3 ms·

I don't think the analogies of animals in the wild or groups of hunter-gatherer is correct to the modern companies. A better analogy is the teams who built pyra

by zkmon 5mo ago

I don't think the analogies of animals in the wild or groups of hunter-gatherer is correct to the modern companies. A better analogy is the teams who built pyramids or armies who empowered Alexander or the medieval peasant settlements who regulated societies. It's not about acting on your own or achieving something for yourself. It's about building something which is only possible with collective effort of hundreds or thousands of humans. The size of such organization needs hierarchy, management and process. Think of what processes and management was used for pyramid building. And what would have happened if the workers worked without a boss and process.

randallsquared 5mo ago
That collective effort resulted in something very impressive, but there are lots of achievements in the present day which are, organizationally, at least as impressive, and which do not seem to require hierarchy (though they include various hierarchies). The chain of processes and activities that result in a modern supermarket and all its products, for example, has no overarching boss, and some of the steps along the way are handled by self-employed people (truck owner-operators, for example).
- jimbokun 5mo ago
  But the modern supermarket also has many large hierarchical organizations contributing well, from the supermarket chains to industrial farms to giant processed food brands. For better or worse.
rglullis 5mo ago
> Think of what processes and management was used for pyramid building For what, a glorified tomb? I fail to find anything in history that advanced the sciences or the arts through "collective effort of hundreds or thousands of humans". It's only for war or to consolidate power in the hands of the ruling class, never for the benefit of society at large.
- tetromino_ 5mo ago
  > It's only for war or to consolidate power in the hands of the ruling class Consider Egyptian and Mesopotamian irrigation and flood management, Persian and Roman roads, Chinese canals...
  - airstrike 5mo ago
    Roman aqueducts, modern railroads, the moon landing, the LOTR films, CERN, or Wikipedia... This seems like an open-and-shut case of failing to look for disconfirming evidence.
    - rglullis 5mo ago
      The moon landing is definitely a fruit of war efforts. Wikipedia is the opposite of a top-down process. Aqueducts and railroads: responded on a sibling comment. LOTR films: I don't even know how it relates to the point, but it's funny that you bring a cultural landmark that it's an adaptation of the works of a single individual.
      - airstrike 5mo ago
        You're moving goalposts. You literally said > I fail to find anything in history that advanced the sciences or the arts through "collective effort of hundreds or thousands of humans". > It's only for war or to consolidate power in the hands of the ruling class, never for the benefit of society at large. I'm breaking it up into two statements because sufficient evidence has been provided to contradict the former, and some of your rebuttals did not align with the latter. Let's break those down: > The moon landing is defintely a fruit of a war effort. But is it only for war? Or did it "advance the sciences" + "for the benefit of society at large"? > Wikipedia is the opposite of a top-down effort. Your original statement didn't say it had to be a top-down effort. It's certainly "collective effort" + "not only for war" + "for the benefit of society at large". > Aqueducts and railroads: responded on a sibling comment. Scale and precision also matter and don't negate the fact that these are "something in history" + "collective effort" + "not only for war" + "for the benefit of society at large". > LOTR films: I don't even know how it relates to the point, but it's funny that you cultural landmark that only worked because it's an adaptation of the works of a single individual. I only picked LOTR films because they are notorious for being large scale and you never said it didn't have to be an adaptation. I could have picked The Simpsons, Star Wars, Breaking Bad, you name it.
xeiotos 5mo ago
I concur the analogy misses this reason for teaming up in large groups completely. All our current advances are the direct result of working in large, communicating groups, which crucially need a way to transfer knowledge across generations. The YouTube channel “How to make everything” comes to mind, where the resources, processes, machinery… required make it tricky for something as mundane as a hairdryer to be built from scratch by a single person. However, I also agree, to some extent, with the point the author is trying to make, even though the arguments and analogies are shaky. I don’t believe the author is arguing the pyramids would ever have gotten built if everyone did whatever the hell they want. But I also don’t believe the pyramid builders were terribly happy. In a world where we have solved (or have made significant progress to solving) big categories of problems, it might be worthwhile to consider what our “pyramids” are. Are you working on something life-altering? Some marvel which will stand for hundreds of years? Most people probably aren’t. I know I’m not. So I find it easy to emphasize with the feeling that it’s more “healthy” to just make whatever the hell you want (be it as a programmer, or just as a human being). After all, a lot of innovation has been a direct result of people fucking around on their own. I’d enjoy a planet where potential Einsteins would not have to work two jobs to survive, in lieu of which they would have time to think, experiment, write, … Maybe it comes down to: - Individual freedom is ideal to invent things (someone had to be Alexander) - Some pooling of humans is necessary to actually build said things
- jimbokun 5mo ago
  Well that’s simply a question of whether we are at a point yet where we can implement UBI and provide for everyone’s needs and wants without requiring anyone to work. I don’t think the robots are at that point yet.
  - xeiotos 5mo ago
    I’m a big fan of the idea of UBI, but I somewhat doubt we’ll ever get there. But I’m neither convinced we need to get there in the first place, or need robots to achieve it. Post-scarcity is a different beast than UBI. Still, both might be good “pyramids”. I’m not an economist nor well-read on the subject, so I’ll have to be hand-wavy on the specifics. But one alternative at least is to “live with less” as is sometimes said. To change consumption and our way of life so radically we just need less of everything (labour, material, …).
dyauspitr 5mo ago
But that is only 4000 years ago when we’ve been evolving for millions.
interludead 5mo ago
I think the pyramid/army analogy works for some kinds of work, but maybe not for the kind of work the essay is mostly talking about.

