The Future Is Getting Farther Away(marginalrevolution.com)
marginalrevolution.com
The Future Is Getting Farther Away
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/10/the-future-is-getting-farther-away.html
152 comments
> Something definitely went wrong somewhere
Yep. Not old enough to actually verify this, but somehow I have feeling that in the old days the smartest kids of the block were lured to figure out how to get to the moon and how to get electricity from splitting atoms. Then somehow, we as a society came up with this novel idea that maybe we should lure the smartest kids to figure out how to circumvent financial regulation. We all know how that went. Then, we decided that maybe it would be good that the smartest kids started to figure out how to make people click more ads. I almost feel like we deserve what is coming.
Yep. Not old enough to actually verify this, but somehow I have feeling that in the old days the smartest kids of the block were lured to figure out how to get to the moon and how to get electricity from splitting atoms. Then somehow, we as a society came up with this novel idea that maybe we should lure the smartest kids to figure out how to circumvent financial regulation. We all know how that went. Then, we decided that maybe it would be good that the smartest kids started to figure out how to make people click more ads. I almost feel like we deserve what is coming.
Bread and Circuses are exponentially easier to create than innovation. Most innovation is punished or ignored unless it is timed well until it is "rediscovered" when it is desperately needed. Bread and Circuses pairs with anything anywhere at any time.
And when innovation saved the world from a global pandemic you guys are still arguing about the tiny miniscule risk of side effects of a game-changing vaccine rather than getting back on the curve here. So great, enjoy your brave new world of amusing yourselves to death. That seems to be about all we're good at anymore.
And when innovation saved the world from a global pandemic you guys are still arguing about the tiny miniscule risk of side effects of a game-changing vaccine rather than getting back on the curve here. So great, enjoy your brave new world of amusing yourselves to death. That seems to be about all we're good at anymore.
Perhaps if we were better at thinking we would be able to realize that the pushback on covid is a signal that something in the lower levels of the operating system may have some bugs in it. Instead, we react with simplistic heuristic narratives and emotion, and criticize others for a lack of intellectual capability.
If the situation is not to our liking, perhaps we should consider addressing the root cause(s) so the same thing doesn't happen the next time a crisis pays us a visit.
If the situation is not to our liking, perhaps we should consider addressing the root cause(s) so the same thing doesn't happen the next time a crisis pays us a visit.
So this root cause of which you speak? You're not actually going to say what it is you're just going to complain about it and allude to it, am I right? And in doing so how are you anything but more Bread and Circuses?
If the West had always been this risk averse with respect to science and technology, we wouldn't have gone to space let alone the Moon. We wouldn't have antibiotics and we probably wouldn't even have flight. So tell me how to restore America's healthy level of risk tolerance? Because taking medical advice from online pundits is incredibly risky and yet it's seen as safer than trusting science by a disturbingly large minority. And that's just one example of how badly we gauge risk.
And to be fair, I have the same viewpoint about the irrational fear of nuclear power.
If the West had always been this risk averse with respect to science and technology, we wouldn't have gone to space let alone the Moon. We wouldn't have antibiotics and we probably wouldn't even have flight. So tell me how to restore America's healthy level of risk tolerance? Because taking medical advice from online pundits is incredibly risky and yet it's seen as safer than trusting science by a disturbingly large minority. And that's just one example of how badly we gauge risk.
And to be fair, I have the same viewpoint about the irrational fear of nuclear power.
I wonder if its just about having competent adversaries? The West has always consisted of near-powers competing for resources and technology. A notable exception is modern history, where America hasn't had a serious technological adversary since the Space Race in the 1960s, and we've sort of slumped into this malaise. China appears to be a serious adversary now, but I don't think many Americans seriously possess the will or the skills to take on China.
> China appears to be a serious adversary now
They’re an adversary and should be taken seriously however they are not the threat that the Soviet Union was. China has too many headwinds to reach true superpower status.
They’re an adversary and should be taken seriously however they are not the threat that the Soviet Union was. China has too many headwinds to reach true superpower status.
Interesting, what are some of those headwinds?
> what are some of those headwinds?
The one child policy was a resounding success and a total disaster as now they have the fastest aging population on the planet. This has lead to massively increasing labor costs and a hollowing out of their consumer base which then makes their economy export-dependent right when the consumer base of the developed world is hollowing out. They are reliant on energy imports to keep the lights on and those imports go through the first island chain full of their most vicious and ancient geopolitical enemies. They are reliant on food imports to feed their population that rely on the same global trade routes that are or are about to go completely to hell. Their historically unprecedented growth over the last couple of decades was fueled by the most irrationally exuberant money printing and debt driven bender that makes the USA look like a miserly spend-thrift.
The one child policy was a resounding success and a total disaster as now they have the fastest aging population on the planet. This has lead to massively increasing labor costs and a hollowing out of their consumer base which then makes their economy export-dependent right when the consumer base of the developed world is hollowing out. They are reliant on energy imports to keep the lights on and those imports go through the first island chain full of their most vicious and ancient geopolitical enemies. They are reliant on food imports to feed their population that rely on the same global trade routes that are or are about to go completely to hell. Their historically unprecedented growth over the last couple of decades was fueled by the most irrationally exuberant money printing and debt driven bender that makes the USA look like a miserly spend-thrift.
I believe the root cause is human consciousness, in its current form....the very thing that wrote the message to which I am now replying. I believe absolutely that this is the root of all problems, and also that it can be addressed/upgraded.
I disagree with everything you said but I use to think along the same lines. Then one day, in a conversation about collective stupidity someone shared this observation:
There are countless species in this world and all of them are doing just fine without the giant brain. A large part of humanity really just wants to live their live, reproduce, enjoy a meal, sleep properly, sit in the grass and look at the lake and the forest.
We keep arguing that we have to think our way out of whatever the current situation is but you cant find a single problem that was not created by similar "solutions" for the previous "problem".
It sort of blew my mind!
It took a very large brained human to come up with the bread and circuses. It takes such very large brain to punish innovation or to have people ignore it. It takes an even larger brain to argue "what is desperately needed". You talk of saving the world but the world doesn't need to be saved. People are going to die sooner or later regardless. If you or me get to live a little bit longer that would be fantastic for you or for me.... but for the world? The world needs me for what exactly? We are the parasite devouring the host.
I do get it! It seems terrible this "amusing yourselves to death" but why not amuse yourself until you die? Utopia is a world full of 300 year old grumpy old men? I'm sure we will get there eventually if we push hard enough but that will simply become the new problem that those few bright men with their large brains so desperately need to solve for us.
I look at my cat sleeping on the sofa, why doesn't she get to have this complicated disposition? Why isn't she worried about the economy and innovation? What a joke, after the great collapse she will just go fishing, catch birds, spiders and mice, fight the neigbours, roll in the grass, look at the lake and the trees. At least, assuming we leave any of that behind.
Think about it!
The moon? mars? why not go to Antartica if you feel we ran out of self-made problems to solve? Antartica seems just as much umpf as Mars?
There are countless species in this world and all of them are doing just fine without the giant brain. A large part of humanity really just wants to live their live, reproduce, enjoy a meal, sleep properly, sit in the grass and look at the lake and the forest.
We keep arguing that we have to think our way out of whatever the current situation is but you cant find a single problem that was not created by similar "solutions" for the previous "problem".
It sort of blew my mind!
It took a very large brained human to come up with the bread and circuses. It takes such very large brain to punish innovation or to have people ignore it. It takes an even larger brain to argue "what is desperately needed". You talk of saving the world but the world doesn't need to be saved. People are going to die sooner or later regardless. If you or me get to live a little bit longer that would be fantastic for you or for me.... but for the world? The world needs me for what exactly? We are the parasite devouring the host.
I do get it! It seems terrible this "amusing yourselves to death" but why not amuse yourself until you die? Utopia is a world full of 300 year old grumpy old men? I'm sure we will get there eventually if we push hard enough but that will simply become the new problem that those few bright men with their large brains so desperately need to solve for us.
I look at my cat sleeping on the sofa, why doesn't she get to have this complicated disposition? Why isn't she worried about the economy and innovation? What a joke, after the great collapse she will just go fishing, catch birds, spiders and mice, fight the neigbours, roll in the grass, look at the lake and the trees. At least, assuming we leave any of that behind.
