8 ms·

We don't need a field of study, just a new definition of the word. Right now progress is More Jobs and More GDP. A lot of people wind up getting left out in th

We don't need a field of study, just a new definition of the word. Right now progress is More Jobs and More GDP. A lot of people wind up getting left out in the cold because progress jobs and GDP growth don't require helping everyone who needs it. Maybe progress should mean ensuring every human is healthy, fed, housed, and has access to education and the global network.

dgzl 7y ago
> Maybe progress should mean ensuring every human is healthy, fed, housed, and has access to education and the global network. I don't think that's an attainable goal, or at the very least it's not a realistic short or long term goal. There are so many other things we have to fix before that goal makes sense.
- DrOctagon 7y ago
  I'm curious, what do you think those 'things we have to fix' first are? Why they are a higher priority?
  - dgzl 7y ago
    These are contentious so please don't downvote for an idea... To start, I think a severe underlying problem America is facing is just that there isn't much community here, compared to other first world countries. How long have our families been living in the same place? Not long for most of us. I think this is causing some turmoil in the trust department. Also, we really need to work on our regulations. We have a bad habit of legislating from the heart, but end up producing side effects that hurt us. For instance, laws preventing giving food to the homeless. Over-regulating also drives cost up for business, causing them to raise prices. Another is minimum wage. Americans have a hard time admitting that increasing minimum wage has negative side effects, especially on small business. We can address the homeless problem pretty easily if we could decrease the minimum wage for them. And before you get angry at this one, what kind of smartphone are you using? There's a reason our jobs go over seas. Jobs that would pay very low wage wouldn't be difficult jobs, but they also wouldn't care if the person is only half mentally there. Small pay, small work, you can be promoted and given raise. A factory for instance could even build a campground with facilities. How many homeless folks would love to have that opportunity? How many more potential employers does that produce? We should also consider decreasing the federal budget and start paying off our debt, no? I would think that's a pretty important thing to keep in mind also. These things are needed in order to achieve a more universal happiness.
    - DrOctagon 7y ago
      That's a thoughtful answer, thanks. I don't agree with all of your points, but I do think of progress as something which benefits everyone, including vulnerable people too.
    - johnday 7y ago
      It's a shame the larger corporate machine wouldn't wear it, but you could, say, have a lower (or subsidised?) minimum wage for the first 2 years of business operation?
    - dbspin 7y ago
      >We can address the homeless problem pretty easily if we could decrease the minimum wage for them... Jobs that would pay very low wage wouldn't be difficult jobs, but they also wouldn't care if the person is only half mentally there. Small pay, small work, you can be promoted and given raise. A factory for instance could even build a campground with facilities." Congratulations, you've just reinvented fuedalism, complete with the keep. Not trying to be flippant, but this is a perfect example of how 'rational' geeks can trivially rationalise literally anything, by ignoring context and history. Protections like minimum wage, safe working conditions, minimum work age etc didn't arise de novo. They exist (all be it in a much more limited form in the US than elsewhere in the developed world), because of repeated public outrage at the abuses their lack engendered. Repealing them to 'create jobs' as though that were in itself a nebulous good is the same logic that has prisoners in chain gangs (universally from poor, and overwhelmingly black) recreating the era of slavery in Texas.
      - bubble_talk 7y ago
