10 ms·

Continuous growth is cancer

162 points by rcarmo 4y ago

blue039 4y ago
[flagged]
- samtho 4y ago
  > First, the war has had very little appreciable effect on the stock market. This is personal politics injection. Your average westerner would probably go on living their life with a steady 7% return if the news media didn't constantly shove the war going on down our throats. This war is actually important both geopolitically and economically. Ukraine is a major food producer and the even the smallest changes in global food supply is felt at all corners of the world. Additionally, it’s result, and specifically how far the US will involve itself, is going to set the stage for how China proceeds with Taiwan. Pretending that its impacts are irrelevant or insignificant to the western world, both immediate and long term, is very misinformed.
  - blue039 4y ago
    It's not misinformed at all. The US's involvement in the Ukraine war is strictly along party lines. The Biden's have been involved in Ukraine at nearly every level for decades now. There are several high profile politicians in the US with ties to Ukranian companies. We flew a Ukranian flag in our congress. That should tell you everything. There is not a "war" except one caused by politicians. The price eggs and gasoline in the US are not a function of this war. I could not care less and I certainly do not want to send our boys to die for a politician's dirty laundry. Whatever happens over there is a problem of the EU, not mine, and not anyone I care about. Being a "good global citizen" is pointless agitprop from BlackRock ESG. My life is already too complicated. It would be wise of us to not go about pissing off nuclear powers especially when the US is as fundamentally weak both in the spirit of what it stands for and leadership as it is today. Eisenhower tried to warn us and none of us listened.
rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
I find it hard not to fully agree with this article. Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? To comment on the writing: that title is genius.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), Seeing how communist regimes aren't exactly practicing degrowth, I think it's more accurate to say it's a human obsession. >we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? Ostensibly companies aren't hiring for the sake of headcount. What they're actually after is market dominance, which can be obtained by building a better product, which require people.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
    No argument about the point on communism, but as regards the headcount--I was referring to what I've seen mentioned more than a few times in HN comments where, apparently, FAANGs or some teams therein have engineering manager positions where the size of the team that one leads greatly translates to that employee's success (perceived or real) in the company. It's also a good number to look at for recruiters when said managers start applying for jobs elsewhere.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >I was referring to what I've seen mentioned more than a few times in HN comments where, apparently, FAANGs or some teams therein have engineering manager positions where the size of the team that one leads greatly translates to that employee's success (perceived or real) in the company How does that translate into tech companies overhiring? Even if managers want more people on their team for progression purposes, they can't exactly expand their team to whatever size they want. They're subject to budgets set by finance.
fithisux 4y ago
My thoughts too.
softwaredoug 4y ago
“Growth” at the individual level has become a euphemism It really means extrinsic motivation. It means being willing to play the game to hit whatever milestones are laid out for you. To push yourself for those milestones to reach a reward. Not because those goals are intrinsically rewarding - but because you want to demonstrate what you need for promotion or raise. If the goals were intrinsically rewarding, we would need to internalize them and fully believe in them. And I don’t think that’s possible - or not even desirable - for many jobs. Because after all 90% of goals are given to you, not co-created with you. Even when managers feel like there’s co-creation happening they don’t see how heavily they mold that process, how the power dynamic leads to the employee trying to guess what the manager actually wants, then adjust their goals to please the manager for the next career milestone. See Googles graveyard of failed products - all to hit the next promotion - abandoned when people check that box, lose interest, and move on. Google thinks it’s a sign of growth mindset. In reality it’s a case of employees seeing a behavior-“shipping new products”- being rewarded.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  In my experience, the "goals" you hit are really capabilities. Can you design bigger systems? Can you lead bigger teams? Can you define winning strategy? Those aren't artificial milestones, they are real things (eg, you'd need them if you ran your own company) and growing from someone who "can't" to someone who "can" is exhilarating.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    Maybe in an ideal world, but in my experience most corporate "goals" are just "influential" people playing political games with minimal if any real-world productivity attached. They might as well be playing Monopoly but with real money. None of them ever get fired even in abject, catestrophic failure. The only "capability" for them to cultivate is convincing enough other influential people to give them resources through various political means so that they have the biggest chair when the music stops or they retire. It's largely up the ICs to produce the "real things" as best they can given circumstances foisted upon them. Maybe at some companies "designing bigger systems", "leading bigger teams" and "defining winning strategy" is correlated with said resource extraction, but that's all. The moment those capabilities aren't in sync with resource extraction, they become worthless. The ideal company abuses its workers and robs its customers, and will get as close to that ideal as it's allowed. It's only force of popular will that keeps that in check, and the rare decent person who makes it into leadership.
roenxi 4y ago