Think about it!
The moon? mars? why not go to Antartica if you feel we ran out of self-made problems to solve? Antartica seems just as much umpf as Mars?
One thing my guru always helps remind me is to zoom out, and let go of my egos narrative. It’s been awhile since I’ve been able to attend therapy, and thus reminded to zoom out and take a breather. This comment did the trick, thanks! Mediation is a beautiful thing, and it helps me dig into it when paired with this mindset (or lack thereof).
> exponentially easier
Exponential in regards to which variable? Money? Time? Effort? Or did you simply mean "vastly"?
This may be nitpicky, but we should expect people to get basic terminology right – at least on HN.
Exponential in regards to which variable? Money? Time? Effort? Or did you simply mean "vastly"?
This may be nitpicky, but we should expect people to get basic terminology right – at least on HN.
Not old enough to verify anything either, but I'm really curious about why you think this.
My impression is that the smart kids from a few blocks would go to Nasa, and those are the ones we remember. Many smart kids had no access to higher education, or were lawyers and doctors (which is absolutely fantastic).
When I recently watched For All Mankind I wasn't thinking "people did cooler shit then". I was thinking "that particular shit was really cool, overall most people then and there were worse off, including most smart people".
May be it has to do with me being spanish and our specific culture, but Im pretty sure there were plenty of geniuses doing bullshit or evil back then. Why do you think otherwise?
My impression is that the smart kids from a few blocks would go to Nasa, and those are the ones we remember. Many smart kids had no access to higher education, or were lawyers and doctors (which is absolutely fantastic).
When I recently watched For All Mankind I wasn't thinking "people did cooler shit then". I was thinking "that particular shit was really cool, overall most people then and there were worse off, including most smart people".
May be it has to do with me being spanish and our specific culture, but Im pretty sure there were plenty of geniuses doing bullshit or evil back then. Why do you think otherwise?
> but I'm really curious about why you think this.
I was not discussing whether we as a society are better off now than in the old days. (To me it is obvious that we are better off in most ways) I was discussing why it feels that the technological progress was faster in the old days than nowadays.
Why I think this? As said, I have absolutely no data, but only a hunch, that if you compare the incomes of nuclear engineer, aerospace engineer, banker and adtech engineer (whatever that was in the old days...), I would be quite surprised if the relative income has not tilted towards bankers and adtech engineers over time.
I was not discussing whether we as a society are better off now than in the old days. (To me it is obvious that we are better off in most ways) I was discussing why it feels that the technological progress was faster in the old days than nowadays.
Why I think this? As said, I have absolutely no data, but only a hunch, that if you compare the incomes of nuclear engineer, aerospace engineer, banker and adtech engineer (whatever that was in the old days...), I would be quite surprised if the relative income has not tilted towards bankers and adtech engineers over time.
We also decided that the future is only full of hardship and misery. Policy goals are now often only about avoiding disaster or forms redistribution, not growing prosperity, health, happiness.
Why would then people not just chose short-term gain?
Why would then people not just chose short-term gain?
Basil II blinded 99 of every 100 POWs and sent them all back home. If Samuel is Bulgaria cared for these troops, it would cost his empire significantly. If he were to abandon them, it would lead to a collapse in morale.
Today, our external and internal enemies blind our people in every way they can. For example, convincing our brightest minds that they will be the most fulfilled if their bank accounts are the most overflowing.
Today, our external and internal enemies blind our people in every way they can. For example, convincing our brightest minds that they will be the most fulfilled if their bank accounts are the most overflowing.
Cause and effect is backwards. The kids went to do finance shit, because without spending keeping up productivity, it made no sense to improve productive capacity
Why build more stuff if no one is going to buy it (near today's prices) and labor is already cheap?
Why build more stuff if no one is going to buy it (near today's prices) and labor is already cheap?
A lot of the world's best and brightest built nuclear bombs for decades.
It may have had something to do with allowing wealth inequality to soar.
It's hill climbing with lots of local minima.
Technological reverse salients litter the landscape, making it harder to push forward with what we have and already know.
People have to spend time traversing high risk, low-payoff fields to unlock new slopes that will take us higher. It certainly isn't always obvious.
Technological reverse salients litter the landscape, making it harder to push forward with what we have and already know.
People have to spend time traversing high risk, low-payoff fields to unlock new slopes that will take us higher. It certainly isn't always obvious.
> in the old days the smartest kids of the block were lured to figure out how to get to the moon and how to get electricity from splitting atoms
Part of it I think was just money. Wasn’t that all funded by the government? If you throw money at it, people will go there. It’s the same now.
There was also a naive optimism of what the future could bring with space travel and free energy from nuclear power … then reality hit.
Part of it I think was just money. Wasn’t that all funded by the government? If you throw money at it, people will go there. It’s the same now.
There was also a naive optimism of what the future could bring with space travel and free energy from nuclear power … then reality hit.
>lured to figure out how to get to the moon and how to get electricity from splitting atoms
To be fair these things were only invested in because we wanted the capability to bomb eurasia to the stone age
To be fair these things were only invested in because we wanted the capability to bomb eurasia to the stone age
>The world changed much more in the 50 years before I was born than 50 years after
The world changed even more in the second 50 years, just not the western world.
The world changed even more in the second 50 years, just not the western world.
It’s because the smart people figured out you can make a shit load of money doing boring, not very technically difficult things. If NASA paid as much as a high level engineer at Google, we’d have terraformed mars by now.
I don’t think it’s the pay but the budget they can work with. If NASA had kept the same percentage of the federal budget it had during Apollo things would be much further.
Apparently NASA's inflation-adjusted budget has been about half of its Apollo-era levels ever since the 1970s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_budget_linegraph_BH....
That's not as much, of course, but it's hardly chump change -- and yet I can't help but think that they're a lot less than half as impressive as they were back then. Look at the Constallation program, meant to develop a crewed launch system as a replacement for the Space Shuttle. Five years after it started it was over budget and behind schedule, and after it was estimated to eventually cost more than the entire Apollo program it got canceled. Or look at the Space Launch System program, another rocket-making attempt: it started in 2011, has spent over $20 billion so far, was supposed to start launches in 2016, and might launch something next year.
NASA's general level of competence seems to have dwindled over time. They can still do impressive things, but not nearly as impressive as you'd expect if the same budget had been given to 1960s NASA with 2021 technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_budget_linegraph_BH....
That's not as much, of course, but it's hardly chump change -- and yet I can't help but think that they're a lot less than half as impressive as they were back then. Look at the Constallation program, meant to develop a crewed launch system as a replacement for the Space Shuttle. Five years after it started it was over budget and behind schedule, and after it was estimated to eventually cost more than the entire Apollo program it got canceled. Or look at the Space Launch System program, another rocket-making attempt: it started in 2011, has spent over $20 billion so far, was supposed to start launches in 2016, and might launch something next year.
NASA's general level of competence seems to have dwindled over time. They can still do impressive things, but not nearly as impressive as you'd expect if the same budget had been given to 1960s NASA with 2021 technology.
Many engineers would be very hesitant to devote their career to an organization that was shrinking/stagnating at all. In the 1960s, NASA was growing and at the center of the national consciousness. That had to be good for recruiting.
Since then, so much else has grown immensely while NASA hasn't.
I'm not sold on the lack of competence though. They were just flying around a helicopter on Mars. It mildly amused the public for a couple days, but you could certainly argue it's among the most impressive feats ever accomplished.
Since then, so much else has grown immensely while NASA hasn't.
I'm not sold on the lack of competence though. They were just flying around a helicopter on Mars. It mildly amused the public for a couple days, but you could certainly argue it's among the most impressive feats ever accomplished.
It is still pathetic, but:
- If American industrial declines overall, outside the bloodsucking defense contacting sector that is naturally NASA-adjacent, won't those dollars travel less far?
- Nothing about NASA is a productive investment on short enough timescales to make it somewhat self-funding, boosting the economy as a whole very efficiently, (same with defense spending) so it's the exactly wrong foundation for industrial policy. First boost "productive" capacity, then funnel some extra riches into NASA. It has to be icing on the cake, not the cake!
- If American industrial declines overall, outside the bloodsucking defense contacting sector that is naturally NASA-adjacent, won't those dollars travel less far?
