4 ms·

As someone from the EU, some of your points seem very true, but it's also simply a matter of many people not really having the same goals and requirements. The

As someone from the EU, some of your points seem very true, but it's also simply a matter of many people not really having the same goals and requirements. There is no true independence in any society, apart from autocracy, and externalities always exist. There doesn't seem to be much value attributed to 'having a lot of money' etc, for a lot of people, having a fulfilling job, family and life is enough, and having the security of knowing that you can get sick and go to the hospital without being bankrupted, or knowing that you will be able to provide for your family directly or indirectly in almost all scenarios makes this whole "I need to be a billionaire to live" notion very non-existent here. You don't need a VC to be happy, you don't need to create a startup and you don't need to take a lot of risk to create value. This is of course directly related to the social cocoon; and knowing the value of that makes for very little need to take big risks for a chance of making things 'better' (whatever 'better' might be...). That said, there are a lot of self-bootstrapping businesses that function just fine. They don't go public and mostly don't make more than a couple of millions each year, but it is enough, or better: it is plenty. There is no rat race, you have plenty of vacation, you can travel the world, and if something goes wrong there are buffers to catch you. (but those aren't comfortable enough to just slack off in to and 'do nothing', but that'd be unfulfilling for most people anyawy).

mlon_eusk 6y ago
chasing TC was never the goal, prometheus > zeus
R0b0t1 6y ago
Your explanation fits into what he described, point 3 & 4. You're trying to justify why taking risks isn't required.
- oneplane 6y ago
  It doesn't need justification, but for outsiders it might need explanations. There is no value in risk in itself.
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    True, but you seem biased against any risk at all, which if endemic explains part of the disparity.
    - oneplane 6y ago
      More like biased against high risk, low reward constructions. What is considered a low risk with a potential high reward in some places has the inverse in other places. For example, taking a high risk of attempting to create a unicorn startup for the low reward of having more money isn't really worth it here. That's because the barrier at which point 'more money' makes your life 'better' is much lower. Same goes for prestige, it doesn't really get you all that much here. Together, that means that taking larger risks doesn't really have a lot of benefits in general, unless you personally enjoy it. This is different form the need to have a 'big' change requiring a 'big' risk in order to make your life measurably better (monetarily, prestige, perceived power, or otherwise). There are endeavours that pose significant risk, but have a significant reward to match; think ITER and CERN; it is a considerable effort and monetary investment without knowing what the true outcome will be. All you know ahead of time is that something will come out of it. (while those two aren't exactly comparable; a single-purpose project vs. an organisation with multiple projects; it's about the concept of risk, investment and possible outcomes or returns) Say a particle accelerator take a lot of time, labour and money and can be used to make discoveries, but you don't know what discoveries. That means you have a huge investment but no guarantee that you will be able to produce something that has the value of the investment (or more). But there is the chance of significant scientific discovery, which makes it a project that countries are willing to take the risk for. Expanding on my own word salad: perhaps personally I'd say that in my environment collecting money or 'stuff' in itself isn't seen as valuable, but being able to maintain a good life and have a fulfilling life is. At the same time, in a larger context, things like discovery, exploration and research are valued as well, but boasting or broadcasting about it isn't seen as very valuable. I suppose that also makes for an environment where space exploration is seen as a good thing but ironically without a big PR machine it can't be funded. It's like having a goal without the means.

mlon_eusk 6y ago

chasing TC was never the goal, prometheus > zeus

R0b0t1 6y ago

Your explanation fits into what he described, point 3 & 4. You're trying to justify why taking risks isn't required.

oneplane 6y ago
It doesn't need justification, but for outsiders it might need explanations. There is no value in risk in itself.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  True, but you seem biased against any risk at all, which if endemic explains part of the disparity.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    More like biased against high risk, low reward constructions. What is considered a low risk with a potential high reward in some places has the inverse in other places. For example, taking a high risk of attempting to create a unicorn startup for the low reward of having more money isn't really worth it here. That's because the barrier at which point 'more money' makes your life 'better' is much lower. Same goes for prestige, it doesn't really get you all that much here. Together, that means that taking larger risks doesn't really have a lot of benefits in general, unless you personally enjoy it. This is different form the need to have a 'big' change requiring a 'big' risk in order to make your life measurably better (monetarily, prestige, perceived power, or otherwise). There are endeavours that pose significant risk, but have a significant reward to match; think ITER and CERN; it is a considerable effort and monetary investment without knowing what the true outcome will be. All you know ahead of time is that something will come out of it. (while those two aren't exactly comparable; a single-purpose project vs. an organisation with multiple projects; it's about the concept of risk, investment and possible outcomes or returns) Say a particle accelerator take a lot of time, labour and money and can be used to make discoveries, but you don't know what discoveries. That means you have a huge investment but no guarantee that you will be able to produce something that has the value of the investment (or more). But there is the chance of significant scientific discovery, which makes it a project that countries are willing to take the risk for. Expanding on my own word salad: perhaps personally I'd say that in my environment collecting money or 'stuff' in itself isn't seen as valuable, but being able to maintain a good life and have a fulfilling life is. At the same time, in a larger context, things like discovery, exploration and research are valued as well, but boasting or broadcasting about it isn't seen as very valuable. I suppose that also makes for an environment where space exploration is seen as a good thing but ironically without a big PR machine it can't be funded. It's like having a goal without the means.