I'd challenge the idea that this is unsustainable because of the specific system. Entropy and resource limits mean whatever we do is unsustainable under any system as far as we tell, both theoretically and in practical timespans. Nobody seems to have an argument for where the physical resources will come from, or how we deal with exponential population growth without just having regular famines (even worse than losing a job!). Life looks a lot like cancer. Cancer looks a lot like life. "Being cancer" isn't a bad thing, cancer is only bad when it is a disease in humans. Otherwise it is the way of the world. We are surrounded by patterns that propagate themselves quickly. Also; the people who are anti-growth have a much, much worse track record in every way than the alternatives.
- flangola7 4y ago
  The rest of the ecosystem is not benefited by humans being cancer. Humans are not benefited by obliterating biodiversity, although they may not have felt many of its effects yet. Growth is not inherently good, uncontrolled growth is certainly not.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >Growth is not inherently good, uncontrolled growth is certainly not. That's a nice soundbite, but what does that translate into in terms of actual policy? Do we cap growth at 2% or whatever and call it a day?
    - mxkopy 4y ago
      Most if not all of our social problems can be solved with enough education. If you're the type of person to read census data for fun you'll probably not want to have kids. If you're exposed to the liberal arts continuously throughout your life, you're less likely to take metrics at face value. The system is just like any other: you put garbage in it, and you'll get garbage out of it.
      - gruez 4y ago
        >Most if not all of our social problems can be solved with enough education. So by "controlled growth", you actually mean "better education"? What type of education you think is needed? Do you think that making sure everyone has a bachelors is magically going to make growth "controlled" enough for your tastes?
breck 4y ago
> starting to feel that the system is incredibly flawed It is! To this day the vast profits in tech are generated by (c)opywrong laws, which make no sense, and are downright evil—because poor kids get access to crap information even though we have the technology to get humanity's best information to everyone. There are some people that have exploited these bad laws, like BG (see his 1976 letter^1) and have made vast fortunes. For a moment it looked like Google would be different, but then no, they too opted for profits over doing the right thing, and the web is getting worse. No one is connecting the dots, or rather—people in tech and the media industries can connect the dots but mentally don't want to face the truth: the vast profits are from dishonest laws, not from some magic value creation. We need to get rid of these bad laws and make money the honest way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
- gruez 4y ago
  >To this day the vast profits in tech are generated by (c)opywrong laws, which make no sense, and are downright evil—because poor kids get access to crap information even though we have the technology to get humanity's best information to everyone. How is "poor kids get access to crap information" due to copyright? Access to good learning resources (eg. khan academy) is easier than ever.
  - greenyoda 4y ago
    > Access to good learning resources (eg. khan academy) There's also the whole world of free software. Any kid or school that can afford an old PC and an internet connection can install Linux for free and use all the free software that runs on it. We live in a golden age of cheap computers and free software.
monero-xmr 4y ago
Productivity is the only way wealth is created. From 99% employed farming to 1% employed farming, but using technology to make this possible. This is why we have wealth - we can all get more of our needs fulfilled, because fulfilling those needs requires less inputs (labor, time, physical elements). This is such a fundamental and all-encompassing truth it is sad more people never grasp it. Capitalism is but one way to organize people to improve technology (in the abstract, not the Silicon Valley meaning). Capitalism harnesses a very powerful component of human nature - one’s primary desire towards one’s own needs and pleasure - and uses that to drive technological progress. I have yet to see any other type of human organization that is more effective than this system for driving technological progress (and thus human flourishing).
- Rury 4y ago
  I don't think it has anything to do with the type of human organization really. Rather, it's really just a matter of the wills of people, and whether they have access to capital.
jmarbach 4y ago
The author is correct. Growth is typically just a debt-fueled spending binge. The cancer is actually the fiat, soft money that’s improperly aligning incentives in the economy.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > The cancer is actually the fiat, soft money that’s improperly aligning incentives in the economy. What a conclusion. Debt and borrowing exist in hard money environments too. Debt is as old as time. Low interest rates reduce the threshold for what could be considered a successful business from a macroeconomic perspective, though, and can lead to misallocation of capital. Nothing to do with fiat.
- ajb 4y ago
  Debt-fuelled spending binges were just as common before fiat. In fact, booms and crashes were more frequent and severe because there could be no central bank to turn the heat down under the cookpot.
- glass3 4y ago
  It's the other way round. Dept is discounted potential future growth. Potential growth and the ability to pay back dept is the foundation for receiving money. What the author ignores is that it is a race. There are many opportunities but not all will be successful. Failed investments transfer the money from those who made wrong predictions to those who made successful ones. This creates sustained progress because those who are good at predicting the future have the most influence.
  - 20after4 4y ago
    Once you have a lot of influence you can influence the future instead of predicting it. This is a handy way to profit without providing any value to the rest of the system.
    - glass3 4y ago
      Like high frequency trading, it's also valuable because things that are important to those in power are protected.
lazzlazzlazz 4y ago
[flagged]
deafpolygon 4y ago
Says growth is bad, layoff sucks, then: > If you agree and you’re looking for a technical lead in your company, “check me out on LinkedIn” I mean, what company is gonna want to hire someone who thinks growth and expansion is bad.
- luckylion 4y ago