- Nothing about NASA is a productive investment on short enough timescales to make it somewhat self-funding, boosting the economy as a whole very efficiently, (same with defense spending) so it's the exactly wrong foundation for industrial policy. First boost "productive" capacity, then funnel some extra riches into NASA. It has to be icing on the cake, not the cake!
Their competence certainly has dwindled. A growing proportion of their budget is pork. Entire programs are just jobs programs. Those are very undesirable jobs for good engineers.
Constellation was an earnest attempt that strangled itself with process and procedure. SLS is just a battleground for politicians and contractors trying to keep the money flowing in their own directions.
The NASA that people usually think about is found in the smaller projects, where they can go relatively unnoticed by those who would ruin them. But even then, there's probably too much risk aversion. The very idea of that kind of defeats the purpose of NASA, in my opinion.
Constellation was an earnest attempt that strangled itself with process and procedure. SLS is just a battleground for politicians and contractors trying to keep the money flowing in their own directions.
The NASA that people usually think about is found in the smaller projects, where they can go relatively unnoticed by those who would ruin them. But even then, there's probably too much risk aversion. The very idea of that kind of defeats the purpose of NASA, in my opinion.
If stopped giving a shit about deficits and started spending more, we would get way richer (in real and monetary terms) and in fact pay down the old debt --- but it's truly not worth keeping track of anyways so let's just print the money as is our legal right and get back to the future.
If you were expecting reactionless flying cars and literal hoverboards in 2015, you probably should have found a different source for your technology predictions than a Spielberg movie.
But if you grandparents told you everything we can do with 10cm diameter pneumatic tubes should be done that with them by now, I have nothing to cushion the blow.
[deleted]
>The world changed much more in the 50 years before I was born than 50 years after.
Heavy disagree. It might seem that way but only because tech and science are so specialized now that the average person can't wrap their heads around all of it at once anymore.
Society, technology, and culture are all changing faster now than at any point in human history.
Heavy disagree. It might seem that way but only because tech and science are so specialized now that the average person can't wrap their heads around all of it at once anymore.
Society, technology, and culture are all changing faster now than at any point in human history.
Part of the issue with a stale rate of change is that industries get comfortable with successful products.
Developing an electric self-driving car takes a monumental effort. It's easier to continue releasing a new internal combustion model every year. The factory only knows how to do one thing and it is expensive to change.
So we may never have cars like the Jetsons. Fantasy also wants to over-estimate the future for dramatic effect.
Developing an electric self-driving car takes a monumental effort. It's easier to continue releasing a new internal combustion model every year. The factory only knows how to do one thing and it is expensive to change.
So we may never have cars like the Jetsons. Fantasy also wants to over-estimate the future for dramatic effect.
I don't think its hard to determine.
Broadly: Political gridlock, defunding of science endeavors, the Forever War on Terror, etc.
Economically: increasing wealth disparity
More specifically: brightest minds being thrown at the most profitable, versus the most socially beneficial, outcomes.
Broadly: Political gridlock, defunding of science endeavors, the Forever War on Terror, etc.
Economically: increasing wealth disparity
More specifically: brightest minds being thrown at the most profitable, versus the most socially beneficial, outcomes.
> Blade Runner was 2019
I am glad that things went better than dystopic predictions.
I am glad that things went better than dystopic predictions.
People always get confused about dystopias, it seems. Even Star Trek's Federation can be seen as a post-apocalyptic dystopia. You don't get to see much of life outside a few locations from the perspective of Starfleet's freakishly accomplished officers and mostly empty cities between warp nacelles, but I suspect things aren't as peachy as presented by Starfleet propaganda.
They have replicator, transporter, force field and holodeck technology, with ships that can travel between solar systems in days or weeks time. Why would the Federation be dystopian? It's long after the events of WW3. In First Contact Geordi tell Zefram Cochrane that 50 years after contact with the Vulcans, war, disease and poverty on Earth would be eliminated. Picard tells Lilly in the same movie that money is no longer used. People work to better themselves.
At least until the recent Star Trek, fans understood the Federation to be utopian. That was Gene Roddenberry's optimistic view of human potential. That we would get past our current issues. Q even puts the Enterprise crew on trial in TNG's first episodes for various historical crimes, and Picard is able to argue that humanity has evolved past much of that.
It's only really with external threats and other cultures that the Federation's values are challenged, and sometimes compromised.
At least until the recent Star Trek, fans understood the Federation to be utopian. That was Gene Roddenberry's optimistic view of human potential. That we would get past our current issues. Q even puts the Enterprise crew on trial in TNG's first episodes for various historical crimes, and Picard is able to argue that humanity has evolved past much of that.
It's only really with external threats and other cultures that the Federation's values are challenged, and sometimes compromised.
> In First Contact Geordi tell Zefram Cochrane that 50 years after contact with the Vulcans, war, disease and poverty on Earth would be eliminated.
But he’s wrong based on Star Trek canon (and throughout this I am not referencing Discovery and concurrent series, which are charged with being a change of tone) except maybe on war, and even then only if you take “on Earth” to mean, for war, “between nations of Earth, since they are all subordinated to a single government” and not “physically occurring on Earth”.
> Picard tells Lilly in the same movie that money is no longer used
This may be true on Earth, which seems like it uses centralized (possibly exchangeable) centralized rationing rather than (or at least to an extent that most people need not, if they do not choose to, interact with) a money economy, though profit-seeking independent traders exist in Federation space at least in the TOS era, and Federation citizens have and spend various forms of money for various things throughout the various series.
But he’s wrong based on Star Trek canon (and throughout this I am not referencing Discovery and concurrent series, which are charged with being a change of tone) except maybe on war, and even then only if you take “on Earth” to mean, for war, “between nations of Earth, since they are all subordinated to a single government” and not “physically occurring on Earth”.
> Picard tells Lilly in the same movie that money is no longer used
This may be true on Earth, which seems like it uses centralized (possibly exchangeable) centralized rationing rather than (or at least to an extent that most people need not, if they do not choose to, interact with) a money economy, though profit-seeking independent traders exist in Federation space at least in the TOS era, and Federation citizens have and spend various forms of money for various things throughout the various series.
I believe Earth is a post scarcity society. By war I meant inside the Federation. External threats still pose that risk, and so Starfleet can also serve as the military when diplomacy can’t work.
You're talking canon. I'm talking fan theories. Canon is limited to the perspective of the people who had to go through the wringer of studio meddling and appeasing broadcasters. There's a reason Discovery is the first to have a gay relationship, trans character, and nonbinary character. Most of the people involved in the previous shows at least since TNG wanted to do that but couldn't get past all the interests in the way. I consider a world without people like me in it pretty dystopic because there's only two things that do that: suppression and genocide.
Multiple interpretations are good, but I would argue there really was a break TOS's full employment culture, and today's stagnation culture. Let's not essentialize our current moment, projecting it back uncritically.
I don't think I can reason about real-world applications for a show's themes without considering the real world. That's the topic of discussion here. One of the actors in TOS was a closeted gay man who spent part of his childhood in a Japanese internment camp. Gene Roddenberry was an idealist. His utopia was nonsense. Berman was annoying to work with[0], but his version of Trek was more realistic without losing the optimism and turning grimdark. Roddenberry's utopia needed a genocide and apocalyptic world war to wipe out all the difficult problems getting from A to B.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeSz2gW8IsE
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeSz2gW8IsE
I don't think we are really disagreeing?
I think pre-1968 if there were fan theories by that point, they wouldn't have been so drawn to calling out some optimism that doesn't make sense.
But I really haven't watched enough Star Trek let alone caught up with fan theories to carry this further :).
Did George Takei get casted thinking "fuck this bullshit, I'm going to subtlety undermine the nonsense utopia with my acting?" Or was the pain and skepticism of cold war rhetoric more a subconscious war of vacillating between hope for the future, and skepticism that "United Space Ship" and "United States Ship" had enough distance between them?
I don't think many people were on that former level, say, pre-1968 at least.
I think pre-1968 if there were fan theories by that point, they wouldn't have been so drawn to calling out some optimism that doesn't make sense.
But I really haven't watched enough Star Trek let alone caught up with fan theories to carry this further :).
