6 ms·

It looks almost as if humans have a nearly infinite backlog of things they would do if they only had time and capability, and a limit on the amount of effort th

by nine_k 2y ago

It looks almost as if humans have a nearly infinite backlog of things they would do if they only had time and capability, and a limit on the amount of effort they are capable of exerting per day. Then, once new tools increase their productivity and free up a bit of resources, they pick more desiderata from the backlog, and try to also accomplish that. Naturally they seek more tools for the newly-possible activities, and the loop closes. This applies to any activity, leisure emphatically included. Travel became simpler → more vacations now involve flying a plane and thus obtaining tickets online and thus comparison-shopping, aggregating reviews of faraway places, etc → omg, vacation travel is complex again. It just allows to fulfill more of a dream.

delichon 2y ago
The nearly infinite backlog also means that there is nearly infinite demand for labor and Luddite adjacent arguments that labor saving technology causes persistent underemployment are invalid.
- falcor84 2y ago
  Even if we shouldn't be concerned about "persistent" underemployment, I still think that rapid "transient" unemployment due to rapidly evolving tech over the coming decades may cause significant societal upheaval that we should be concerned about - even if it's "just luddites" coming to burn our data centers.
- Epa095 2y ago
  Friendly reminder that things ended up quite shit for the actuall ludites, and the advantages only 'trickled down' after a generation or two. So I will keep being worried for everyone who works now, and their kids.
  - delichon 2y ago
    I don't know anyone who disputes that economic progress necessarily has winners and losers in the near term. Or that there is much we can do to cushion the blow to the losers. But to prevent the blow altogether would mean preventing the rise of powered looms and other machines that have done much for those later generations. It would be an example of ruinous empathy.
    - asoneth 2y ago
      > It would be an example of ruinous empathy. Setting aside empathy, giving some thought about how we can slow the rate of change and/or cushion the fall for those affected is also in our self-interest. As the number of people who have little left to lose grows, it destabilizes society and sets the stage for populism and revolution. Are cheap goods really so important that we're willing to leave our children to deal with another round of communism vs fascism?
      - pixl97 2y ago
        Ya the point you make is one the so many of the 'only the strong survive' type miss. Maybe that person would be employed and fine, but the person that just lost everything may be willing to burn down the world.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Or we could just continue to pay the loom workers to thank them for their service. The problem with that idea is that such a decision is pawned off to an individual, who automatically gets eliminated from the game if he decides it.
  - lupire 2y ago
    Indeed. People who use Luddite as a slur are ignorant of history and (possibly unwittingly) repeating capitalist propaganda.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      It's just classic "Ends justify the means" thinking. It doesn't matter that 60k people will be jobless and eventually homeless because we are not "limiting" the "advancement" of society. It's okay if people suffer today because we are reducing the global suffering of tomorrow! Nevermind that there does not have to be any cross purposes in those two sides! We don't have to get our clogs out and beat up the AI machines, we just have to "take care of" the people who's jobs the AI machines made redundant! Adequate social welfare and safety nets, significant opportunities to retrain in new (and otherwise expensive) fields, funding for re-homing people and entire towns that have been made redundant. And also a willingness to agree that "tech advancement" isn't morally neutral by default.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    The ludlites needed to learn new jobs. I know many old people who are unwilling to try anything new. I try to not be one, but sometimes I've already seen that in some different form - I'm not sure if I'm right to be cynical about new things or not.
- nine_k 2y ago
  It mostly means that human desires are insatiable by construction, so humans always feel somehow missing out and wanting. Check out the works of S. Gautama on the topic; it's enlightening! :)
TheJoeMan 2y ago
I like to apply a similar lesson taught to me about content to consume - with the internet, there is a nearly infinite stream of entertainment and news, and it can feel overwhelming. In the past, our predecessors could read their 1 local printed newspaper and be "finished". So you have to change your thinking, to be we are able to curate a high-quality stream that constantly flows by, and when we desire, we can dip in and scoop up 1 serving. To your comment about vacations, the issue is people subconsciously want to ensure their trip value is "maximized" - oh no, do I have time to see all 10 best spots in the city? Or some historical building is closed, and you read online how it's a lifechanging experience to see, and now you feel left out. So you have to push that aside, follow the 80/20 rule, and appreciate what you ARE able to do on your trip.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  The interesting question is, why do so many people value spending time ‘maximizing’ with uncertain prospects more than extra time to enjoy the trip?
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    I think people are different that way. When I visit a city on my own, I tend to just wander around and find a nice spot or meet some interesting people and do whatever flows from that. Whereas when I am with certain friends or family, there is always a schedule and a destination.
    - gukov 2y ago
      Well, travelling as a group of people almost always demands having a plan, otherwise “we’ll just wander around until we find something interesting” is a hard sell to get everyone on board.
      - Vedor 2y ago
        Fair point. And that's why I prefer to travel alone or just with my fiancee. It's just much easier to, well, wander as you please.
stocknoob 2y ago
One trick is to hold your desires relatively constant (remind yourself that just X years ago, you dreamed of doing Y, which you can do now for much less effort). We somehow let the cost involved in a task influence how much we can enjoy it.
a_c 2y ago
Human as an aggregate, yes. Individually, not so much. I’ve seen way too many people getting lost in life when traditional values no longer applicable to them. They still have desire, but lose all their purpose.
Terr_ 2y ago
That makes me think of Dune: > Mankind has ah only one mm-m-m science," the Count said as they picked up their parade of followers and emerged from the hall into the waiting room - a narrow space with high windows and floor of patterned white and purple tile. > "And what science is that?" the Baron asked. > "It's the um-m-m-ah-h science of ah-h-h discontent," the Count said. There are various ways to interpret that, but I prefer a more Stoic or Buddhist view, where it's a bad habit but we can be better at it. (As opposed to a more god-worm-totalitarian one, where humans are dissatisfied cattle to be managed.)
- xelxebar 2y ago
  That quote seems about right. Nice connection. Thanks for sharing. Indeed, desire and dissatisfaction are quite productive forces! They don't necessarily entail dysphoria, though. Or more pithily if you prefer, "lack is a kind of abundance." GP's "near infinite backlog" framing still implicitly hints at something like an underlying state of pure satisfaction if only we could address all the issues or whatnot. IMHO, desire actively functions in its own peculiar ways, and the personal narratives we attach to those functions can frame them as a helpful, collaborative things, rather than obstacles to be overcome.
DrScientist 2y ago
The interesting question here of course is whether travelling the other side of the planet for a holiday ( and the people who live there travelling to somewhere near you! ) is better than going somewhere more local. ie isn't the key trick, in both software and life, to distinguish between busy work, 'nice to have' new features and true value?

