4 ms·
The problem is always hubris, which leads to a distorted conceit of "progress" which can actually be regressive. Whether it's weapons or civilian technology li
by nonrandomstring 3y ago
The problem is always hubris, which leads to a distorted
conceit of "progress" which can actually be regressive.
Whether it's weapons or civilian technology like smartphones,
automobiles, or a "cashless society" we know there are side effects,
and unknowns. But we choose to focus on only the rosy, optimistic
side.
For most of us that is pandering to laziness, convenience, low-effort
and less thinking. For those involved in making money, the negatives
are far away in space and time, so they can always kick the can down
the road.
This is how supremacy becomes weakness.
Money buys a louder voice and drowns out cautious minds with
better vision of the long-term future and marginal scenarios. They are
Cassandras. Luddites.
Those with experience are dismissed as old and irrelevant.
Hubris leads to absolute dependency and complacency.
In a long enough time-line we'll always encounter an accident or
enemy using older "low-tech". The greatest threat to our security
is always our own hubris. Sadly I see buckets of it here on HN.
- lifeisstillgood 3y agoI have a very simple theory about this - If we assume the 80/20 rule to hold about most things in world (80% profits from 20% customers, 80% of benefits to society from 20% workers), then we can assume the same 80/20 rule applies to the bits left over - ie the remining 20% of profits will have 80% of those generated by 20% of the left over 80% of customers) Roughly speaking then 96% of all good stuff comes from 36% of stuff we do We could say then that if we could find the 2/3 of useless activity that only generates 4% of good stuff we can for example cut carbon emissions by 2/3 - and only need to lose the crappy plastic toys on front of magazines, or most peoples commutes or … What I think I am saying is that 2/3 of the jobs people do are useless - and yet in any organisation they are the majority and hence bend the organisation Don’t worry dear reader I am sure like me you are one of the non useless ones … like me , like me
- mistermann 3y agoThis seems like an absolute genius idea, but I can't imagine us considering trying it, even if climate change really started to get bad. China or maybe Japan though, I could see it being able to maybe catch on there though, it could be very beneficial to the problems they're facing with their aging populations and abysmal and worsening (heading to ~zero?) reproduction.
- actionfromafar 3y agoWe humans could try it but we wouldn’t succeed. We’d just find a way to fudge the numbers and stack the ranks. :-)
- kevindamm 3y agoWouldn't even have to fudge the numbers if you choose the "right" metrics.
- scotty79 3y ago> Roughly speaking then 96% of all good stuff comes from 36% of stuff we do That's just pulling arbitrary number out of thin air with extra steps.
- OJFord 3y agoAnd the '80/20 rule' is already a fairly arbitrary/rule of thumb case of the general cumulative distribution function over a Pareto distribution.
- nonrandomstring 3y agoYou and I, we've gone through the same thought process and, sadly, where it ended up for me was; Golgafrinchans [0] Now if we could only work out what that useless third is. ?! But there's always the finite risk that plastic landfill fodder and chindogu attached to kids magazines is the essential saving grace of humanity. :) [0] https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchans https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchans