6 ms·

Sincere question: what would one use to measure success in such a world?

by edouard-harris 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago
In the delta between those that have it the best and those that have it the worst.
- Msw242 5y ago
  That's a hugely flawed north star. We've had inequality as long as we have had surplus. The more surplus, the more inequality. But I'd rather live today than in hunter gatherer times, even though they were materially more equal. "Why not modern life with less inequality?" Well because growing the pie and splitting the pie are competing drivers. If Elon musk weren't already obscenely wealthy, he wouldn't have been able to execute against space x. I'd rather live in a world where Musk is worth a quarter of a trillion dollars than in one where we didn't have Space X.
  - srcreigh 5y ago
    Jesus said we'll always have poor people. So you're not wrong. It doesn't have to be a solvable problem to be the best way to measure success. Your working definitions of "best" and "worst" still seem to be about net worth. If money isn't the measure of success, the delta probably wouldn't be net worth delta.
    - sobellian 5y ago
      I hardly prefer a world replete with identical spiritual or moral misery, even though it totally zeroes out this delta.
  - leifg 5y ago
    Call me a socialist but we had scientific and engineering breakthroughs without hyper capitalism. If NASA had the budget of the 1960s today we would be way ahead of what Space X is doing now. And yeah, even without that I’d trade Space X for more global equality in a second.
    - hooande 5y ago
      Space X is a bad, fan boy example. my life is greatly improved by the internet, by ubiquitous electricity, satellite communications, etc. the current form of many of these things was driven by a type of capitalism that is inseparable from inequality
      - leifg 5y ago
        The internet, the electric grid and satellite communications are all great examples for state sponsored endeavors…
    - nielsole 5y ago
      NASA probably was perceived to show the superiority of the capitalist system over socialism in the 60ies though.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        That's exactly why it got its budget in the first place: to show up the Russians (who had shown up the Americans by launching first 'Sputnik' and then Gagarin), not necessarily to do something useful in space. But no matter how they got their budget, I'm happy they did.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    At a guess: you're not at the bottom of the pile. Also, there are multiple solutions to the equation I posted and you chose to pick the worst.
- lkbm 5y ago
  Measuring simply by how well those who have it worst is a much better metric. A world where all people have it terrible is a bad world. A world where everyone has it at least okay is a much better world. There are downsides to inequality, but a metric that counts "everyone is miserable" as a success is an awful metric.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    No, because 'well' is then relative to what the 'haves' think it should be for those who have it worst. Which will result in a very large underclass who are deemed to have it 'well' and a small upperclass who have it 'amazing'. The alternative is not a world where people have it terrible, it could also be a world where everybody has it good and to strive every day to make it better still. Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system. So, your alternative would be better than what we have today, but your reading of my comment is incomplete.
    - lkbm 5y ago
      > No, because 'well' is then relative to what the 'haves' think it should be for those who have it worst. No, my metric is chosen over yours because mine is not relative. I don't care how well the worst off had it compared to other people. I care how well off they are. This means that in order to make the world better, the only option is to improve the lives of the worst off. > Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system. Hence the focus solely on making them better off. Doesn't matter how well off Elon Musk is if it doesn't improve the lives of those in need. > but your reading of my comment is incomplete. Your comment was one sentence. I read the whole thing. If you meant something else, you gotta say it.
- metacritic12 5y ago
  so one way to achieve the best possible society is by implementing Harrison bergeron?
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    It clearly is the most negative reading possible of my comment that prompted you to write this. Do you believe it is the only interpretation possible?
the_cat_kittles 5y ago
amazing. gotta marvel at this one
zapita 5y ago
Aggregate human suffering. Note: I don’t particularly agree with GP.
ModernMech 5y ago
Such a world exists. It's called "academia". Our measured units of success are publications, and citations.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  It still has the same problem, unfortunately. Citations and publications come first, actual science second. Perhaps any effort to quantify success/status is destined to be gamed.
- ptr2voidStar 5y ago
petra 5y ago
Money combines many metrics into a single, very abstract number. Maybe a multi-goal optimization, and using more concrete goals is better? And goals should be directly related to fullfilment of human needs over both the short and long terms. So let's say measure something like home ownership rate, good jobs, good healthcare accessibility, etc.
DoreenMichele 5y ago
Each individual is currently free to measure success any way they so desire. I certainly do use other metrics, though dollar value of some things remains a handy means to nutshell quantify some things.