  He only thinks growth and expansion are bad when he got laid off. He doesn't have an issue with growth and expansion when it results in steady promotions, pay raises and generally an income that's far beyond the average thanks to his role being in demand and the evil forces of capitalism (which drive growth, which is bad!) are in effect. It's an emotional reaction, so I don't think any company should be too concerned about it. When he gets hired again, his emotional state will change and he'll reconsider and land on "maybe growth isn't so bad".
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Companies that can reach a happy equilibrium? Consider the following: Valve software is a tiny company in comparison to any other company out there, yet they make steady revenue. Do you think Valve could be in a better spot if instead they spent all of their money on rapidly growing their business? The fact that Valve is a private company and not completely beholden to the endless growth that companies prioritize means it can do things other companies cannot.
  - abigail95 4y ago
    > it can do things other companies cannot which in this case seems to be lower growth and fewer jobs. good trade, but not one i would make personally.
corbulo 4y ago
Continuous growth is necessary to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If there cannot be continuous growth, who becomes the arbiter of human potential? People who call growth cancer? You can't be serious.
- stkdump 4y ago
  People grow (in height) for the first ~1.5 decades of their life, and then stop growing. It appears to me that there is more to it.
  - logicchains 4y ago
    That's biology stopping growth. Do you think it'd be a good idea to let the government decide how tall people can grow, if we had the technology for that?
    - stkdump 4y ago
      Who is talking about government? I am just refuting the argument that continued growth is necessary for life.
  - corbulo 4y ago
    Does your biology analogy stretch to macroevolution aswell?
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Future generations also deserve life liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness and fulfill their potential surely. The issue would not so much seem to be "continuous" growth but unfettered growth (as per a narrow set of metrics) now that potentially destroys the chances of our children and grand children enjoying the benefits of that growth. If it's necessary to make decisions to dampen (or even suspend) growth now to ensure it that doesn't happen then so be it, though I'd argue it's more important to look at what we're actually measuring and ensuring we're growing in a direction that's actually sustainable.
wunderland 4y ago
It seems like nobody in the US educated in the last 50 years has read Marx or even has a cursory understanding of his ideas. You’ve seen tech bros reinvent public transportation 5 different ways. Now watch as they slowly gain the insights described by last century’s most influential philosopher after living through his observations firsthand.
- svnt 4y ago
  It doesn’t seem like that, it is like that. We consume second-hand Ayn Rand instead.
renewiltord 4y ago
Luddite nonsense. Continuous growth in organization headcount is a negative feedback loop. Eventually it will cause sluggish revenue growth. Cancers are positive feedback. And if I get a revenue cancer that just keeps growing unbounded, I think I'll take it.
classified 4y ago
Continuous growth is cancer? Not that I'd disagree, but try to tell that to an economist.
- defrost 4y ago
  Economist Ernst Friedrich Schumacher whole heartedly agreed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  "By calling econ 'dismal science', adherents exaggerate; the 'dismal' is fine, it's 'science' where they patently prevaricate."
waffletower 4y ago
“I´d like to share a revelation that I´ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we… are the cure.” Agent Smith.
- op00to 4y ago
  As someone who dealt with a rabbit infestation, there is no natural equilibrium.
  - spoiler 4y ago
    Can you provide more context on this? I have so many questions It probably wasn't a funny experience for you, but this made me laugh.
    - op00to 4y ago
      Infestation is a strong term. It seems like every few years there's a combination of factors that somehow create a bumper crop of bunnies in my yard. We'll go from normally seeing a few early morning or evening to having 4-5 bunnies hopping around all the time. Which is pretty cool, all things considered as long as you treat your property for ticks and whatnot. By the next year, though, it'd be back to just a few bunnies. Maybe there's not nearly enough food to support the extra bunnies through the winter. I saw a bald eagle over my house for the first time the other day (NE US). I wonder if the bunny situation will change with more predators.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    There is. Just not with your rabbit alone. The equilibrium evolves at the ecosystem level. In the wilderness it's predators. For your case, you are "dealing" with the rabbit infestation, therefore YOU are the one that's going to be applying pressure. YOU are part of the system.
kerpotgh 4y ago
[dead]
abigail95 4y ago
you obviously can't be against all growth else you would live as a hunter-gatherer. a more principled objection to the current situation is that you are against volatility. but to have this position you have to prove ethically/morally/economically that hiring 100 and firing 90 is worse than hiring 10, which is a very high bar to clear and not one i've ever seen a convincing argument for.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
From a 'conversation between a physicist and an economist' [0] discussing the limits of growth: Physicist: Alright, the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years. [Pained expression from economist.] And this statement is independent of technology. Even if we don’t have a name for the energy source yet, as long as it obeys thermodynamics, we cook ourselves with perpetual energy increase. [0] https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
- guiambros 4y ago
  What a fascinating article; thanks for sharing. Much more interesting than the top one. It gave me increased appreciation for living in the period of history we're all living. I already had a perception that the fast economic growth of the last few centuries was nothing more than a fleeting blip in the history of human race, but never thought about the physical constraints imposed by energy and thermodynamics.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
browsertasker 4y ago
[flagged]

