5 ms·

I think something not mentioned here is competion. It seems to me like over the last ~20 years the world has become increasingly more competitive. So it seems

I think something not mentioned here is competion. It seems to me like over the last ~20 years the world has become increasingly more competitive. So it seems likely that many people choose the path of optimization not out of want for wealth, but out of necessity to continue advancing somewhat. In a highly competitive environment I doubt both players will ever choose to relax, unless they are already comfortable.

tqi 6y ago
There are nearly 2Bn more people in the world, so increased competition was probably inevitable?
- Fnoord 6y ago
  That, and globalization. Mainly globalization. We got access to workforces which just were far less or not at all available 20-30 years ago. Remember the time when everything said "Made in Japan"? Remember the time when everything said "Made in Taiwan"? Now its all "Made in China", with "Support in India". Even Eastern Europe, much more local for Western Europe than Asia (plus the benefit of intra-EU), has a hard time competing with that. You could call it competition. I call it race to the bottom. Cause a lot gets sacrificed in the name of lower price. Repairability, source code, QA, tech support, environment -- all too often they're the losers.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Plus with instant communications and the consolidation of languages means that it’s easier for markets to be winner take all (or maybe two).
clankyclanker 6y ago
I could be reading too much into it, but I thought that was literally the author's central point. > Hyper-rational individuals making hyper-rational decisions on how to spend their time by launching into an inescapable arms race of productivity. Burnout is inevitable.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  I read the central point of the piece as, "I must be super productive so that I can maximize my wealth" rather than, "I must be super productive to just to remain competitive". To me it seems like the author assumes people are optimizing because they're driven to squeeze every drop of value out of their time, rather than just trying to remain competitive in the market.
coffeefirst 6y ago
Or there’s a lot of subcultures that think there’s more competition and then proceed to cause the problem they’re reacting to. I’ve moved around enough to see just how wildly it varies. It’s tied to cities and industries and sometimes just specific companies, but I’m not so sure it’s tied to any intrinsic economic reality.
absolutelyrad 6y ago
The reason for much increased competition is the slow population growth rate. If government policy dictated that population should be increased, then we could have good times. They wont come until then, and the path forward is space colonization for good times again. When the population doesn't increase as fast or starts shrinking, there is going to be emotional unhappiness. I know why, but the subject is sensitive to be discussed openly. The other option for increasing happiness is manipulation of the birth rates/ratios with mandatory genetic modification/engineering. Then people will be more satisfied, while having a shrinking population across the world. Growth in populations masks many problems therefore results in happiness. A decline in population increases unhappiness and exaggerates a problem. But the problem is that a larger and larger percentage of population isn't going to get their needs met when the population starts shrinking across the world. There needs to be a mandatory global order for genetic modification.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  > The reason for much increased competition is the slow population growth rate. Please explain why, because it's generally considered that overpopulation leads to competition.
  - absolutelyrad 6y ago
    > because it's generally considered that overpopulation leads to competition. It's not that straight forward. But an over simplified answer would be the population pyramid. Tax base shrinks, more tax burden on working class people. Then the other problem is that the global birth sex ratios. The natural sex ratio at birth is 105 men for 100 women. When a population is growing, this isn't much of a problem in monogamous societies, and everyone finds a partner (men marry younger women on average). When the population is under decline, there is extreme pressure on men and in a perfectly monogamous society, 10% of men are definitely going to be left behind. If we can some how genetically modify humans so that the sex ratios come near 1/1 or 0.95 men to 1 woman, it'll be easier to survive a decline in population and men wont be impacted as much. A growing population favors almost no one, not men, not women. A declining population means that men are the unfavored sex. The end result could be large male foeticide instead of female foeticide 50 years down the line. I myself plan to not have sons but daughters because daughters are almost guaranteed to reproduce in future and abortion is a human right. Therefore the right way to sustain a decline in population would be an engineering of birth ratios across the world so that a decline in population isn't too harsh on some people. The goal of money is power (supporting causes you favor etc) and access to better mates. When there aren't enough mates to go by, people will get exhausted and start giving up. It's going to be a permanent burnout as more people become aware of what the future holds. There's a way that even during a declining global population to sustainable levels, people remain happy. It might be unpopular, but it needs to be done. A new order.

tqi 6y ago

There are nearly 2Bn more people in the world, so increased competition was probably inevitable?