        >>because of repeated public outrage at the abuses their lack engendered. I recommend anyone who holds this view to read at least one book written by Thomas Sowell. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed#Criticisms_of_the_book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed#Criticisms... Repeated public outrage: cars are becoming less safe. Economist: There is a tradeoff between safety and affordability, and making cars safer means less poor people can actually afford to buy them. In turn, this makes transportation even harder for them, which in turn means they will have fewer chances to improve their lives. Repeated public outrage: lack of minimum wage will cause more exploitation. Economist: Minimum wage destroys job opportunities for low skilled workers, who are already heavily marginalized in society. And once they are out of the job market, it becomes even harder for them to return to it.
- ereyes01 7y ago
  Your answer makes me assume you are well-fed, educated, and housed (you are of course well connected, since you commented on here). From an individualist perspective, anyone without those things, but who is connected at least a little will probably want them, I would wager. Is your argument based on a belief that there are not enough natural resources to accommodate every human in theory? What do you think needs to be fixed before a higher standard of life for all humans should be considered a goal to progressively strive for?
  - dgzl 7y ago
    > Is your argument based on a belief that there are not enough natural resources to accommodate every human in theory? Not at all what I meant. I think we can accommodate a lot more people. > What do you think needs to be fixed before a higher standard of life for all humans should be considered a goal to progressively strive for? I'm saying that the goals needed to achieve that kind of Utopia don't look like the goals described. I think many people don't want to admit certain policy failures, but they continue on like an addiction, hamstringing genuine efforts. I'm not sure if it's attainable because so many contentious things will have to change before we can even start with the goals described (food/housing/etc.)
    - TuringTest 7y ago
      What kind of Utopia is it that doesn't include that every human is healthy, fed, housed, and has access to education and the global network? If you want that outcome to be achieved by a scientific process, you need to include those as long term goals. They may not be intermediate goals (e.g. you might need to temporarily reduce health and access to the global network for some part of the population to send them as volunteer settlers to a space colony), but if you're not measuring them and using their improvement as progress, you cannot guarantee that in the long term the scientific progress will achieve them.
- carapace 7y ago
  Bucky Fuller calculated that we could achieve this by sometime in the 1970's, if we applied our tech and resources efficiently. ("Therein lies the rub!") He said that we could work two hours a day, and retire after just a few years, having paid for our living expenses for the rest of one's life.
  - chongli 7y ago
    Lack of technology isn't the issue, it's human nature that's the problem. For one thing, we measure ourselves not in absolute but relative terms. This leads us into a never-ending signalling arms race. The old caricature of the rich tycoon putting his feet up on the desk could not be more false. Look at the most visibly successful people in society (Bezos, Musk, even Zuck) and they all work extremely hard. Why is that? They have more money than anyone could spend in a lifetime. What they can't buy is satisfaction. Therefore they must continue to work hard and continue winning. When you look at these most extreme, but not at all alien examples of humanity, you see that Fuller's claim is absurd. Anyone who had the capability to earn enough to retire on working just a few hours a day for just a few years would never be satisfied with that. The harsh truth of it is that the richer and more technologically capable we become, the more resources we consume without any real net benefit in wellbeing or life satisfaction.
    - carapace 7y ago
      > Lack of technology isn't the issue, it's human nature that's the problem. That's exactly my point: We already have all the technology we need, our problems now are all psychological and spiritual. Bucky thought that it would be enough to put the technology before the people in what he called "Design Science Revolution", but as you point out it hasn't worked so far... People don't even notice.
- sprafa 7y ago
  20-30% of the population in the developed world now produces all the food and housing for the rest of the population. With a 5% increase you could easily create an end to homelessness and malnutrition surely (particularly malnutrition since its most likely a misallocation of resources problem)