by zkmon 5mo ago

randallsquared 5mo ago

That collective effort resulted in something very impressive, but there are lots of achievements in the present day which are, organizationally, at least as impressive, and which do not seem to require hierarchy (though they include various hierarchies). The chain of processes and activities that result in a modern supermarket and all its products, for example, has no overarching boss, and some of the steps along the way are handled by self-employed people (truck owner-operators, for example).

jimbokun 5mo ago
But the modern supermarket also has many large hierarchical organizations contributing well, from the supermarket chains to industrial farms to giant processed food brands. For better or worse.

rglullis 5mo ago

> Think of what processes and management was used for pyramid building For what, a glorified tomb? I fail to find anything in history that advanced the sciences or the arts through "collective effort of hundreds or thousands of humans". It's only for war or to consolidate power in the hands of the ruling class, never for the benefit of society at large.

tetromino_ 5mo ago
> It's only for war or to consolidate power in the hands of the ruling class Consider Egyptian and Mesopotamian irrigation and flood management, Persian and Roman roads, Chinese canals...
- airstrike 5mo ago
  Roman aqueducts, modern railroads, the moon landing, the LOTR films, CERN, or Wikipedia... This seems like an open-and-shut case of failing to look for disconfirming evidence.
  - rglullis 5mo ago
    The moon landing is definitely a fruit of war efforts. Wikipedia is the opposite of a top-down process. Aqueducts and railroads: responded on a sibling comment. LOTR films: I don't even know how it relates to the point, but it's funny that you bring a cultural landmark that it's an adaptation of the works of a single individual.
    - airstrike 5mo ago
      You're moving goalposts. You literally said > I fail to find anything in history that advanced the sciences or the arts through "collective effort of hundreds or thousands of humans". > It's only for war or to consolidate power in the hands of the ruling class, never for the benefit of society at large. I'm breaking it up into two statements because sufficient evidence has been provided to contradict the former, and some of your rebuttals did not align with the latter. Let's break those down: > The moon landing is defintely a fruit of a war effort. But is it only for war? Or did it "advance the sciences" + "for the benefit of society at large"? > Wikipedia is the opposite of a top-down effort. Your original statement didn't say it had to be a top-down effort. It's certainly "collective effort" + "not only for war" + "for the benefit of society at large". > Aqueducts and railroads: responded on a sibling comment. Scale and precision also matter and don't negate the fact that these are "something in history" + "collective effort" + "not only for war" + "for the benefit of society at large". > LOTR films: I don't even know how it relates to the point, but it's funny that you cultural landmark that only worked because it's an adaptation of the works of a single individual. I only picked LOTR films because they are notorious for being large scale and you never said it didn't have to be an adaptation. I could have picked The Simpsons, Star Wars, Breaking Bad, you name it.

xeiotos 5mo ago

I concur the analogy misses this reason for teaming up in large groups completely. All our current advances are the direct result of working in large, communicating groups, which crucially need a way to transfer knowledge across generations. The YouTube channel “How to make everything” comes to mind, where the resources, processes, machinery… required make it tricky for something as mundane as a hairdryer to be built from scratch by a single person. However, I also agree, to some extent, with the point the author is trying to make, even though the arguments and analogies are shaky. I don’t believe the author is arguing the pyramids would ever have gotten built if everyone did whatever the hell they want. But I also don’t believe the pyramid builders were terribly happy. In a world where we have solved (or have made significant progress to solving) big categories of problems, it might be worthwhile to consider what our “pyramids” are. Are you working on something life-altering? Some marvel which will stand for hundreds of years? Most people probably aren’t. I know I’m not. So I find it easy to emphasize with the feeling that it’s more “healthy” to just make whatever the hell you want (be it as a programmer, or just as a human being). After all, a lot of innovation has been a direct result of people fucking around on their own. I’d enjoy a planet where potential Einsteins would not have to work two jobs to survive, in lieu of which they would have time to think, experiment, write, … Maybe it comes down to: - Individual freedom is ideal to invent things (someone had to be Alexander) - Some pooling of humans is necessary to actually build said things

jimbokun 5mo ago
Well that’s simply a question of whether we are at a point yet where we can implement UBI and provide for everyone’s needs and wants without requiring anyone to work. I don’t think the robots are at that point yet.
- xeiotos 5mo ago
  I’m a big fan of the idea of UBI, but I somewhat doubt we’ll ever get there. But I’m neither convinced we need to get there in the first place, or need robots to achieve it. Post-scarcity is a different beast than UBI. Still, both might be good “pyramids”. I’m not an economist nor well-read on the subject, so I’ll have to be hand-wavy on the specifics. But one alternative at least is to “live with less” as is sometimes said. To change consumption and our way of life so radically we just need less of everything (labour, material, …).

dyauspitr 5mo ago

But that is only 4000 years ago when we’ve been evolving for millions.

interludead 5mo ago

I think the pyramid/army analogy works for some kinds of work, but maybe not for the kind of work the essay is mostly talking about.