5 ms·

> Evolutionism has no place in civilized society. How can you square this with the necessity of Darwinian-like competition in a relatively free-market economy

> Evolutionism has no place in civilized society. How can you square this with the necessity of Darwinian-like competition in a relatively free-market economy? I want to see the unsuccessful companies go extinct, and I want to see the unproductive workers let go, because such sorting is necessary for prosperity.

anoncake 5y ago
How does firing people unable to be productive increase their prosperity?
- bluecalm 5y ago
  It increases overall prosperity. If you randomly assign people to jobs and keep them there you will get a total economic collapse.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    That is not at all the same thing. People aren't randomly assigned to jobs.
    - bluecalm 5y ago
      Of course. Still a lot of people suck at their job even if their on paper credentials check out. You need some mechanism to make sure competent productive people are in proper positions and are compensated for it. Otherwise you get what we tried too many times and it doesn't work.
js8 5y ago
> I want to see the unsuccessful companies go extinct, and I want to see the unproductive workers let go, because such sorting is necessary for prosperity. I don't, it's a waste of resources. I want them to relearn or restructure. (That's why I support social net and limited liability, by the way.) You are assuming that evolution itself is somehow "efficient"; I don't see that as self-evident.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  > I don't, it's a waste of resources. I want them to relearn or restructure. Having been part of a company that went extinct, I don't agree. Some groups of people pointed in a particular direction just aren't meant to be and aren't productive. It's better for them to be forced to disband (due to lack of funds) after the market told them squarely that they're not providing a valuable product or service. Now all these people have gone their own ways and are providing much more value for both themselves and others in various parts of the economy where their skills are being put to better use. > You are assuming that evolution itself is somehow "efficient"; I don't see that as self-evident. I'm asserting that competition is necessary for societal prosperity, which inevitably leads to some sorting as a consequence.
  - jokoon 5y ago
    > I'm asserting that competition is necessary for societal prosperity, which inevitably leads to some sorting as a consequence. Says who exactly? Where do you see that competition is beneficial? What kind of prosperity, and for who? People eat, sleep and socialize, and competition doesn't really drive prosperity. Poor people, the unemployed and the homeless don't deserve their situation, yet a merit system will always create inequalities. People are free from doing what they want, as long as it doesn't lead to the exclusion of individuals.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      > Says who exactly? Where do you see that competition is beneficial? Consider just one example: competition in the labor market. Businesses need to hire competent people that have the skills required for the job, otherwise they won't be able to function. That means pitting candidates against each other in a form of competition and sorting them during the interview process, in order to find who are the best at what you're hiring for. Without this one example of competition and sorting, hiring good people would be a roll of the dice and I'd even say that our whole economy wouldn't be able to function. There's countless other similar examples throughout the economy where competition and sorting are necessary, but I think that one example should suffice. > What kind of prosperity, and for who? Everyone is better off with it, because without it we'd all be in desperate poverty, since the economy wouldn't function.

anoncake 5y ago

How does firing people unable to be productive increase their prosperity?

bluecalm 5y ago
It increases overall prosperity. If you randomly assign people to jobs and keep them there you will get a total economic collapse.
- anoncake 5y ago
  That is not at all the same thing. People aren't randomly assigned to jobs.
  - bluecalm 5y ago
    Of course. Still a lot of people suck at their job even if their on paper credentials check out. You need some mechanism to make sure competent productive people are in proper positions and are compensated for it. Otherwise you get what we tried too many times and it doesn't work.

js8 5y ago

> I want to see the unsuccessful companies go extinct, and I want to see the unproductive workers let go, because such sorting is necessary for prosperity. I don't, it's a waste of resources. I want them to relearn or restructure. (That's why I support social net and limited liability, by the way.) You are assuming that evolution itself is somehow "efficient"; I don't see that as self-evident.

fighterpilot 5y ago
> I don't, it's a waste of resources. I want them to relearn or restructure. Having been part of a company that went extinct, I don't agree. Some groups of people pointed in a particular direction just aren't meant to be and aren't productive. It's better for them to be forced to disband (due to lack of funds) after the market told them squarely that they're not providing a valuable product or service. Now all these people have gone their own ways and are providing much more value for both themselves and others in various parts of the economy where their skills are being put to better use. > You are assuming that evolution itself is somehow "efficient"; I don't see that as self-evident. I'm asserting that competition is necessary for societal prosperity, which inevitably leads to some sorting as a consequence.
- jokoon 5y ago
  > I'm asserting that competition is necessary for societal prosperity, which inevitably leads to some sorting as a consequence. Says who exactly? Where do you see that competition is beneficial? What kind of prosperity, and for who? People eat, sleep and socialize, and competition doesn't really drive prosperity. Poor people, the unemployed and the homeless don't deserve their situation, yet a merit system will always create inequalities. People are free from doing what they want, as long as it doesn't lead to the exclusion of individuals.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    > Says who exactly? Where do you see that competition is beneficial? Consider just one example: competition in the labor market. Businesses need to hire competent people that have the skills required for the job, otherwise they won't be able to function. That means pitting candidates against each other in a form of competition and sorting them during the interview process, in order to find who are the best at what you're hiring for. Without this one example of competition and sorting, hiring good people would be a roll of the dice and I'd even say that our whole economy wouldn't be able to function. There's countless other similar examples throughout the economy where competition and sorting are necessary, but I think that one example should suffice. > What kind of prosperity, and for who? Everyone is better off with it, because without it we'd all be in desperate poverty, since the economy wouldn't function.