4 ms·

As with any operations research, you start with the goal. What do you stand to gain? The way I see it: >maximizing the economy means maximizing the population

As with any operations research, you start with the goal. What do you stand to gain? The way I see it: >maximizing the economy means maximizing the population and the money they put back into it >maximizing quality of life means reducing the population and allowing cities to spread out horizontally, more personal space and self-reliance >maximizing survival of the species means reducing lifetimes and increasing birthrates And I see these as mutually exclusive goals. Ask yourself if you would be happier in any other point in history. The men who engineered Sputnik likely couldn't afford common imported goods, and that didn't stop them from living a successful, rewarding life.

oneoff786 4y ago
Is that a random assumption? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev > Short of stature, heavily built, with head sitting awkwardly on his body, with brown eyes glistening with intelligence, he was a skeptic, a cynic and a pessimist who took the gloomiest view of the future. 'We are all going to be shot and there will be no obituary' (Khlopnut bez nekrologa, Хлопнут без некролога – i.e. "we will all vanish without a trace") was his favorite expression. > On 3 December 1960, Korolev suffered his first heart attack. During his convalescence, it was also discovered that he was suffering from a kidney disorder, a condition brought on by his detention in the Soviet prison camps. He was warned by the doctors that if he continued to work as intensely as he had, he would not live long. Korolev became convinced that Khrushchev was only interested in the space program for its propaganda value and feared that he would cancel it entirely if the Soviets started losing their leadership to the United States, so he continued to push himself.
jodrellblank 4y ago
All your ways you see it don't seem to be the only options: >maximizing the economy means maximizing the population and the money they put back into it Maximizing the economy means keeping the population the same and increasing the velocity of money. Maximizing the economy means having more automated transactions, regardless of the human population. Maximizing the economy means increasing the value added to human society with each transaction, and increasing the number of transactions... >maximizing quality of life means reducing the population and allowing cities to spread out horizontally, more personal space and self-reliance Clearly no, otherwise maximum quality of life would have been agricultural life thousands of years ago, pre-dentists, pre-anaesthetic, pre-central heating, pre-drinking-water, pre-freezers, etc. etc. Quality of life can be improved in cities compared to countryside - e.g. nearby conveniences, more people to socialise with, more interesting things to do - as well as reduced. >maximizing survival of the species means reducing lifetimes and increasing birthrates Why reducing lifetimes? Fighting Polio increases the lifetime of potential Polio patients as well as the survival of the species by taking away another cause of death. Improving cold weather clothing improves individual lifetime in freezing climates as well as expanding the areas the species can live in. > Ask yourself if you would be happier in any other point in history. The 1990s was pretty good; yes anaesthesia and computers, but also yes lower population, affordable housing, better state of the NHS, fewer vehicles on the roads, and I was younger which was nice. But still, it's an illusion of an idea - people make happiness where and when they are. Happy people existed in history before {arbitray recent cutoff year}, and if you were one of them and your life wasn't particularly awful, you would be normally happy with it and see that around you. The Hedonic Treadmill (as you gain something which makes you short-term happy, the effect fades and you return to your normal happiness level) is a thing; you say you'd be happier with a new widget, but that only lasts a short while. Same in reverse, you think you'd be unhappier without a widget, but that would only last a short while too, as long as you have the basics. People predict that getting fired will ruin their lives, a year later they say it improved their lives a lot. (See Dan Gilbert's TED Talk on the science of happiness).

oneoff786 4y ago

Is that a random assumption? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev > Short of stature, heavily built, with head sitting awkwardly on his body, with brown eyes glistening with intelligence, he was a skeptic, a cynic and a pessimist who took the gloomiest view of the future. 'We are all going to be shot and there will be no obituary' (Khlopnut bez nekrologa, Хлопнут без некролога – i.e. "we will all vanish without a trace") was his favorite expression. > On 3 December 1960, Korolev suffered his first heart attack. During his convalescence, it was also discovered that he was suffering from a kidney disorder, a condition brought on by his detention in the Soviet prison camps. He was warned by the doctors that if he continued to work as intensely as he had, he would not live long. Korolev became convinced that Khrushchev was only interested in the space program for its propaganda value and feared that he would cancel it entirely if the Soviets started losing their leadership to the United States, so he continued to push himself.

jodrellblank 4y ago

All your ways you see it don't seem to be the only options: >maximizing the economy means maximizing the population and the money they put back into it Maximizing the economy means keeping the population the same and increasing the velocity of money. Maximizing the economy means having more automated transactions, regardless of the human population. Maximizing the economy means increasing the value added to human society with each transaction, and increasing the number of transactions... >maximizing quality of life means reducing the population and allowing cities to spread out horizontally, more personal space and self-reliance Clearly no, otherwise maximum quality of life would have been agricultural life thousands of years ago, pre-dentists, pre-anaesthetic, pre-central heating, pre-drinking-water, pre-freezers, etc. etc. Quality of life can be improved in cities compared to countryside - e.g. nearby conveniences, more people to socialise with, more interesting things to do - as well as reduced. >maximizing survival of the species means reducing lifetimes and increasing birthrates Why reducing lifetimes? Fighting Polio increases the lifetime of potential Polio patients as well as the survival of the species by taking away another cause of death. Improving cold weather clothing improves individual lifetime in freezing climates as well as expanding the areas the species can live in. > Ask yourself if you would be happier in any other point in history. The 1990s was pretty good; yes anaesthesia and computers, but also yes lower population, affordable housing, better state of the NHS, fewer vehicles on the roads, and I was younger which was nice. But still, it's an illusion of an idea - people make happiness where and when they are. Happy people existed in history before {arbitray recent cutoff year}, and if you were one of them and your life wasn't particularly awful, you would be normally happy with it and see that around you. The Hedonic Treadmill (as you gain something which makes you short-term happy, the effect fades and you return to your normal happiness level) is a thing; you say you'd be happier with a new widget, but that only lasts a short while. Same in reverse, you think you'd be unhappier without a widget, but that would only last a short while too, as long as you have the basics. People predict that getting fired will ruin their lives, a year later they say it improved their lives a lot. (See Dan Gilbert's TED Talk on the science of happiness).