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.
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
This 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.
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.