Did George Takei get casted thinking "fuck this bullshit, I'm going to subtlety undermine the nonsense utopia with my acting?" Or was the pain and skepticism of cold war rhetoric more a subconscious war of vacillating between hope for the future, and skepticism that "United Space Ship" and "United States Ship" had enough distance between them?
I don't think many people were on that former level, say, pre-1968 at least.
If we're talking in the context of Blade Runner dystopias of a crowded, polluted, dying environment run by powerful corporations, then the Federation is nothing like that. Certainly not on Earth. As far as diversity goes, that's just a matter of what was allowed on tv at the time. TOS certainly portrayed a society where racism was no longer an issue, so I think we can safely attribute the same to LGBTQ equality. It was implied and nothing in any of the shows suggest otherwise to my knowledge.
Why would technologies enabling such power and control be allowed into the hands of anyone but the most trusted/trained/indoctrinated to use in service of the Federation?
It's pretty clear that civilians and other organizations have access to replicators and holodecks, at least. There are civilian ships with warp drives also. Federation restricted technology is mostly military tech, like phasers and photon torpodos. I'm guessing the civilian replicators are restricted when it comes to replicating guns or bombs.
Blade Runner was a clear case of dystopia, no matter the viewpoint
You would be surprised. Not everyone gets the same thing out of media. Some people root for the villains, or don't understand that the dystopia is supposed to be a dystopia. There are whole worldviews where the disparity of outcomes between people who are stuck on Earth and people who left for colonies is a good, normal, and ideal situation.
[deleted]
i never thought of any of these franchises as particularly futuristic. Blade Runner is a sort of film noir detective story, star trek is more of a relocation in space and not time despite the superficial advance in tech, and BttF is, while literally moving through time, not really envisioning a future.
Gibson and Stephenson were two of the people who actually tried to talk about the future, and they got a lot of things right. We didn't get the Jetsons type retrofuturism with flying cars and 60s suburbs on mars, but the internet alone has made the world a lot stranger than people imagine.
Economics, GDP measurements and so on are very good at capturing the world of commodity production, and indeed not much has changed, but when you look at how information moves around today a great deal has changed, and gdp statistics don't capture it.
the entire idea that 'the future' is measured in terms of economic output, where people are flying on huge rockets or something like that is itself a symptom of being stuck in the industrial age
Gibson and Stephenson were two of the people who actually tried to talk about the future, and they got a lot of things right. We didn't get the Jetsons type retrofuturism with flying cars and 60s suburbs on mars, but the internet alone has made the world a lot stranger than people imagine.
Economics, GDP measurements and so on are very good at capturing the world of commodity production, and indeed not much has changed, but when you look at how information moves around today a great deal has changed, and gdp statistics don't capture it.
the entire idea that 'the future' is measured in terms of economic output, where people are flying on huge rockets or something like that is itself a symptom of being stuck in the industrial age
Here are a couple of more reasons beside those mentioned:
> Internet dopamine is a huge brain-drain
> The world is far more complex now, i.e. were having to either clash with older systems/ideas or try updating legacy systems.
> Age distributions show many more old people who usually want things to stay similar.
> Internet dopamine is a huge brain-drain
> The world is far more complex now, i.e. were having to either clash with older systems/ideas or try updating legacy systems.
> Age distributions show many more old people who usually want things to stay similar.
I have a personal idea that we are undergoing a collective change overload which is causing us to back away from further innovation and change. It seems to me that all forms of excitement for future tech have turned to skepticism for the vast majority of people. At the same time, climate change is demonstrating the extreme dark side of technical progress. It seems that our legal, ethical and mental models need to catch up for a generation before we can begin envisioning new positive futures again.
> I grew up watching the original Star Trek series in reruns in the 1970’s.
And you are still alive today, that means you lived through the transition from analog to digital and the arrival of the Information Age. That’s a pretty big thing that has happened.
And you are still alive today, that means you lived through the transition from analog to digital and the arrival of the Information Age. That’s a pretty big thing that has happened.
> I grew up watching the original Star Trek series in reruns in the 1970’s.
I remember Star Trek canon says 2021 Earth was a hell due to World War 3, but I'm not sure that idea was already at the original series.
I remember Star Trek canon says 2021 Earth was a hell due to World War 3, but I'm not sure that idea was already at the original series.
Nah, we're still at the "gradual repression" stage of Star Trek's future history. WW3 starts in 2026, lasts twenty years, and kills a minimum of 800 million.
> So, I’d say we all expected quite a bit more.
One other aspect is that engineering is hard. It's probably harder to become a millionaire through engineering than by becoming a banker, say.
One other aspect is that engineering is hard. It's probably harder to become a millionaire through engineering than by becoming a banker, say.
Surfing the web, while constantly checking FB and Twitter.
> Something definitely went wrong somewhere
Yes, the TV and Movie industries created a lot of unrealistic expectations in your mind.
Yes, the TV and Movie industries created a lot of unrealistic expectations in your mind.
1920-1970
1970-2020
I think most people would agree that in the 50 years before 1970, the world changed more?
1970-2020
I think most people would agree that in the 50 years before 1970, the world changed more?
I dunno. The only qualitative changes between 1920 and 1970 I am aware of are that by 1970 a single person went to space, and introduction of nuclear power.
I think my grandparents got electrity in the 60s and running water by 71.
Also my grandfather took a commercial plane in 62 from France to visit a California factory that sold screws already packaged in boxes of 50. Weird, but he smelled a good idea.
Also got paid leave in the 30s. That was huge.
Also my grandfather took a commercial plane in 62 from France to visit a California factory that sold screws already packaged in boxes of 50. Weird, but he smelled a good idea.
Also got paid leave in the 30s. That was huge.
> Something definitely went wrong somewhere
Printing infinite money might have fucked up the economy.
Printing infinite money might have fucked up the economy.
Did we do that? Where are my infinite dollars then? My bank only shows a few thousand.
Care to elaborate?
Care to elaborate?
[deleted]
GP is exactly wrong. Spending begets riches.
If no one is buying, the future isn't worth investing in.
Conversely, if everyone is buying, tech will unleash material prosperity validating those larger dollar flows faster than "too many dollars" make us "go Weimar" and society falls part.
The mistake has been relatively inefficient forms of stimulus that arguably prop up asset prices more than they increase spending, but hopefully the pandemic checks demonstrate us turning a new leaf there: they clearly worked better than whatever shit Larry Summers told Obama to do, as the original graph shows!
If no one is buying, the future isn't worth investing in.
Conversely, if everyone is buying, tech will unleash material prosperity validating those larger dollar flows faster than "too many dollars" make us "go Weimar" and society falls part.
The mistake has been relatively inefficient forms of stimulus that arguably prop up asset prices more than they increase spending, but hopefully the pandemic checks demonstrate us turning a new leaf there: they clearly worked better than whatever shit Larry Summers told Obama to do, as the original graph shows!
I’m trying to figure out how productivity rates could possibly be construed as the only important metric for what constitutes “the future.” Doesn’t that sound like a paperclip maximizer kind of perspective? Am I missing something?
Productivity is basically a measure of how much stuff we get per person. Obviously stuff isn't the only thing that matters, but once upon a time, everyone had to spend all of their time growing food. Now farming is 1,000 times more productive, and most everyone can do something else. The same with making clothes, furniture, etc. If we want a world where everyone can spend all of their time doing whatever they want and have enough, we're going to need a much more productive world.
There is an obvious gain when agriculture gets 1000x more productive, but there has to be a point where it becomes diminishing returns. How many more times will making agriculture 10x more productive noticeably improve people’s lives? At some point productivity has to stop being the only metric. I have a feeling productivity gains have already hit that point and the primary benefactor to further improvement is the producers.
We have a billion people on earth who do not have enough to eat (living below the UN poverty line). That has to change, and that requires even more productive farms.
We have something like 3 billion more who can't afford a washing machine. Think about the waste of human potential that is.
Not to mention that we have to get it so that all girls receive 13 years of schooling (that will help with global warming, as educated women have less children and at a later date). Not doing so is, again, a massive waste of human potential.
Both of these requires more resources, not fewer. We need more productivity, not less.
We have something like 3 billion more who can't afford a washing machine. Think about the waste of human potential that is.