by nine_k 2y ago

delichon 2y ago

The nearly infinite backlog also means that there is nearly infinite demand for labor and Luddite adjacent arguments that labor saving technology causes persistent underemployment are invalid.

falcor84 2y ago
Even if we shouldn't be concerned about "persistent" underemployment, I still think that rapid "transient" unemployment due to rapidly evolving tech over the coming decades may cause significant societal upheaval that we should be concerned about - even if it's "just luddites" coming to burn our data centers.
Epa095 2y ago
Friendly reminder that things ended up quite shit for the actuall ludites, and the advantages only 'trickled down' after a generation or two. So I will keep being worried for everyone who works now, and their kids.
- delichon 2y ago
  I don't know anyone who disputes that economic progress necessarily has winners and losers in the near term. Or that there is much we can do to cushion the blow to the losers. But to prevent the blow altogether would mean preventing the rise of powered looms and other machines that have done much for those later generations. It would be an example of ruinous empathy.
  - asoneth 2y ago
    > It would be an example of ruinous empathy. Setting aside empathy, giving some thought about how we can slow the rate of change and/or cushion the fall for those affected is also in our self-interest. As the number of people who have little left to lose grows, it destabilizes society and sets the stage for populism and revolution. Are cheap goods really so important that we're willing to leave our children to deal with another round of communism vs fascism?
    - pixl97 2y ago
      Ya the point you make is one the so many of the 'only the strong survive' type miss. Maybe that person would be employed and fine, but the person that just lost everything may be willing to burn down the world.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Or we could just continue to pay the loom workers to thank them for their service. The problem with that idea is that such a decision is pawned off to an individual, who automatically gets eliminated from the game if he decides it.
- lupire 2y ago
  Indeed. People who use Luddite as a slur are ignorant of history and (possibly unwittingly) repeating capitalist propaganda.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    It's just classic "Ends justify the means" thinking. It doesn't matter that 60k people will be jobless and eventually homeless because we are not "limiting" the "advancement" of society. It's okay if people suffer today because we are reducing the global suffering of tomorrow! Nevermind that there does not have to be any cross purposes in those two sides! We don't have to get our clogs out and beat up the AI machines, we just have to "take care of" the people who's jobs the AI machines made redundant! Adequate social welfare and safety nets, significant opportunities to retrain in new (and otherwise expensive) fields, funding for re-homing people and entire towns that have been made redundant. And also a willingness to agree that "tech advancement" isn't morally neutral by default.
- bluGill 2y ago
  The ludlites needed to learn new jobs. I know many old people who are unwilling to try anything new. I try to not be one, but sometimes I've already seen that in some different form - I'm not sure if I'm right to be cynical about new things or not.
nine_k 2y ago
It mostly means that human desires are insatiable by construction, so humans always feel somehow missing out and wanting. Check out the works of S. Gautama on the topic; it's enlightening! :)

