3 ms·

What’s crazy to me is the argument we should ever stop optimizing anything. Doing things efficiently means we have more resources to do other things, so we can

What’s crazy to me is the argument we should ever stop optimizing anything. Doing things efficiently means we have more resources to do other things, so we can do more things in total. That’s how we got from cavemen to smartphones. It’s the human condition.

blastro 5y ago
Resiliency is the cost of efficiency. Latency is the cost of resiliency. - Homer Simpson
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  See also hard times... strong men... good times... weak men... hard times.
Gibbon1 5y ago
The question is what things do we optimize. Because there are winners and losers in all that.
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  This is the line of thought that best explains why I am in favor of a basic income.
drewzero1 5y ago
To a point, yes, but at some level you start spending more time and energy optimizing than you save. And while I'd like to do more and more things, sometimes I just want to enjoy whatever I'm doing for a while (as inefficient as it may be).
- planet-and-halo 5y ago
  This is also a philosophical problem. What exactly are you optimizing? Which optimizations are most important? I could become the most dedicated worker on earth, but I might destroy my personal life to the point I have a breakdown and can no longer work. The world doesn't work in this clean mathematical way where we can see all of the variables, how they are trending, and any approaching discontinuities or emergent phenomena. What does it even mean to optimize a life? Economic output? Happiness? It's hubris to imagine we have any idea how to optimize these things even in a local way, much less a global one.
- gtfoutttt 5y ago
  Amen. A great example in my life is sailing. I love it, but it's definitely not the best way to travel around our local islands. It's slow, uncomfortable, and kinda difficult. But, I'd take a sailboat over a motorboat most days. It's enjoyable to "trick" the wind to bring you where you want to go. You're continuing a tradition of boating that goes back around the dawn of civilization. But is it the fastest? Hell no.
diydsp 5y ago
> do more things in total > the human condition. Some would argue we don't actually need to do very many more things. There is no simple answer to "What is the human condition?" While we've discovered tendencies in our our natural psyche to design and build, we have many other needs that, I argue, should be balanced. Just because we're plunked into existence on a planet, does that mean we must be compelled to ignore our desires for peaceful, sustainable existence and instead turn our energies toward empowering everyone to get more accomplished? This goes double when the things we do to help our brother or sister help those in charge 10 times as much. This desire for freedom from divine or overwhelming rule is part of how my country (US) was (ostensibly) formed. We didn't leave England/Europe to form a hyperefficient economy. We left it to escape the weight of an out-of-control social system. [0] I would argue that in addition to our proclivity for solving puzzles and building, we're gifted an awareness giving us the ability to pick and negotiate which of our desires we will attend to. This awareness is often blunted by those who have a stake in suppressing it. But I argue that spreading and growing this awareness will result in our choosing the things to do most relevant to ourselves rather than our masters. This would include a curtailing of relentless optimization. Usually at this point, one is challenged with arguments about ceasing tech development leading to an end of healing of suffering through e.g. medical research. However, we can demonstrate that the majority of human medical suffering is actually a result of our misguided abundance. The bulk of our diabetes and heart diseases cases owing to our poor diet, for example. Nor does it mean we must give up medical research entirely. In fact, with our priorities shifted (slowing the throttle on space exploration, for example), we would likely be in a better position to research rare and painful birth defects. There comes a time to put one's foot down and say, "I will not participate in x/y/z because it doesn't benefit individuals sufficiently." [0] Imagine facebook and other corporations taking the place of the medieval church, adjudicating marriages and property rights. Is it really that far-fetched?

blastro 5y ago

Resiliency is the cost of efficiency. Latency is the cost of resiliency. - Homer Simpson

TechBro8615 5y ago
See also hard times... strong men... good times... weak men... hard times.

Gibbon1 5y ago

The question is what things do we optimize. Because there are winners and losers in all that.

TechBro8615 5y ago
This is the line of thought that best explains why I am in favor of a basic income.

drewzero1 5y ago

To a point, yes, but at some level you start spending more time and energy optimizing than you save. And while I'd like to do more and more things, sometimes I just want to enjoy whatever I'm doing for a while (as inefficient as it may be).

planet-and-halo 5y ago
This is also a philosophical problem. What exactly are you optimizing? Which optimizations are most important? I could become the most dedicated worker on earth, but I might destroy my personal life to the point I have a breakdown and can no longer work. The world doesn't work in this clean mathematical way where we can see all of the variables, how they are trending, and any approaching discontinuities or emergent phenomena. What does it even mean to optimize a life? Economic output? Happiness? It's hubris to imagine we have any idea how to optimize these things even in a local way, much less a global one.
gtfoutttt 5y ago
Amen. A great example in my life is sailing. I love it, but it's definitely not the best way to travel around our local islands. It's slow, uncomfortable, and kinda difficult. But, I'd take a sailboat over a motorboat most days. It's enjoyable to "trick" the wind to bring you where you want to go. You're continuing a tradition of boating that goes back around the dawn of civilization. But is it the fastest? Hell no.

diydsp 5y ago

> do more things in total > the human condition. Some would argue we don't actually need to do very many more things. There is no simple answer to "What is the human condition?" While we've discovered tendencies in our our natural psyche to design and build, we have many other needs that, I argue, should be balanced. Just because we're plunked into existence on a planet, does that mean we must be compelled to ignore our desires for peaceful, sustainable existence and instead turn our energies toward empowering everyone to get more accomplished? This goes double when the things we do to help our brother or sister help those in charge 10 times as much. This desire for freedom from divine or overwhelming rule is part of how my country (US) was (ostensibly) formed. We didn't leave England/Europe to form a hyperefficient economy. We left it to escape the weight of an out-of-control social system. [0] I would argue that in addition to our proclivity for solving puzzles and building, we're gifted an awareness giving us the ability to pick and negotiate which of our desires we will attend to. This awareness is often blunted by those who have a stake in suppressing it. But I argue that spreading and growing this awareness will result in our choosing the things to do most relevant to ourselves rather than our masters. This would include a curtailing of relentless optimization. Usually at this point, one is challenged with arguments about ceasing tech development leading to an end of healing of suffering through e.g. medical research. However, we can demonstrate that the majority of human medical suffering is actually a result of our misguided abundance. The bulk of our diabetes and heart diseases cases owing to our poor diet, for example. Nor does it mean we must give up medical research entirely. In fact, with our priorities shifted (slowing the throttle on space exploration, for example), we would likely be in a better position to research rare and painful birth defects. There comes a time to put one's foot down and say, "I will not participate in x/y/z because it doesn't benefit individuals sufficiently." [0] Imagine facebook and other corporations taking the place of the medieval church, adjudicating marriages and property rights. Is it really that far-fetched?