Not to mention that we have to get it so that all girls receive 13 years of schooling (that will help with global warming, as educated women have less children and at a later date). Not doing so is, again, a massive waste of human potential.
Both of these requires more resources, not fewer. We need more productivity, not less.
> We have a billion people on earth who do not have enough to eat (living below the UN poverty line). That has to change, and that requires even more productive farms.
It actually just requires better distribution of the food. We've had enough food to feed everyone on the planet since the 1970s.
It actually just requires better distribution of the food. We've had enough food to feed everyone on the planet since the 1970s.
Based on food prices and the % of world income spent on food amongst the lowest income quartiles, another 10x or 100x would noticeably improve the lives of a large number of people.
Part of this is an uneven global distribution of productivity gains, but even in developed countries there is plenty of room for innovation to stabilize prices and prevent shocks.
For a comparison across countries, see figure 6 in
https://www.fb.org/market-intel/u.s.-food-expenditures-at-ho...
Part of this is an uneven global distribution of productivity gains, but even in developed countries there is plenty of room for innovation to stabilize prices and prevent shocks.
For a comparison across countries, see figure 6 in
https://www.fb.org/market-intel/u.s.-food-expenditures-at-ho...
We're very privileged to be able to wonder when enough productivity is enough. A huge portion of the world's population still lives in abject poverty and increased productivity would absolutely benefit them. And I think there were people 100 years ago making the same argument as you, that technology had advanced far enough that there was no need for more.
FWIW, I agree that the focus on productivity at the exclusion of everything else is bad, the point of productivity is to live well, but I think there's a lot of the world that doesn't live well, and I think it is perhaps a failure of imagination to not believe that we could live better as well.
FWIW, I agree that the focus on productivity at the exclusion of everything else is bad, the point of productivity is to live well, but I think there's a lot of the world that doesn't live well, and I think it is perhaps a failure of imagination to not believe that we could live better as well.
I find it rather ridiculous to view the inequities of society as a problem that should be solved by increasing productivity. I absolutely have a feeling that some of our biggest productivity gains have come on the backs of and sometimes maybe at the cost of worse quality of life in some parts of the world.
Extremely cheap labor improves productivity numbers.
Extremely cheap labor improves productivity numbers.
>> I absolutely have a feeling that some of our biggest productivity gains have come on the backs of and sometimes maybe at the cost of worse quality of life in some parts of the world.
Our biggest productivity gains came from burning coal, then oil. Productivity only started being sightly decoupled from oil usage since the early-mid 2010s.
Our biggest productivity gains came from burning coal, then oil. Productivity only started being sightly decoupled from oil usage since the early-mid 2010s.
If you take gdp numbers and divide them out among the population of the entire world, you get a world in poverty. Though I agree that many of the gains are ill-gotten. There's still nowhere near enough in absolute terms, though. Enough food, but not enough housing, electricity, clean water, appliances...
> If you take gdp numbers and divide them out among the population of the entire world, you get a world in poverty.
World GDP per capita last year was about 10,000USD.
Surely a globally equal society at that level of wealth is preferable to what we have now.
World GDP per capita last year was about 10,000USD.
Surely a globally equal society at that level of wealth is preferable to what we have now.
I'm not sure about that at all. I assume you don't sit around thinking that you have several times the amount of income that you need, or that your taxes should be several times what they are now?
It's safe to say the U.S. does a terrible job providing for it's citizens given the wealth of the country, but the European states we often hold up as models have gdp's per capita that are 4 or 5 times 10,000USD. That seems like the bare minimum we'd want to shoot for, rather than ensuring that everyone in the world lives like the fine people in Namibia.
It's safe to say the U.S. does a terrible job providing for it's citizens given the wealth of the country, but the European states we often hold up as models have gdp's per capita that are 4 or 5 times 10,000USD. That seems like the bare minimum we'd want to shoot for, rather than ensuring that everyone in the world lives like the fine people in Namibia.
There's an assumption baked into capitalism that growing the pie is more important than fussing over dividing the pie. This has historically held true.
Focusing on equality is a distraction. If the poor are at the same level of poverty over 20 years, it doesn't matter whether the rich got richer or poorer. The fact is the poor are getting richer too, just not as quickly as the rich.
I'm not a free market ideologue. I'm just a practical person. If any system proves to be better at lifting up the poor I'll take it. Currently it seems a largely capitalist system with welfare and healthcare is a highly effective system. Certainly more effective than systems which try to destroy the markets.
Focusing on equality is a distraction. If the poor are at the same level of poverty over 20 years, it doesn't matter whether the rich got richer or poorer. The fact is the poor are getting richer too, just not as quickly as the rich.
I'm not a free market ideologue. I'm just a practical person. If any system proves to be better at lifting up the poor I'll take it. Currently it seems a largely capitalist system with welfare and healthcare is a highly effective system. Certainly more effective than systems which try to destroy the markets.
Productivity also drives inequality. It’s at least a double edged sword.
Are you suggesting it would be better if everyone were poor instead of just some people?
There is another measure of wealth and that is time.
Wealthy people purpose the majority of their time themselves. Poor people have most of their time purposed for them.
When viewed this way, we see poverty is rampant here, even though many people have the various baubles and trinkets our modern society can produce.
Wealthy people purpose the majority of their time themselves. Poor people have most of their time purposed for them.
When viewed this way, we see poverty is rampant here, even though many people have the various baubles and trinkets our modern society can produce.
Poverty is relative to your contemporaries. What does it mean to be poor in a developed country today? Flush toilets, a thermostat, a cell phone, probably even a car. A thousand calories from McDonalds for half an hour's labor. You'd be the envy of world history. Yet you're very obviously poor, because of the even better stuff that other people have.
In the same way, the invention and adoption of all those things created a condition of poverty in the previously normal people who didn’t have them.
In the same way, the invention and adoption of all those things created a condition of poverty in the previously normal people who didn’t have them.
So that's a yes?
Good for material conditions, bad for social conditions. How you balance those is your political alignment.
We measure equality wrong. We measure it on income, but should measure it on what we can get for it. And that way we are more equal now than we have ever been. A cheap car is better, more fuel efficient and safer than a good car was 20 years ago. Poor people can get treatment for AIDS today, something rich people couldn't 30 years ago.
Productivity decreases demand for full time employment.
Desiring full time employment is the double edged sword. The robots do the work for you but you still want to work and you want to do the "productive" part.
Desiring full time employment is the double edged sword. The robots do the work for you but you still want to work and you want to do the "productive" part.
For much of the 20th century, everybody from Bertrand Russell to the writers of the Jetsons seemed to think that accelerating productivity would allow everybody to work proportionally less.
The owner class disagreed, and high productivity just meant higher profits because many more (increasingly lower quality) widgits are made per worker-hour.
But just look at that GDP!!
The owner class disagreed, and high productivity just meant higher profits because many more (increasingly lower quality) widgits are made per worker-hour.
But just look at that GDP!!
That's fundamentally wrong.
You are not living a 20th century lifestyle. You don't sit in a mostly wooden building with minimal electricity or gas lighting with reading and radio as your primary entertainment.
At the very least you now have a computer that was certainly manufactured and assembled on the other half of the globe and transported to you. You likely have a lot of electrical appliances like ovens, a fridge, AC, and hot water.
You likely don't live 3 or 4 generations to a 1000sq ft house.
That we work the same in general has more to do with (imo positive) lifestyle inflation than some evil banker sitting on their slightly larger boat than the one you own.
You are not living a 20th century lifestyle. You don't sit in a mostly wooden building with minimal electricity or gas lighting with reading and radio as your primary entertainment.
At the very least you now have a computer that was certainly manufactured and assembled on the other half of the globe and transported to you. You likely have a lot of electrical appliances like ovens, a fridge, AC, and hot water.
You likely don't live 3 or 4 generations to a 1000sq ft house.
That we work the same in general has more to do with (imo positive) lifestyle inflation than some evil banker sitting on their slightly larger boat than the one you own.
What's fundamentally wrong? None of this has anything to do with greater productivity... It's not as though larger houses require a linear increase in construction workers; computers do not grow in vast fields necessitating hundreds of farm-hands. It's quite the opposite.
