5 ms·

We would be much better off as a species if we were able to handle the transition to a stable state. On the other hand, population growth is what allows us the

by tbihl 5y ago

We would be much better off as a species if we were able to handle the transition to a stable state. On the other hand, population growth is what allows us the enormous specialization that lets us achieve unbelievable technological feats while also wasting time during work on HN.

mc32 5y ago
There are enormous amounts of people who don't add to innovation. Very few people are needed for innovation. Most people even on HN are doing routine things. Not discovery or in support of discovery. Most people's minds are not being taxed -and that's okay. That's to say, having millions of idle minds to produce one very productive mind isn't a requirement. I think this initiative could be part of this solution where we need fewer raw numbers but more productive percentages.
- tbihl 5y ago
  Two things: first, without having a recipe for very productive people, our best option is fostering fertile environments for development and then seeing who comes out, and that's very much a numbers game of getting as many entrants as possible. Second, the trail of supporting cast for any technological development is enormous, and we're making a huge mistake when we forget that. Not just the people who clean the streets and the buildings, but the people who build them, design them, maintain them, create the organizational and financial structures that keep them operating, and so on. And a few of those roles aren't very low end, just to keep the static pieces of the built environment from falling apart, just so you can get to the point where there's somewhere to live for the people fixing bugs and writing documentation for the the libraries you want to use multiple times a day, quite likely for free, without asking anyone for them or even giving a second thought. And it's not like those were written for you: there are dozens of implementations in as many languages, just waiting to be picked up. Things get massively more difficult for you if those tools are being produced for you specifically (that's what military procurement projects tend to have.) That obviously does nowhere near justice to even a simple software project. Now take that x1000 for any hardware project, where the raw materials, processing, and logistics circle the globe several times on their way to you.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    > Two things: first, without having a recipe for very productive people, our best option is fostering fertile environments for development and then seeing who comes out, and that's very much a numbers game of getting as many entrants as possible. I don't see the connection. Why do you need to get many entrants as possible? Why not do the obvious thing and create those fertile environments instead of letting random chance decide everything? All I am seeing here is the argument that given a high enough population fertile environments don't matter. No matter how difficult you make it for fertile environments to exist a higher population will always cancel it out.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      > All I am seeing here is the argument that given a high enough population fertile environments don't matter. This is the exact opposite of what I read GP to say. They were making the point that for every “genius” driving innovation, there is a long trail of people necessary to support and foster such innovation. This is not an “innovation by numbers” argument.
    - tbihl 5y ago
      You need as many entrants in those fertile environments as possible because humans and societies are complex, leading to unpredictable outcomes as results of factors that anyone raising kids may have discounted, not known about, or been unable to measure. You can't just make a perfect path and then get exactly the super-offspring you want. Thinking you can is literally the founding story of Buddhism (not discounting the significance of Buddhism, but his father was shooting for a perfect ruler, not an enlightened-but-impoverished visionary.) Edit to add: A side effect of all those people just barely going astray is that you get improvements in thought and technology across a span of many fields, which in turn brings future great achievements nearer to our reach.
imtringued 5y ago
Considering the current state of the economy there is a huge surplus of people that aren't needed for anything. It's clearly not a numbers thing. You could probably beat population growth by much faster allocation growth.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  This argument always makes me nervous, as it implies that someone somewhere will decide which people “aren’t needed” and therefore shouldn’t get resources. Nothing good lies down that road.
- tbihl 5y ago
  These are the people for whom the $600/wk covid unemployment in the US has been disastrous. I visited my rural hometown last week, and the normally-occupied (though I wouldn't call it busy) downtown was empty. Of the 4 worthwhile restaurants, 1 was open, 2 kept narrow operating hours because of staffing problems, and the 4th was unexpectedly closed because of staffing problems that day. The prices at all the restaurants was quite out of character with the area, even accounting for the general inflation that has been pervasive this year. It's apparent to me that the town has been largely priced out of having local restaurants by expanded unemployment benefits. Those that remain serve dinner 4 times a week. And it's unclear to me how people who were working for low wages are better off having any clear way to serve their community. All that to say, "not needed for anything" needs many qualifiers.