Fnoord 6y ago
That, and globalization. Mainly globalization. We got access to workforces which just were far less or not at all available 20-30 years ago. Remember the time when everything said "Made in Japan"? Remember the time when everything said "Made in Taiwan"? Now its all "Made in China", with "Support in India". Even Eastern Europe, much more local for Western Europe than Asia (plus the benefit of intra-EU), has a hard time competing with that. You could call it competition. I call it race to the bottom. Cause a lot gets sacrificed in the name of lower price. Repairability, source code, QA, tech support, environment -- all too often they're the losers.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
Plus with instant communications and the consolidation of languages means that it’s easier for markets to be winner take all (or maybe two).

clankyclanker 6y ago

I could be reading too much into it, but I thought that was literally the author's central point. > Hyper-rational individuals making hyper-rational decisions on how to spend their time by launching into an inescapable arms race of productivity. Burnout is inevitable.

ZephyrBlu 6y ago
I read the central point of the piece as, "I must be super productive so that I can maximize my wealth" rather than, "I must be super productive to just to remain competitive". To me it seems like the author assumes people are optimizing because they're driven to squeeze every drop of value out of their time, rather than just trying to remain competitive in the market.

coffeefirst 6y ago

Or there’s a lot of subcultures that think there’s more competition and then proceed to cause the problem they’re reacting to. I’ve moved around enough to see just how wildly it varies. It’s tied to cities and industries and sometimes just specific companies, but I’m not so sure it’s tied to any intrinsic economic reality.

absolutelyrad 6y ago

The reason for much increased competition is the slow population growth rate. If government policy dictated that population should be increased, then we could have good times. They wont come until then, and the path forward is space colonization for good times again. When the population doesn't increase as fast or starts shrinking, there is going to be emotional unhappiness. I know why, but the subject is sensitive to be discussed openly. The other option for increasing happiness is manipulation of the birth rates/ratios with mandatory genetic modification/engineering. Then people will be more satisfied, while having a shrinking population across the world. Growth in populations masks many problems therefore results in happiness. A decline in population increases unhappiness and exaggerates a problem. But the problem is that a larger and larger percentage of population isn't going to get their needs met when the population starts shrinking across the world. There needs to be a mandatory global order for genetic modification.

BlueTemplar 6y ago
> The reason for much increased competition is the slow population growth rate. Please explain why, because it's generally considered that overpopulation leads to competition.
- absolutelyrad 6y ago
  > because it's generally considered that overpopulation leads to competition. It's not that straight forward. But an over simplified answer would be the population pyramid. Tax base shrinks, more tax burden on working class people. Then the other problem is that the global birth sex ratios. The natural sex ratio at birth is 105 men for 100 women. When a population is growing, this isn't much of a problem in monogamous societies, and everyone finds a partner (men marry younger women on average). When the population is under decline, there is extreme pressure on men and in a perfectly monogamous society, 10% of men are definitely going to be left behind. If we can some how genetically modify humans so that the sex ratios come near 1/1 or 0.95 men to 1 woman, it'll be easier to survive a decline in population and men wont be impacted as much. A growing population favors almost no one, not men, not women. A declining population means that men are the unfavored sex. The end result could be large male foeticide instead of female foeticide 50 years down the line. I myself plan to not have sons but daughters because daughters are almost guaranteed to reproduce in future and abortion is a human right. Therefore the right way to sustain a decline in population would be an engineering of birth ratios across the world so that a decline in population isn't too harsh on some people. The goal of money is power (supporting causes you favor etc) and access to better mates. When there aren't enough mates to go by, people will get exhausted and start giving up. It's going to be a permanent burnout as more people become aware of what the future holds. There's a way that even during a declining global population to sustainable levels, people remain happy. It might be unpopular, but it needs to be done. A new order.