pachinko balls, that's utterly orthogonal. Free market capitalism is what you DO with a population that has disposable income. You can't feed the bottom of it into the top, it doesn't even work that way. It's not even optimal for reaching the highest developments of ideas and inventions, because local maximums will starve out the newer ideas that need to grow and become competitive. It does nothing about network effects and tends towards monopoly. But it's a fantastic distribution mechanism for the wealth of existing populations: no overseer required! Within some known limitations it works very nicely. NO wealth is ever created.
    - muninn_ 10y ago
      How are you defining wealth?
leesalminen 10y ago
Thank you for clarifying. I do agree that it is expected to optimize ones career for maximum income. Even so, an individual can often choose to push for the greater good within the confines of free market forces. A footballer can use their image to promote organizations that do good. A SaaS owner can help their customers become more secure and efficient. Lawyers can push for better oversight and reform. Maybe we can't all be Elon, but we can all try to improve our surroundings. Maybe I'm too young and naive, but I think it can be done.

by Paul_S 10y ago

karmelapple 10y ago

Why isn't some entertainment - even if it's somewhat frivolous - for the greater good? An hour spent watching a football game is an hour less committing crime or doing other unsavory acts. But agreed - that person would win all the Nobel Peace prizes.

dpark 10y ago
> An hour spent watching a football game is an hour less committing crime or doing other unsavory acts. Not for the vast, vast majority of people watching football. Most people aren't engaging in crime or "unsavory acts" whenever they have to entertain themselves. I think mass entertainment is definitely for the greater good, but not because it reduces crime in any appreciable fashion.
- karmelapple 10y ago
  Maybe not crime, but also stops people from doing any other bad things. Not to mention the good social bits of being a fan of something and being able to bond with strangers over fandom.
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    Also stops some people from doing good things - they'd be bored, so they'd either go after politics (yup, either big or local), actual art (ok), maybe make something as in crafts (probably best outcome).

marcosdumay 10y ago

I'm wary of the specific claim about sports (or better, I do almost completely disagree with it). But if you look at the worst offenders, you'll see that the professions that take the most profit normally also take the most power. And in yielding that power, they have a big share on the blame of making their negative utility profession lucrative.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

Free markets are the problem, not the solution. You're not going to get much strategic planetary intelligence out of a system designed to maximise short-term profit. The absolute best you can hope for is the occasional individual like Musk who takes a longer view. Politics - which includes economics - is a much bigger challenge than AI. We've completely transformed our understanding of science and technology, but our political and economic thinking would be recognisable to a Roman senator and a medieval banker. Politics and economics are still waiting for a Copernican revolution. Our survival prospects as a species are limited until that revolution happens.

muninn_ 10y ago
Hmm that doesn't seem to make sense. Free markets (which include the vast majority of countries on the planet) enable people to create wealth. Maybe some sort of mix of a planet-wide initiative and the normal free markets we have would make sense. Calling free markets "the problem" doesn't really do anything for anybody.
- Applejinx 10y ago
  Free markets are an optimal pachinko machine for distributing capital, that needs no oversight or central direction. It doesn't generate its own pachinko balls, that's utterly orthogonal. Free market capitalism is what you DO with a population that has disposable income. You can't feed the bottom of it into the top, it doesn't even work that way. It's not even optimal for reaching the highest developments of ideas and inventions, because local maximums will starve out the newer ideas that need to grow and become competitive. It does nothing about network effects and tends towards monopoly. But it's a fantastic distribution mechanism for the wealth of existing populations: no overseer required! Within some known limitations it works very nicely. NO wealth is ever created.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    How are you defining wealth?

leesalminen 10y ago

Thank you for clarifying. I do agree that it is expected to optimize ones career for maximum income. Even so, an individual can often choose to push for the greater good within the confines of free market forces. A footballer can use their image to promote organizations that do good. A SaaS owner can help their customers become more secure and efficient. Lawyers can push for better oversight and reform. Maybe we can't all be Elon, but we can all try to improve our surroundings. Maybe I'm too young and naive, but I think it can be done.