Sincere question: what would one use to measure success in such a world?

jacquesm 5y ago

In the delta between those that have it the best and those that have it the worst.

Msw242 5y ago
That's a hugely flawed north star. We've had inequality as long as we have had surplus. The more surplus, the more inequality. But I'd rather live today than in hunter gatherer times, even though they were materially more equal. "Why not modern life with less inequality?" Well because growing the pie and splitting the pie are competing drivers. If Elon musk weren't already obscenely wealthy, he wouldn't have been able to execute against space x. I'd rather live in a world where Musk is worth a quarter of a trillion dollars than in one where we didn't have Space X.
- srcreigh 5y ago
  Jesus said we'll always have poor people. So you're not wrong. It doesn't have to be a solvable problem to be the best way to measure success. Your working definitions of "best" and "worst" still seem to be about net worth. If money isn't the measure of success, the delta probably wouldn't be net worth delta.
  - sobellian 5y ago
    I hardly prefer a world replete with identical spiritual or moral misery, even though it totally zeroes out this delta.
- leifg 5y ago
  Call me a socialist but we had scientific and engineering breakthroughs without hyper capitalism. If NASA had the budget of the 1960s today we would be way ahead of what Space X is doing now. And yeah, even without that I’d trade Space X for more global equality in a second.
  - hooande 5y ago
    Space X is a bad, fan boy example. my life is greatly improved by the internet, by ubiquitous electricity, satellite communications, etc. the current form of many of these things was driven by a type of capitalism that is inseparable from inequality
    - leifg 5y ago
      The internet, the electric grid and satellite communications are all great examples for state sponsored endeavors…
  - nielsole 5y ago
    NASA probably was perceived to show the superiority of the capitalist system over socialism in the 60ies though.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      That's exactly why it got its budget in the first place: to show up the Russians (who had shown up the Americans by launching first 'Sputnik' and then Gagarin), not necessarily to do something useful in space. But no matter how they got their budget, I'm happy they did.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  At a guess: you're not at the bottom of the pile. Also, there are multiple solutions to the equation I posted and you chose to pick the worst.
lkbm 5y ago
Measuring simply by how well those who have it worst is a much better metric. A world where all people have it terrible is a bad world. A world where everyone has it at least okay is a much better world. There are downsides to inequality, but a metric that counts "everyone is miserable" as a success is an awful metric.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  No, because 'well' is then relative to what the 'haves' think it should be for those who have it worst. Which will result in a very large underclass who are deemed to have it 'well' and a small upperclass who have it 'amazing'. The alternative is not a world where people have it terrible, it could also be a world where everybody has it good and to strive every day to make it better still. Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system. So, your alternative would be better than what we have today, but your reading of my comment is incomplete.
  - lkbm 5y ago
    > No, because 'well' is then relative to what the 'haves' think it should be for those who have it worst. No, my metric is chosen over yours because mine is not relative. I don't care how well the worst off had it compared to other people. I care how well off they are. This means that in order to make the world better, the only option is to improve the lives of the worst off. > Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system. Hence the focus solely on making them better off. Doesn't matter how well off Elon Musk is if it doesn't improve the lives of those in need. > but your reading of my comment is incomplete. Your comment was one sentence. I read the whole thing. If you meant something else, you gotta say it.
metacritic12 5y ago
so one way to achieve the best possible society is by implementing Harrison bergeron?
- jacquesm 5y ago
  It clearly is the most negative reading possible of my comment that prompted you to write this. Do you believe it is the only interpretation possible?

the_cat_kittles 5y ago

amazing. gotta marvel at this one

zapita 5y ago

Aggregate human suffering. Note: I don’t particularly agree with GP.

ModernMech 5y ago

Such a world exists. It's called "academia". Our measured units of success are publications, and citations.

AussieWog93 5y ago
It still has the same problem, unfortunately. Citations and publications come first, actual science second. Perhaps any effort to quantify success/status is destined to be gamed.
ptr2voidStar 5y ago

petra 5y ago

Money combines many metrics into a single, very abstract number. Maybe a multi-goal optimization, and using more concrete goals is better? And goals should be directly related to fullfilment of human needs over both the short and long terms. So let's say measure something like home ownership rate, good jobs, good healthcare accessibility, etc.

DoreenMichele 5y ago

Each individual is currently free to measure success any way they so desire. I certainly do use other metrics, though dollar value of some things remains a handy means to nutshell quantify some things.