dgzl 7y ago

> Maybe progress should mean ensuring every human is healthy, fed, housed, and has access to education and the global network. I don't think that's an attainable goal, or at the very least it's not a realistic short or long term goal. There are so many other things we have to fix before that goal makes sense.

DrOctagon 7y ago
I'm curious, what do you think those 'things we have to fix' first are? Why they are a higher priority?
- dgzl 7y ago
  These are contentious so please don't downvote for an idea... To start, I think a severe underlying problem America is facing is just that there isn't much community here, compared to other first world countries. How long have our families been living in the same place? Not long for most of us. I think this is causing some turmoil in the trust department. Also, we really need to work on our regulations. We have a bad habit of legislating from the heart, but end up producing side effects that hurt us. For instance, laws preventing giving food to the homeless. Over-regulating also drives cost up for business, causing them to raise prices. Another is minimum wage. Americans have a hard time admitting that increasing minimum wage has negative side effects, especially on small business. We can address the homeless problem pretty easily if we could decrease the minimum wage for them. And before you get angry at this one, what kind of smartphone are you using? There's a reason our jobs go over seas. Jobs that would pay very low wage wouldn't be difficult jobs, but they also wouldn't care if the person is only half mentally there. Small pay, small work, you can be promoted and given raise. A factory for instance could even build a campground with facilities. How many homeless folks would love to have that opportunity? How many more potential employers does that produce? We should also consider decreasing the federal budget and start paying off our debt, no? I would think that's a pretty important thing to keep in mind also. These things are needed in order to achieve a more universal happiness.
  - DrOctagon 7y ago
    That's a thoughtful answer, thanks. I don't agree with all of your points, but I do think of progress as something which benefits everyone, including vulnerable people too.
  - johnday 7y ago
    It's a shame the larger corporate machine wouldn't wear it, but you could, say, have a lower (or subsidised?) minimum wage for the first 2 years of business operation?
  - dbspin 7y ago
    >We can address the homeless problem pretty easily if we could decrease the minimum wage for them... Jobs that would pay very low wage wouldn't be difficult jobs, but they also wouldn't care if the person is only half mentally there. Small pay, small work, you can be promoted and given raise. A factory for instance could even build a campground with facilities." Congratulations, you've just reinvented fuedalism, complete with the keep. Not trying to be flippant, but this is a perfect example of how 'rational' geeks can trivially rationalise literally anything, by ignoring context and history. Protections like minimum wage, safe working conditions, minimum work age etc didn't arise de novo. They exist (all be it in a much more limited form in the US than elsewhere in the developed world), because of repeated public outrage at the abuses their lack engendered. Repealing them to 'create jobs' as though that were in itself a nebulous good is the same logic that has prisoners in chain gangs (universally from poor, and overwhelmingly black) recreating the era of slavery in Texas.
    - bubble_talk 7y ago
      >>because of repeated public outrage at the abuses their lack engendered. I recommend anyone who holds this view to read at least one book written by Thomas Sowell. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed#Criticisms_of_the_book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed#Criticisms... Repeated public outrage: cars are becoming less safe. Economist: There is a tradeoff between safety and affordability, and making cars safer means less poor people can actually afford to buy them. In turn, this makes transportation even harder for them, which in turn means they will have fewer chances to improve their lives. Repeated public outrage: lack of minimum wage will cause more exploitation. Economist: Minimum wage destroys job opportunities for low skilled workers, who are already heavily marginalized in society. And once they are out of the job market, it becomes even harder for them to return to it.
ereyes01 7y ago
Your answer makes me assume you are well-fed, educated, and housed (you are of course well connected, since you commented on here). From an individualist perspective, anyone without those things, but who is connected at least a little will probably want them, I would wager. Is your argument based on a belief that there are not enough natural resources to accommodate every human in theory? What do you think needs to be fixed before a higher standard of life for all humans should be considered a goal to progressively strive for?
- dgzl 7y ago
  > Is your argument based on a belief that there are not enough natural resources to accommodate every human in theory? Not at all what I meant. I think we can accommodate a lot more people. > What do you think needs to be fixed before a higher standard of life for all humans should be considered a goal to progressively strive for? I'm saying that the goals needed to achieve that kind of Utopia don't look like the goals described. I think many people don't want to admit certain policy failures, but they continue on like an addiction, hamstringing genuine efforts. I'm not sure if it's attainable because so many contentious things will have to change before we can even start with the goals described (food/housing/etc.)
  - TuringTest 7y ago
    What kind of Utopia is it that doesn't include that every human is healthy, fed, housed, and has access to education and the global network? If you want that outcome to be achieved by a scientific process, you need to include those as long term goals. They may not be intermediate goals (e.g. you might need to temporarily reduce health and access to the global network for some part of the population to send them as volunteer settlers to a space colony), but if you're not measuring them and using their improvement as progress, you cannot guarantee that in the long term the scientific progress will achieve them.
carapace 7y ago
Bucky Fuller calculated that we could achieve this by sometime in the 1970's, if we applied our tech and resources efficiently. ("Therein lies the rub!") He said that we could work two hours a day, and retire after just a few years, having paid for our living expenses for the rest of one's life.
- chongli 7y ago
  Lack of technology isn't the issue, it's human nature that's the problem. For one thing, we measure ourselves not in absolute but relative terms. This leads us into a never-ending signalling arms race. The old caricature of the rich tycoon putting his feet up on the desk could not be more false. Look at the most visibly successful people in society (Bezos, Musk, even Zuck) and they all work extremely hard. Why is that? They have more money than anyone could spend in a lifetime. What they can't buy is satisfaction. Therefore they must continue to work hard and continue winning. When you look at these most extreme, but not at all alien examples of humanity, you see that Fuller's claim is absurd. Anyone who had the capability to earn enough to retire on working just a few hours a day for just a few years would never be satisfied with that. The harsh truth of it is that the richer and more technologically capable we become, the more resources we consume without any real net benefit in wellbeing or life satisfaction.
  - carapace 7y ago
    > Lack of technology isn't the issue, it's human nature that's the problem. That's exactly my point: We already have all the technology we need, our problems now are all psychological and spiritual. Bucky thought that it would be enough to put the technology before the people in what he called "Design Science Revolution", but as you point out it hasn't worked so far... People don't even notice.
sprafa 7y ago
20-30% of the population in the developed world now produces all the food and housing for the rest of the population. With a 5% increase you could easily create an end to homelessness and malnutrition surely (particularly malnutrition since its most likely a misallocation of resources problem)