162 points by rcarmo 4y ago

blue039 4y ago

[flagged]

samtho 4y ago
> First, the war has had very little appreciable effect on the stock market. This is personal politics injection. Your average westerner would probably go on living their life with a steady 7% return if the news media didn't constantly shove the war going on down our throats. This war is actually important both geopolitically and economically. Ukraine is a major food producer and the even the smallest changes in global food supply is felt at all corners of the world. Additionally, it’s result, and specifically how far the US will involve itself, is going to set the stage for how China proceeds with Taiwan. Pretending that its impacts are irrelevant or insignificant to the western world, both immediate and long term, is very misinformed.
- blue039 4y ago
  It's not misinformed at all. The US's involvement in the Ukraine war is strictly along party lines. The Biden's have been involved in Ukraine at nearly every level for decades now. There are several high profile politicians in the US with ties to Ukranian companies. We flew a Ukranian flag in our congress. That should tell you everything. There is not a "war" except one caused by politicians. The price eggs and gasoline in the US are not a function of this war. I could not care less and I certainly do not want to send our boys to die for a politician's dirty laundry. Whatever happens over there is a problem of the EU, not mine, and not anyone I care about. Being a "good global citizen" is pointless agitprop from BlackRock ESG. My life is already too complicated. It would be wise of us to not go about pissing off nuclear powers especially when the US is as fundamentally weak both in the spirit of what it stands for and leadership as it is today. Eisenhower tried to warn us and none of us listened.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago

I find it hard not to fully agree with this article. Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? To comment on the writing: that title is genius.

gruez 4y ago
>Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), Seeing how communist regimes aren't exactly practicing degrowth, I think it's more accurate to say it's a human obsession. >we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? Ostensibly companies aren't hiring for the sake of headcount. What they're actually after is market dominance, which can be obtained by building a better product, which require people.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  No argument about the point on communism, but as regards the headcount--I was referring to what I've seen mentioned more than a few times in HN comments where, apparently, FAANGs or some teams therein have engineering manager positions where the size of the team that one leads greatly translates to that employee's success (perceived or real) in the company. It's also a good number to look at for recruiters when said managers start applying for jobs elsewhere.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >I was referring to what I've seen mentioned more than a few times in HN comments where, apparently, FAANGs or some teams therein have engineering manager positions where the size of the team that one leads greatly translates to that employee's success (perceived or real) in the company How does that translate into tech companies overhiring? Even if managers want more people on their team for progression purposes, they can't exactly expand their team to whatever size they want. They're subject to budgets set by finance.

