4 ms·

>I’m very small, yet I think we evolved an inherent sense of value or awe toward size because bigger things are harder to get to the other side of, are more li

>I’m very small, yet I think we evolved an inherent sense of value or awe toward size because bigger things are harder to get to the other side of, are more likely to bop us on the head with impunity, but can also feed more people at the same time. Otherwise, what meaning is there in size? Microelectronics work better precisely because they are small. > Perhaps it’s important to explore both ends of that spectrum. my point is that the end of the spectrum that you are standing up to defend, I claim is currently, universally, getting all the attention, so deemphasizing it would right now be an unalloyed good.

haswell 3y ago
> the end of the spectrum that you are standing up to defend, I claim is currently, universally, getting all the attention, so deemphasizing it would right now be an unalloyed good While I fully support the idea that we should expand our thinking in areas we’ve neglected, how is intentionally deemphasizing a recognition of our relative smallness “unalloyed good”? For many, this recognition is a primary source of awe and wonder, and has no tension whatsoever with a recognition of the importance and usefulness of smallness. If anything, this recognition of smallness is exactly the thing that highlights how rare and interesting we seem to be. Our “insignificance” is also the source of our significance. We also seem prone to binary thinking and false dichotomies. Very few things are purely good or purely bad. Recognizing our smallness doesn’t have to be synonymous with concluding that we are unimportant.