by tbihl 5y ago

mc32 5y ago

There are enormous amounts of people who don't add to innovation. Very few people are needed for innovation. Most people even on HN are doing routine things. Not discovery or in support of discovery. Most people's minds are not being taxed -and that's okay. That's to say, having millions of idle minds to produce one very productive mind isn't a requirement. I think this initiative could be part of this solution where we need fewer raw numbers but more productive percentages.

tbihl 5y ago
Two things: first, without having a recipe for very productive people, our best option is fostering fertile environments for development and then seeing who comes out, and that's very much a numbers game of getting as many entrants as possible. Second, the trail of supporting cast for any technological development is enormous, and we're making a huge mistake when we forget that. Not just the people who clean the streets and the buildings, but the people who build them, design them, maintain them, create the organizational and financial structures that keep them operating, and so on. And a few of those roles aren't very low end, just to keep the static pieces of the built environment from falling apart, just so you can get to the point where there's somewhere to live for the people fixing bugs and writing documentation for the the libraries you want to use multiple times a day, quite likely for free, without asking anyone for them or even giving a second thought. And it's not like those were written for you: there are dozens of implementations in as many languages, just waiting to be picked up. Things get massively more difficult for you if those tools are being produced for you specifically (that's what military procurement projects tend to have.) That obviously does nowhere near justice to even a simple software project. Now take that x1000 for any hardware project, where the raw materials, processing, and logistics circle the globe several times on their way to you.
- imtringued 5y ago
  > Two things: first, without having a recipe for very productive people, our best option is fostering fertile environments for development and then seeing who comes out, and that's very much a numbers game of getting as many entrants as possible. I don't see the connection. Why do you need to get many entrants as possible? Why not do the obvious thing and create those fertile environments instead of letting random chance decide everything? All I am seeing here is the argument that given a high enough population fertile environments don't matter. No matter how difficult you make it for fertile environments to exist a higher population will always cancel it out.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > All I am seeing here is the argument that given a high enough population fertile environments don't matter. This is the exact opposite of what I read GP to say. They were making the point that for every “genius” driving innovation, there is a long trail of people necessary to support and foster such innovation. This is not an “innovation by numbers” argument.
  - tbihl 5y ago
    You need as many entrants in those fertile environments as possible because humans and societies are complex, leading to unpredictable outcomes as results of factors that anyone raising kids may have discounted, not known about, or been unable to measure. You can't just make a perfect path and then get exactly the super-offspring you want. Thinking you can is literally the founding story of Buddhism (not discounting the significance of Buddhism, but his father was shooting for a perfect ruler, not an enlightened-but-impoverished visionary.) Edit to add: A side effect of all those people just barely going astray is that you get improvements in thought and technology across a span of many fields, which in turn brings future great achievements nearer to our reach.

imtringued 5y ago

Considering the current state of the economy there is a huge surplus of people that aren't needed for anything. It's clearly not a numbers thing. You could probably beat population growth by much faster allocation growth.

ashtonkem 5y ago
This argument always makes me nervous, as it implies that someone somewhere will decide which people “aren’t needed” and therefore shouldn’t get resources. Nothing good lies down that road.
tbihl 5y ago
These are the people for whom the $600/wk covid unemployment in the US has been disastrous. I visited my rural hometown last week, and the normally-occupied (though I wouldn't call it busy) downtown was empty. Of the 4 worthwhile restaurants, 1 was open, 2 kept narrow operating hours because of staffing problems, and the 4th was unexpectedly closed because of staffing problems that day. The prices at all the restaurants was quite out of character with the area, even accounting for the general inflation that has been pervasive this year. It's apparent to me that the town has been largely priced out of having local restaurants by expanded unemployment benefits. Those that remain serve dinner 4 times a week. And it's unclear to me how people who were working for low wages are better off having any clear way to serve their community. All that to say, "not needed for anything" needs many qualifiers.