GDP, which is what we were talking about, can rise forever because those who benefit will find ways to make it rise. Like, say, coupling difficult-to-access healthcare to it! Hey, now healthcare is a full fourth of it! Selling real estate and insurance to one another helps it increase, too! Line go up!! Something tells me that greater productivity allowed this cool and normal situation of proliferating middlemen to occur.
The existence of relatively inexpensive ovens, etc, has been the case since easily 1970, which is around when productivity started to decouple from benefits to citizenry.
I assume you're assured of this perspective because the existence of your boat makes you uncomfortable with the idea that we're using the insane productivity gains our species has realized to be gainfully employed not doing anything material or beneficial, but rather tricking people into clicking on ads. I understand whose shoulders I stand on, and I also understand that we don't really have to have the underpaid underclass to whom the ads are shown, we've just decided this way is better.
GDP, which is what we were talking about, can rise forever because those who benefit will find ways to make it rise. Like, say, coupling difficult-to-access healthcare to it! Hey, now healthcare is a full fourth of it! Selling real estate and insurance to one another helps it increase, too! Line go up!! Something tells me that greater productivity allowed this cool and normal situation of proliferating middlemen to occur.
The existence of relatively inexpensive ovens, etc, has been the case since easily 1970, which is around when productivity started to decouple from benefits to citizenry.
I assume you're assured of this perspective because the existence of your boat makes you uncomfortable with the idea that we're using the insane productivity gains our species has realized to be gainfully employed not doing anything material or beneficial, but rather tricking people into clicking on ads. I understand whose shoulders I stand on, and I also understand that we don't really have to have the underpaid underclass to whom the ads are shown, we've just decided this way is better.
> it's not as though larger houses require a linear increase in construction workers
Right because you are now importing prefab assemblies produced from other countries, and using off the shelf bulk produced components like drywall. That supply chain DOES require significantly more people.
> Hey, now healthcare is a full fourth of it!
Well I guess you could go destroy the MRI machines that require a steady pure helium stream, unplug the 400+ computerized monitors that are centrally linked back to nurses stations, or get rid of all the neat robotics that allow non-invasive surgery and save some cash. We could go back to when medicine ended at what your local doctor could do by hand.
> Something tells me that greater productivity allowed this cool and normal situation of proliferating middlemen to occur.
Please go share this opinion with your real estate brokers. Ask them what they do with all their free time that they have so much of apparently.
> The existence of relatively inexpensive ovens, etc, has been the case since easily 1970, which is around when productivity started to decouple from benefits to citizenry.
Cheap per unit doesn't mean cheap to produce from scratch. You can't go buy a machine shop and crank out modern ovens. Let's not even get into safety testing.
> I assume you're assured of this perspective because the existence of your boat makes you uncomfortable with the idea that we're using the insane productivity gains our species has realized to be gainfully employed not doing anything material or beneficial
Not a boat guy, sorry.
You are about a hundred years behind in your understanding of economics. Production doesn't mean spinning yarn in your cottage. The broker managing real estate contracts is doing work the same way the person assembling surgical robots is doing. Life is no longer about building wooden cabins on land you claimed by fencing it off only to have your house burn down when your open top oil lamp turns over and catches your flammable ass bedding. Humanity has had progress since then.
> I also understand that we don't really have to have the underpaid underclass to whom the ads are shown,
If you don't like Hulu's business model then stop watching it.
Right because you are now importing prefab assemblies produced from other countries, and using off the shelf bulk produced components like drywall. That supply chain DOES require significantly more people.
> Hey, now healthcare is a full fourth of it!
Well I guess you could go destroy the MRI machines that require a steady pure helium stream, unplug the 400+ computerized monitors that are centrally linked back to nurses stations, or get rid of all the neat robotics that allow non-invasive surgery and save some cash. We could go back to when medicine ended at what your local doctor could do by hand.
> Something tells me that greater productivity allowed this cool and normal situation of proliferating middlemen to occur.
Please go share this opinion with your real estate brokers. Ask them what they do with all their free time that they have so much of apparently.
> The existence of relatively inexpensive ovens, etc, has been the case since easily 1970, which is around when productivity started to decouple from benefits to citizenry.
Cheap per unit doesn't mean cheap to produce from scratch. You can't go buy a machine shop and crank out modern ovens. Let's not even get into safety testing.
> I assume you're assured of this perspective because the existence of your boat makes you uncomfortable with the idea that we're using the insane productivity gains our species has realized to be gainfully employed not doing anything material or beneficial
Not a boat guy, sorry.
You are about a hundred years behind in your understanding of economics. Production doesn't mean spinning yarn in your cottage. The broker managing real estate contracts is doing work the same way the person assembling surgical robots is doing. Life is no longer about building wooden cabins on land you claimed by fencing it off only to have your house burn down when your open top oil lamp turns over and catches your flammable ass bedding. Humanity has had progress since then.
> I also understand that we don't really have to have the underpaid underclass to whom the ads are shown,
If you don't like Hulu's business model then stop watching it.
This discussion is nonsense. You're not trying to interpret anything I say charitably, you're putting words in my mouth -- in short, what the fuck is wrong with you?
>Right because you are now importing prefab assemblies produced from other countries, and using off the shelf bulk produced components like drywall. That supply chain DOES require significantly more people.
Yet those people pump out much more per worker.
>Well I guess you could go destroy the MRI machines that require a steady pure helium stream, unplug the 400+ computerized monitors that are centrally linked back to nurses stations, or get rid of all the neat robotics that allow non-invasive surgery and save some cash. We could go back to when medicine ended at what your local doctor could do by hand.
Why assume that I meant "destroy everything good"? Why not just remove the insane proliferation of profit-seeking middlemen in Merican healthcare? Pretty much every other first world country manages this fine, and uses less money to get better outcomes! How's the US life expectancy, again?
>Please go share this opinion with your real estate brokers. Ask them what they do with all their free time that they have so much of apparently.
Where did you get the idea that I'm saying that they have free time? They're very busy selling one another houses, and they are able to busily perform this profoundly useless economic "activity" because our society needs so little physical manpower to continue, as compared to, say, that of the 20th century.
>Cheap per unit doesn't mean cheap to produce from scratch. You can't go buy a machine shop and crank out modern ovens. Let's not even get into safety testing.
No, but it means cheap per unit.
>Not a boat guy, sorry.
So why assume that I am? It makes you look like an asshole!
>You are about a hundred years behind in your understanding of economics. Production doesn't mean spinning yarn in your cottage. The broker managing real estate contracts is doing work the same way the person assembling surgical robots is doing. Life is no longer about building wooden cabins on land you claimed by fencing it off only to have your house burn down when your open top oil lamp turns over and catches your flammable ass bedding. Humanity has had progress since then.
You've convinced me! It's about building disposable surveillance-economy "smart"phones, ignoring externalities, and quantitative easing!!
>If you don't like Hulu's business model then stop watching it.
Ooh, nice watch! Did you buy it with your salary that you're implying is greater than mine? It really adds to your argument! ...hey, weren't you just implying that I own a boat?
>Right because you are now importing prefab assemblies produced from other countries, and using off the shelf bulk produced components like drywall. That supply chain DOES require significantly more people.
Yet those people pump out much more per worker.
>Well I guess you could go destroy the MRI machines that require a steady pure helium stream, unplug the 400+ computerized monitors that are centrally linked back to nurses stations, or get rid of all the neat robotics that allow non-invasive surgery and save some cash. We could go back to when medicine ended at what your local doctor could do by hand.
Why assume that I meant "destroy everything good"? Why not just remove the insane proliferation of profit-seeking middlemen in Merican healthcare? Pretty much every other first world country manages this fine, and uses less money to get better outcomes! How's the US life expectancy, again?
>Please go share this opinion with your real estate brokers. Ask them what they do with all their free time that they have so much of apparently.
Where did you get the idea that I'm saying that they have free time? They're very busy selling one another houses, and they are able to busily perform this profoundly useless economic "activity" because our society needs so little physical manpower to continue, as compared to, say, that of the 20th century.
>Cheap per unit doesn't mean cheap to produce from scratch. You can't go buy a machine shop and crank out modern ovens. Let's not even get into safety testing.
No, but it means cheap per unit.
>Not a boat guy, sorry.
So why assume that I am? It makes you look like an asshole!