fithisux 4y ago

My thoughts too.

softwaredoug 4y ago

“Growth” at the individual level has become a euphemism It really means extrinsic motivation. It means being willing to play the game to hit whatever milestones are laid out for you. To push yourself for those milestones to reach a reward. Not because those goals are intrinsically rewarding - but because you want to demonstrate what you need for promotion or raise. If the goals were intrinsically rewarding, we would need to internalize them and fully believe in them. And I don’t think that’s possible - or not even desirable - for many jobs. Because after all 90% of goals are given to you, not co-created with you. Even when managers feel like there’s co-creation happening they don’t see how heavily they mold that process, how the power dynamic leads to the employee trying to guess what the manager actually wants, then adjust their goals to please the manager for the next career milestone. See Googles graveyard of failed products - all to hit the next promotion - abandoned when people check that box, lose interest, and move on. Google thinks it’s a sign of growth mindset. In reality it’s a case of employees seeing a behavior-“shipping new products”- being rewarded.

xyzelement 4y ago
In my experience, the "goals" you hit are really capabilities. Can you design bigger systems? Can you lead bigger teams? Can you define winning strategy? Those aren't artificial milestones, they are real things (eg, you'd need them if you ran your own company) and growing from someone who "can't" to someone who "can" is exhilarating.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  Maybe in an ideal world, but in my experience most corporate "goals" are just "influential" people playing political games with minimal if any real-world productivity attached. They might as well be playing Monopoly but with real money. None of them ever get fired even in abject, catestrophic failure. The only "capability" for them to cultivate is convincing enough other influential people to give them resources through various political means so that they have the biggest chair when the music stops or they retire. It's largely up the ICs to produce the "real things" as best they can given circumstances foisted upon them. Maybe at some companies "designing bigger systems", "leading bigger teams" and "defining winning strategy" is correlated with said resource extraction, but that's all. The moment those capabilities aren't in sync with resource extraction, they become worthless. The ideal company abuses its workers and robs its customers, and will get as close to that ideal as it's allowed. It's only force of popular will that keeps that in check, and the rare decent person who makes it into leadership.

roenxi 4y ago

I'd challenge the idea that this is unsustainable because of the specific system. Entropy and resource limits mean whatever we do is unsustainable under any system as far as we tell, both theoretically and in practical timespans. Nobody seems to have an argument for where the physical resources will come from, or how we deal with exponential population growth without just having regular famines (even worse than losing a job!). Life looks a lot like cancer. Cancer looks a lot like life. "Being cancer" isn't a bad thing, cancer is only bad when it is a disease in humans. Otherwise it is the way of the world. We are surrounded by patterns that propagate themselves quickly. Also; the people who are anti-growth have a much, much worse track record in every way than the alternatives.

flangola7 4y ago
The rest of the ecosystem is not benefited by humans being cancer. Humans are not benefited by obliterating biodiversity, although they may not have felt many of its effects yet. Growth is not inherently good, uncontrolled growth is certainly not.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Growth is not inherently good, uncontrolled growth is certainly not. That's a nice soundbite, but what does that translate into in terms of actual policy? Do we cap growth at 2% or whatever and call it a day?
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    Most if not all of our social problems can be solved with enough education. If you're the type of person to read census data for fun you'll probably not want to have kids. If you're exposed to the liberal arts continuously throughout your life, you're less likely to take metrics at face value. The system is just like any other: you put garbage in it, and you'll get garbage out of it.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >Most if not all of our social problems can be solved with enough education. So by "controlled growth", you actually mean "better education"? What type of education you think is needed? Do you think that making sure everyone has a bachelors is magically going to make growth "controlled" enough for your tastes?

breck 4y ago

> starting to feel that the system is incredibly flawed It is! To this day the vast profits in tech are generated by (c)opywrong laws, which make no sense, and are downright evil—because poor kids get access to crap information even though we have the technology to get humanity's best information to everyone. There are some people that have exploited these bad laws, like BG (see his 1976 letter^1) and have made vast fortunes. For a moment it looked like Google would be different, but then no, they too opted for profits over doing the right thing, and the web is getting worse. No one is connecting the dots, or rather—people in tech and the media industries can connect the dots but mentally don't want to face the truth: the vast profits are from dishonest laws, not from some magic value creation. We need to get rid of these bad laws and make money the honest way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists

gruez 4y ago
>To this day the vast profits in tech are generated by (c)opywrong laws, which make no sense, and are downright evil—because poor kids get access to crap information even though we have the technology to get humanity's best information to everyone. How is "poor kids get access to crap information" due to copyright? Access to good learning resources (eg. khan academy) is easier than ever.
- greenyoda 4y ago
  > Access to good learning resources (eg. khan academy) There's also the whole world of free software. Any kid or school that can afford an old PC and an internet connection can install Linux for free and use all the free software that runs on it. We live in a golden age of cheap computers and free software.

monero-xmr 4y ago

Productivity is the only way wealth is created. From 99% employed farming to 1% employed farming, but using technology to make this possible. This is why we have wealth - we can all get more of our needs fulfilled, because fulfilling those needs requires less inputs (labor, time, physical elements). This is such a fundamental and all-encompassing truth it is sad more people never grasp it. Capitalism is but one way to organize people to improve technology (in the abstract, not the Silicon Valley meaning). Capitalism harnesses a very powerful component of human nature - one’s primary desire towards one’s own needs and pleasure - and uses that to drive technological progress. I have yet to see any other type of human organization that is more effective than this system for driving technological progress (and thus human flourishing).

Rury 4y ago
I don't think it has anything to do with the type of human organization really. Rather, it's really just a matter of the wills of people, and whether they have access to capital.

jmarbach 4y ago

The author is correct. Growth is typically just a debt-fueled spending binge. The cancer is actually the fiat, soft money that’s improperly aligning incentives in the economy.

arcticbull 4y ago
> The cancer is actually the fiat, soft money that’s improperly aligning incentives in the economy. What a conclusion. Debt and borrowing exist in hard money environments too. Debt is as old as time. Low interest rates reduce the threshold for what could be considered a successful business from a macroeconomic perspective, though, and can lead to misallocation of capital. Nothing to do with fiat.
ajb 4y ago
Debt-fuelled spending binges were just as common before fiat. In fact, booms and crashes were more frequent and severe because there could be no central bank to turn the heat down under the cookpot.
glass3 4y ago
It's the other way round. Dept is discounted potential future growth. Potential growth and the ability to pay back dept is the foundation for receiving money. What the author ignores is that it is a race. There are many opportunities but not all will be successful. Failed investments transfer the money from those who made wrong predictions to those who made successful ones. This creates sustained progress because those who are good at predicting the future have the most influence.
- 20after4 4y ago
  Once you have a lot of influence you can influence the future instead of predicting it. This is a handy way to profit without providing any value to the rest of the system.
  - glass3 4y ago
    Like high frequency trading, it's also valuable because things that are important to those in power are protected.

lazzlazzlazz 4y ago

[flagged]

deafpolygon 4y ago

Says growth is bad, layoff sucks, then: > If you agree and you’re looking for a technical lead in your company, “check me out on LinkedIn” I mean, what company is gonna want to hire someone who thinks growth and expansion is bad.

luckylion 4y ago
He only thinks growth and expansion are bad when he got laid off. He doesn't have an issue with growth and expansion when it results in steady promotions, pay raises and generally an income that's far beyond the average thanks to his role being in demand and the evil forces of capitalism (which drive growth, which is bad!) are in effect. It's an emotional reaction, so I don't think any company should be too concerned about it. When he gets hired again, his emotional state will change and he'll reconsider and land on "maybe growth isn't so bad".
fzeroracer 4y ago
Companies that can reach a happy equilibrium? Consider the following: Valve software is a tiny company in comparison to any other company out there, yet they make steady revenue. Do you think Valve could be in a better spot if instead they spent all of their money on rapidly growing their business? The fact that Valve is a private company and not completely beholden to the endless growth that companies prioritize means it can do things other companies cannot.
- abigail95 4y ago
  > it can do things other companies cannot which in this case seems to be lower growth and fewer jobs. good trade, but not one i would make personally.

