5 ms·

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, but there's a tone here and in Hacker News in general that bothers me - a fierce meritocracy that doesn'

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, but there's a tone here and in Hacker News in general that bothers me - a fierce meritocracy that doesn't seem to have a scrap of empathy for anyone who doesn't fit into the top 1%. So if the rest of us lazy slobs in the 99% are unworthy to get into the best grad schools or Y Combinator, I'm to assume we should just find ourselves a quiet spot in the midwest in which to shoot ourselves in the face and get of your way? But then who will be around to pay the tuitions at your overpriced institutions, or buy your latest social media software?

microcolonel 12y ago
The fact that your first alternative to succeeding is giving up entirely, I don't see how you could make it to the midwest with enough money to buy the gun you'll kill yourself with. Resources; time, energy, attention; are limited. If you allocate resources to less-than-best people, you get less-than-best results, most of the time. If these people are the kind of weak, selfish pricks who think that the world owes them a world-class experience just for existing, they'll give up half-way through the most difficult thing they've ever done(if they ever start), and your investment in them will be lost forever, without outcomes. That kind of investment crashes your economy, and in the long run gets your species killed.
- Chinjut 12y ago
  Our species would get killed if we had any empathy for anyone who doesn't fit into the top 1%? Your comment certainly conforms to the attitude projectileboy was lamenting...
- gaius 12y ago
  This is funny because, it wasn't that long ago in history, that the characteristics that made a person successful were how all about how well they could hunt. How many of the new geek kings of the startup scene, would be kings in that world? You might be successful in your niche, but never forget the sheer good luck that had you born near (spatially and temporally) a local maxima.
  - rhizome 12y ago
    A friend of mine once had a conjecture that back in the day, the people who moved to the cities were the ones who couldn't hack it being self-sufficient on a farm.
    - Pyxl101 12y ago
      That might be true to some extent but I think it ignores all of the other much more powerful motivations. Wealth is easier to accumulate in a city because there is far more specialization. I can't be a first-rate baker and a blacksmith and a shipwright and a miner and a fisher and a farmer and and and ... the specialists in the city do one thing excellently: they bring down the cost while also bringing up quality, raising quality-of-life for people in the city. If I'm an average farmer and average blacksmith, perhaps I'll produce $10 worth of goods in an hour, $5 worth of crops and $5 worth of tools. As an exceptional farmer, I can produce $20 worth of crops, trade $10 of them for tools, and end up with $10 each of crops and tools. It's as simple as that - trading between people with different specialties / needs leaves both people better off, and you can't do that subsistence farming. Public infrastructure in cities has also always been much better, such as roads, communication systems, police, fire fighting, etc. Trade was much easier because there were more people to trade with, a larger market for your goods. On a small subsistence farm, any excess that you cannot save or reinvest is wasted; in a city, it can be sold or traded to accumulate wealth. There are certainly people who are attracted to the city because they can't hack it (beggars, etc.), but they are in the minority. In the modern era, something like 3% of the population are farmers, and they are so exceptionally effective (supported by agricultural scientists, robotics engineers who build automated farming machinery, etc.) that the rest of us have plenty of food, freeing us up to specialize in other things (like robotics). I believe this cycle of technological enrichment fundamentally requires specialization. This is not to say that anyone is wrong for wanting a simpler or more communal form of living, but I doubt the motivations are anything economic. The reason that so many people end up working in cities, in factories (sweatshops) today is simple: they can accumulate more wealth specializing in even a mundane repetitive task (quickly, cheaply, and with quality) than they could by subsistence farming.
      - 12y ago
- bmalee 12y ago
  It's funny because I'm pretty sure this is exactly the kind of thing projectileboy was talking about.
Frondo 12y ago
Agreed. Empathy is free; it don't cost a thing for people to show compassion for those who struggle, but it sure seems like a rare and precious jewel among the tech nerd crowd.
millermp12 12y ago
Fascinating article over at The Edge where Kahne man interviews hariri. TLDR; the answer to your simpering question is "yes"

microcolonel 12y ago

The fact that your first alternative to succeeding is giving up entirely, I don't see how you could make it to the midwest with enough money to buy the gun you'll kill yourself with. Resources; time, energy, attention; are limited. If you allocate resources to less-than-best people, you get less-than-best results, most of the time. If these people are the kind of weak, selfish pricks who think that the world owes them a world-class experience just for existing, they'll give up half-way through the most difficult thing they've ever done(if they ever start), and your investment in them will be lost forever, without outcomes. That kind of investment crashes your economy, and in the long run gets your species killed.

Chinjut 12y ago
Our species would get killed if we had any empathy for anyone who doesn't fit into the top 1%? Your comment certainly conforms to the attitude projectileboy was lamenting...
gaius 12y ago
This is funny because, it wasn't that long ago in history, that the characteristics that made a person successful were how all about how well they could hunt. How many of the new geek kings of the startup scene, would be kings in that world? You might be successful in your niche, but never forget the sheer good luck that had you born near (spatially and temporally) a local maxima.
- rhizome 12y ago
  A friend of mine once had a conjecture that back in the day, the people who moved to the cities were the ones who couldn't hack it being self-sufficient on a farm.
  - Pyxl101 12y ago
    That might be true to some extent but I think it ignores all of the other much more powerful motivations. Wealth is easier to accumulate in a city because there is far more specialization. I can't be a first-rate baker and a blacksmith and a shipwright and a miner and a fisher and a farmer and and and ... the specialists in the city do one thing excellently: they bring down the cost while also bringing up quality, raising quality-of-life for people in the city. If I'm an average farmer and average blacksmith, perhaps I'll produce $10 worth of goods in an hour, $5 worth of crops and $5 worth of tools. As an exceptional farmer, I can produce $20 worth of crops, trade $10 of them for tools, and end up with $10 each of crops and tools. It's as simple as that - trading between people with different specialties / needs leaves both people better off, and you can't do that subsistence farming. Public infrastructure in cities has also always been much better, such as roads, communication systems, police, fire fighting, etc. Trade was much easier because there were more people to trade with, a larger market for your goods. On a small subsistence farm, any excess that you cannot save or reinvest is wasted; in a city, it can be sold or traded to accumulate wealth. There are certainly people who are attracted to the city because they can't hack it (beggars, etc.), but they are in the minority. In the modern era, something like 3% of the population are farmers, and they are so exceptionally effective (supported by agricultural scientists, robotics engineers who build automated farming machinery, etc.) that the rest of us have plenty of food, freeing us up to specialize in other things (like robotics). I believe this cycle of technological enrichment fundamentally requires specialization. This is not to say that anyone is wrong for wanting a simpler or more communal form of living, but I doubt the motivations are anything economic. The reason that so many people end up working in cities, in factories (sweatshops) today is simple: they can accumulate more wealth specializing in even a mundane repetitive task (quickly, cheaply, and with quality) than they could by subsistence farming.
    - 12y ago
bmalee 12y ago
It's funny because I'm pretty sure this is exactly the kind of thing projectileboy was talking about.

Frondo 12y ago

Agreed. Empathy is free; it don't cost a thing for people to show compassion for those who struggle, but it sure seems like a rare and precious jewel among the tech nerd crowd.

millermp12 12y ago

Fascinating article over at The Edge where Kahne man interviews hariri. TLDR; the answer to your simpering question is "yes"