TheJoeMan 2y ago

I like to apply a similar lesson taught to me about content to consume - with the internet, there is a nearly infinite stream of entertainment and news, and it can feel overwhelming. In the past, our predecessors could read their 1 local printed newspaper and be "finished". So you have to change your thinking, to be we are able to curate a high-quality stream that constantly flows by, and when we desire, we can dip in and scoop up 1 serving. To your comment about vacations, the issue is people subconsciously want to ensure their trip value is "maximized" - oh no, do I have time to see all 10 best spots in the city? Or some historical building is closed, and you read online how it's a lifechanging experience to see, and now you feel left out. So you have to push that aside, follow the 80/20 rule, and appreciate what you ARE able to do on your trip.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
The interesting question is, why do so many people value spending time ‘maximizing’ with uncertain prospects more than extra time to enjoy the trip?
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  I think people are different that way. When I visit a city on my own, I tend to just wander around and find a nice spot or meet some interesting people and do whatever flows from that. Whereas when I am with certain friends or family, there is always a schedule and a destination.
  - gukov 2y ago
    Well, travelling as a group of people almost always demands having a plan, otherwise “we’ll just wander around until we find something interesting” is a hard sell to get everyone on board.
    - Vedor 2y ago
      Fair point. And that's why I prefer to travel alone or just with my fiancee. It's just much easier to, well, wander as you please.

stocknoob 2y ago

One trick is to hold your desires relatively constant (remind yourself that just X years ago, you dreamed of doing Y, which you can do now for much less effort). We somehow let the cost involved in a task influence how much we can enjoy it.

a_c 2y ago

Human as an aggregate, yes. Individually, not so much. I’ve seen way too many people getting lost in life when traditional values no longer applicable to them. They still have desire, but lose all their purpose.

Terr_ 2y ago

That makes me think of Dune: > Mankind has ah only one mm-m-m science," the Count said as they picked up their parade of followers and emerged from the hall into the waiting room - a narrow space with high windows and floor of patterned white and purple tile. > "And what science is that?" the Baron asked. > "It's the um-m-m-ah-h science of ah-h-h discontent," the Count said. There are various ways to interpret that, but I prefer a more Stoic or Buddhist view, where it's a bad habit but we can be better at it. (As opposed to a more god-worm-totalitarian one, where humans are dissatisfied cattle to be managed.)

xelxebar 2y ago
That quote seems about right. Nice connection. Thanks for sharing. Indeed, desire and dissatisfaction are quite productive forces! They don't necessarily entail dysphoria, though. Or more pithily if you prefer, "lack is a kind of abundance." GP's "near infinite backlog" framing still implicitly hints at something like an underlying state of pure satisfaction if only we could address all the issues or whatnot. IMHO, desire actively functions in its own peculiar ways, and the personal narratives we attach to those functions can frame them as a helpful, collaborative things, rather than obstacles to be overcome.

DrScientist 2y ago

The interesting question here of course is whether travelling the other side of the planet for a holiday ( and the people who live there travelling to somewhere near you! ) is better than going somewhere more local. ie isn't the key trick, in both software and life, to distinguish between busy work, 'nice to have' new features and true value?