corbulo 4y ago

Continuous growth is necessary to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If there cannot be continuous growth, who becomes the arbiter of human potential? People who call growth cancer? You can't be serious.

stkdump 4y ago
People grow (in height) for the first ~1.5 decades of their life, and then stop growing. It appears to me that there is more to it.
- logicchains 4y ago
  That's biology stopping growth. Do you think it'd be a good idea to let the government decide how tall people can grow, if we had the technology for that?
  - stkdump 4y ago
    Who is talking about government? I am just refuting the argument that continued growth is necessary for life.
- corbulo 4y ago
  Does your biology analogy stretch to macroevolution aswell?
wizofaus 4y ago
Future generations also deserve life liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness and fulfill their potential surely. The issue would not so much seem to be "continuous" growth but unfettered growth (as per a narrow set of metrics) now that potentially destroys the chances of our children and grand children enjoying the benefits of that growth. If it's necessary to make decisions to dampen (or even suspend) growth now to ensure it that doesn't happen then so be it, though I'd argue it's more important to look at what we're actually measuring and ensuring we're growing in a direction that's actually sustainable.

wunderland 4y ago

It seems like nobody in the US educated in the last 50 years has read Marx or even has a cursory understanding of his ideas. You’ve seen tech bros reinvent public transportation 5 different ways. Now watch as they slowly gain the insights described by last century’s most influential philosopher after living through his observations firsthand.

svnt 4y ago
It doesn’t seem like that, it is like that. We consume second-hand Ayn Rand instead.

renewiltord 4y ago

Luddite nonsense. Continuous growth in organization headcount is a negative feedback loop. Eventually it will cause sluggish revenue growth. Cancers are positive feedback. And if I get a revenue cancer that just keeps growing unbounded, I think I'll take it.

classified 4y ago

Continuous growth is cancer? Not that I'd disagree, but try to tell that to an economist.

defrost 4y ago
Economist Ernst Friedrich Schumacher whole heartedly agreed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful
CatWChainsaw 4y ago
"By calling econ 'dismal science', adherents exaggerate; the 'dismal' is fine, it's 'science' where they patently prevaricate."

waffletower 4y ago

“I´d like to share a revelation that I´ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we… are the cure.” Agent Smith.

op00to 4y ago
As someone who dealt with a rabbit infestation, there is no natural equilibrium.
- spoiler 4y ago
  Can you provide more context on this? I have so many questions It probably wasn't a funny experience for you, but this made me laugh.
  - op00to 4y ago
    Infestation is a strong term. It seems like every few years there's a combination of factors that somehow create a bumper crop of bunnies in my yard. We'll go from normally seeing a few early morning or evening to having 4-5 bunnies hopping around all the time. Which is pretty cool, all things considered as long as you treat your property for ticks and whatnot. By the next year, though, it'd be back to just a few bunnies. Maybe there's not nearly enough food to support the extra bunnies through the winter. I saw a bald eagle over my house for the first time the other day (NE US). I wonder if the bunny situation will change with more predators.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  There is. Just not with your rabbit alone. The equilibrium evolves at the ecosystem level. In the wilderness it's predators. For your case, you are "dealing" with the rabbit infestation, therefore YOU are the one that's going to be applying pressure. YOU are part of the system.

kerpotgh 4y ago

[dead]

abigail95 4y ago

you obviously can't be against all growth else you would live as a hunter-gatherer. a more principled objection to the current situation is that you are against volatility. but to have this position you have to prove ethically/morally/economically that hiring 100 and firing 90 is worse than hiring 10, which is a very high bar to clear and not one i've ever seen a convincing argument for.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

From a 'conversation between a physicist and an economist' [0] discussing the limits of growth: Physicist: Alright, the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years. [Pained expression from economist.] And this statement is independent of technology. Even if we don’t have a name for the energy source yet, as long as it obeys thermodynamics, we cook ourselves with perpetual energy increase. [0] https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...

guiambros 4y ago
What a fascinating article; thanks for sharing. Much more interesting than the top one. It gave me increased appreciation for living in the period of history we're all living. I already had a perception that the fast economic growth of the last few centuries was nothing more than a fleeting blip in the history of human race, but never thought about the physical constraints imposed by energy and thermodynamics.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

browsertasker 4y ago

[flagged]