>You are about a hundred years behind in your understanding of economics. Production doesn't mean spinning yarn in your cottage. The broker managing real estate contracts is doing work the same way the person assembling surgical robots is doing. Life is no longer about building wooden cabins on land you claimed by fencing it off only to have your house burn down when your open top oil lamp turns over and catches your flammable ass bedding. Humanity has had progress since then.
You've convinced me! It's about building disposable surveillance-economy "smart"phones, ignoring externalities, and quantitative easing!!
>If you don't like Hulu's business model then stop watching it.
Ooh, nice watch! Did you buy it with your salary that you're implying is greater than mine? It really adds to your argument! ...hey, weren't you just implying that I own a boat?
My computer costs less than a small lathe and the computer does more than the lathe.
A small lathe is about $250 so unless you are using a Pi or Pinebook, that is unlikely.
Your computer does _different_ stuff than a lathe. We need both computers and lathes in modern life.
Your computer does _different_ stuff than a lathe. We need both computers and lathes in modern life.
Don't get hung up on "If total factor productivity".
https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/33080/dimensio... sort of clears some stuff up. Economists are not that good at dimensional analysis, despite their worship of physicists, and every physicist knowing dimensional analysis is key to staying sane.
GDP, for the purposes of this graph, is stuff measured in dollars, per time, so "value"/time. The estimates are not that different from linear regressions, asymptotically. That's it.
"Productivity" is a nebulous concept. Ultimately, we only "see" the value in the market price of things being exchanged, so productivity is thus reasoning backwards with division/differentiation. There is no empirically rigorous notion of per-person productivity to integrate over, and whether the ability to divide/differential makes that platonically-valid concept nonetheless a murky philosophical debate one need not get into to understand this graph.
https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/33080/dimensio... sort of clears some stuff up. Economists are not that good at dimensional analysis, despite their worship of physicists, and every physicist knowing dimensional analysis is key to staying sane.
GDP, for the purposes of this graph, is stuff measured in dollars, per time, so "value"/time. The estimates are not that different from linear regressions, asymptotically. That's it.
"Productivity" is a nebulous concept. Ultimately, we only "see" the value in the market price of things being exchanged, so productivity is thus reasoning backwards with division/differentiation. There is no empirically rigorous notion of per-person productivity to integrate over, and whether the ability to divide/differential makes that platonically-valid concept nonetheless a murky philosophical debate one need not get into to understand this graph.
Stagnating wages encourage employers to hire people for less productive work.
We have an aging population so more productivity will be welcome.
We have an aging population so more productivity will be welcome.
Probably wrong to correlate GDP/productivity with "the future" (whatever that means). The author seems to imply that if the 2008 financial crisis didn't happen then we'd have flying cars or something today, but I fail to see the connection.
I see it as entrenched wealthy capital interests were far more interested in maximizing their paper clips than improving real world productivity outputs or distributing what was produced more widely.
Rich people as a class just throw their money where the returns our at. But if everyone else's purchasing power hasn't kept up with productivity gains, increasing productive capacity yet further isn't profitable, no matter how altruistic each rich person investor is.
Then we must be reaching either a plateau or a tipping point in societal development and I really really really hope it's a tipping point in a good way.
You mean their individual wealth has become a high score?
Yes in part, but also the investment opportunities presented to them are generally only incidentally aligned or even long term misaligned with needs of increasing the resilience of the economy - or even of making long term growth decisions.
I'll try to break it down.
So orthodox neoclassical economics, at least before modern caveats, roughly says that the "financial recession" should be transitory -- the economy should hum along according to it's "real, material" characteristics, and something like a "mortgage crisis" is an accounting book gimmick which should only create a transient shock, after which things should "return to normal"
But if you look at the graph, it didn't bounce back. It just didn't. Regardless of any normative statements about GDP (is it progress itself? is it evil anti-environmentalism incarnate?) the graph shows something that doesn't accord to the theory.
Also, whatever one's true measure of "the future" is, it probably correlates with GDP absent some interesting things like big massive environmental regulation, which we plainly don't have. Or put differently, perhaps "plain old capitalism doing it's thing" delivers the future as a "byproduct" of GDP growth. That sounds about close enough for me.
If you're a Post-Keynesnianist like I think I am, this sort of a "well, duh", moment. The economy is like one big gnarly awesome disgusting internal combustion engine, and things like fuel/oil ratio, chokes, starter moters, friction, should all yield some interesting mental images and analogies. We fuck with the thing, overcome inefficiencies, and give it constant maintenance, rather than sit back and just let the platonic forms manifest themselves or whatever.
----
Where this starts to matter for HN is whether technology is viewed as exogenous or endogenous to the economy.
The same orthodox neoclassical economics says it's exogenous. We have some genius doing their thing, stuff may or may not happen, and the economy reacts.
The other, more (post-)Keynesian view is:
Demand expectations (our people clamoring to buy things and do you think that will roughly continue?) -> Investment -> the future -> investment pays off
In some sense the technology always "out there", and it's up to use to discover it and make it a thing.
As someone that has long been into functional programming, and now sees the mainstream kinda adopt it (react, typescript, go generics finally, etc.), but also kinda miss the big point (use types to improve collaboration at hitherto impossible scales). This makes sense. The whole SV VC ideology of "let's just go push out the technology the normies can't justify investing in" looks like an attempt to escape the dynamic Keynsianism describes, but it has limits. Like "pushing a string", doing supply before demand is inefficient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say%27s_law is horseshit) and has limits.
likewise, SV getting into UBI makes me happy. Put demand first again, so we are pulled not pushed. The rhetoric about a coming jobs apocalypse is false --- there is no reason to automate when deparate labor gets cheaper and cheaper --- but it is true that productivity increases beyond consumption increases for the last 50 years have already deflated demand. So do UBI not for the problems we will have, but the problems we already have. Hope people to work work less and charge more, make automation thus look good to the least imaginative bean-counter, and let's get on with the future already!
So orthodox neoclassical economics, at least before modern caveats, roughly says that the "financial recession" should be transitory -- the economy should hum along according to it's "real, material" characteristics, and something like a "mortgage crisis" is an accounting book gimmick which should only create a transient shock, after which things should "return to normal"
But if you look at the graph, it didn't bounce back. It just didn't. Regardless of any normative statements about GDP (is it progress itself? is it evil anti-environmentalism incarnate?) the graph shows something that doesn't accord to the theory.
Also, whatever one's true measure of "the future" is, it probably correlates with GDP absent some interesting things like big massive environmental regulation, which we plainly don't have. Or put differently, perhaps "plain old capitalism doing it's thing" delivers the future as a "byproduct" of GDP growth. That sounds about close enough for me.
If you're a Post-Keynesnianist like I think I am, this sort of a "well, duh", moment. The economy is like one big gnarly awesome disgusting internal combustion engine, and things like fuel/oil ratio, chokes, starter moters, friction, should all yield some interesting mental images and analogies. We fuck with the thing, overcome inefficiencies, and give it constant maintenance, rather than sit back and just let the platonic forms manifest themselves or whatever.
----
Where this starts to matter for HN is whether technology is viewed as exogenous or endogenous to the economy.
The same orthodox neoclassical economics says it's exogenous. We have some genius doing their thing, stuff may or may not happen, and the economy reacts.
The other, more (post-)Keynesian view is:
Demand expectations (our people clamoring to buy things and do you think that will roughly continue?) -> Investment -> the future -> investment pays off
In some sense the technology always "out there", and it's up to use to discover it and make it a thing.
As someone that has long been into functional programming, and now sees the mainstream kinda adopt it (react, typescript, go generics finally, etc.), but also kinda miss the big point (use types to improve collaboration at hitherto impossible scales). This makes sense. The whole SV VC ideology of "let's just go push out the technology the normies can't justify investing in" looks like an attempt to escape the dynamic Keynsianism describes, but it has limits. Like "pushing a string", doing supply before demand is inefficient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say%27s_law is horseshit) and has limits.
likewise, SV getting into UBI makes me happy. Put demand first again, so we are pulled not pushed. The rhetoric about a coming jobs apocalypse is false --- there is no reason to automate when deparate labor gets cheaper and cheaper --- but it is true that productivity increases beyond consumption increases for the last 50 years have already deflated demand. So do UBI not for the problems we will have, but the problems we already have. Hope people to work work less and charge more, make automation thus look good to the least imaginative bean-counter, and let's get on with the future already!
I'm interested in learning more about this! Any recommended readings for how Post-Keynesians address stagflation? It's my understanding that that's one of the economic phenomena that could not be explained within Keynes's theoretical framework.
> By the way, don’t blame the forecasters. The forecast was reasonable, the reality is below expectation.
Sounds like a macro-economist to me.
There's a full-blown, easily predictable and indeed predicted, environmental crisis that's *never* going away. Mitigating it requires a commitment to what any reasonable person considers a significant drop in living standards in both the developed world, *and* among the peoples of the developing world, who did nothing to deserve it.
Sounds like a macro-economist to me.
There's a full-blown, easily predictable and indeed predicted, environmental crisis that's *never* going away. Mitigating it requires a commitment to what any reasonable person considers a significant drop in living standards in both the developed world, *and* among the peoples of the developing world, who did nothing to deserve it.
But we are getting the drop in living standards before any significant effort is spent on the environmental crisis you are alluding to.
And handling that crisis will require even higher productivity and technological growth. Instead we see decline after decline.
And handling that crisis will require even higher productivity and technological growth. Instead we see decline after decline.
> and among the peoples of the developing world, who did nothing to deserve it.
I don't agree at all here. People in the developing world don't consume/pollute less because of some kind of moral virtue, they consume/pollute less because they physically can't consume/pollute more. If they had the ability to pollute as much as the developped countries, they would do it (and some are in fact already doing it).
I don't agree at all here. People in the developing world don't consume/pollute less because of some kind of moral virtue, they consume/pollute less because they physically can't consume/pollute more. If they had the ability to pollute as much as the developped countries, they would do it (and some are in fact already doing it).
> Mitigating it requires a commitment to what any reasonable person considers a significant drop in living standards in both the developed world
Nope, unless you consider living in cities not suburbs intrinsically worse.
GDP has some flaws as a metric, but the "real good thing" so-far correlates with it simply because we aren't doing shit about the environment. There's no reason we can ramp up electrifying everything and live nice lives. Hell, if the population actually goes down as expected, maybe we can reduce total land devoted to agriculture too which would be really nice.
The best way to do it and feel rich is to not be so obsessed with expensive electric-battery cars, and do more public transit, which I why partly I say it's the suburbs that drag us down.
Nope, unless you consider living in cities not suburbs intrinsically worse.
GDP has some flaws as a metric, but the "real good thing" so-far correlates with it simply because we aren't doing shit about the environment. There's no reason we can ramp up electrifying everything and live nice lives. Hell, if the population actually goes down as expected, maybe we can reduce total land devoted to agriculture too which would be really nice.
The best way to do it and feel rich is to not be so obsessed with expensive electric-battery cars, and do more public transit, which I why partly I say it's the suburbs that drag us down.
Give it a billion years or so and the aging sun will boil/blow earth's atmosphere away. So not "never".
That drop in living standards isn't required either. Some might want such a policy path, but that is a different issue.
That drop in living standards isn't required either. Some might want such a policy path, but that is a different issue.
Can someone explain that graph? I thought each of the blue lines (the "vintages" if you will) corresponds to a CBO estimate made in that particular year, e.g. the 2005 line would project forward from 2005 reality.
But if you look at some of the lines, that interpretation doesn't make sense. For example, the dark blue "2010" line is already well above the actual data (the black line) in 2010. So what do these CBO estimate "vintages" actually represent?
But if you look at some of the lines, that interpretation doesn't make sense. For example, the dark blue "2010" line is already well above the actual data (the black line) in 2010. So what do these CBO estimate "vintages" actually represent?
If this were some shady crypto thing I'd assume it was juicing the numbers to get more money on board. :^)
Oh, yeah, if we never had any economic crisis, the GDP would be much higher.
Whatever that phrase means... Because linking it directly with technology or happiness doesn't make any sense. It either means "if we use a less meaningful number that always got up, it would be higher" or "if people improved things faster, they would be better now, but let's not focus on what could improve faster or how".
Whatever that phrase means... Because linking it directly with technology or happiness doesn't make any sense. It either means "if we use a less meaningful number that always got up, it would be higher" or "if people improved things faster, they would be better now, but let's not focus on what could improve faster or how".
Since when is the GDP a metric for The Future?
I think we have different understandings of the word Future.
I found the comment that linked the article where that graph appeared (https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/a-big-fiscal...) to be a much more informative and useful reference.
As that article points out, the real response to that graph is, "Good lord, what happened in 2008-2009?!"
When you create a new normal level you will often get a two sided exponential getting there.
First you see exponential increase as more and more opportunities to exploit the new normal are exploited. But then you see the rate of change exponentially reduce as the opportunities left to change gets exhausted, until there are none left and the new normal is reached. The typical example is how at first a technology is only used by a very small amount of people, then it becomes common and then it becomes ubiquitous. Happened with cars 60 years ago, computers 20 years ago.
So it isn't that the future is getting farther away, we are just running out of ways to exploit the advancements we made decades ago. We might make more such leaps, for example in AI, but you can't count on it. Instead any sensible economic policy should be able to handle both scenarios, ie the one where we stagnate and the one where we find new things.
First you see exponential increase as more and more opportunities to exploit the new normal are exploited. But then you see the rate of change exponentially reduce as the opportunities left to change gets exhausted, until there are none left and the new normal is reached. The typical example is how at first a technology is only used by a very small amount of people, then it becomes common and then it becomes ubiquitous. Happened with cars 60 years ago, computers 20 years ago.
So it isn't that the future is getting farther away, we are just running out of ways to exploit the advancements we made decades ago. We might make more such leaps, for example in AI, but you can't count on it. Instead any sensible economic policy should be able to handle both scenarios, ie the one where we stagnate and the one where we find new things.
All I see are arbitrary exponential functions being drawn to extend the existing line.
Maybe I'm "being gen-z" but it's crazy to know that people actually bought into this when global warming, etc, are not accounted by people drawing the lines (and so are any forms of black sheep events/inventions)
Maybe I'm "being gen-z" but it's crazy to know that people actually bought into this when global warming, etc, are not accounted by people drawing the lines (and so are any forms of black sheep events/inventions)
"The future is here but not evenly distributed"
Society has scalability problem. It might be the inability for the human mind to care about every little detail of life that makes it function or with increased scale comes with greater perverse actors and the system needs needs counterweight to it.
America has been divided packaged and sold with little care about the ramifications down the road. We started off well, we broke up monopolies,(standard oil) protected people woth(glass-steagall) but then we lost our way and trillions can now be lost by the pentagon with little then a blink. Local construction costs skyrocket compared to other parts of the world, and we've created a horrible system of guaranteed profit in both colleges and homes allowing the prices to be inflated.
Society has scalability problem. It might be the inability for the human mind to care about every little detail of life that makes it function or with increased scale comes with greater perverse actors and the system needs needs counterweight to it.
America has been divided packaged and sold with little care about the ramifications down the road. We started off well, we broke up monopolies,(standard oil) protected people woth(glass-steagall) but then we lost our way and trillions can now be lost by the pentagon with little then a blink. Local construction costs skyrocket compared to other parts of the world, and we've created a horrible system of guaranteed profit in both colleges and homes allowing the prices to be inflated.
> We started off well
I'm not sure that's true. We started off with slavery.
Then we had a civil war.
Then we had Jim Crow.
Then we had disco. ;-)
America has always had problems. We just have a tendency to forget about them and focus on the positive aspects of the past. (I think reasonable people can disagree on the merits of this approach.)
I'm not sure that's true. We started off with slavery.
Then we had a civil war.
Then we had Jim Crow.
Then we had disco. ;-)
America has always had problems. We just have a tendency to forget about them and focus on the positive aspects of the past. (I think reasonable people can disagree on the merits of this approach.)
Fair point but as it relates to technology.. we can't progress if things hold us back. Wealth inequality being the greatest thing doing so.
The only thing that has been accelerating into the future I think is the stock market. The price levels we are seeing today weren’t expected until at least a whole decade from now, and they are continuing to climb. Money is the only thing that can transcend time and space.
doesn't that...worry you?
It most definitely does.
If money is a medium for people to convert goods and services from one form to another, then in a technologically advancing world where things become cheaper in terms of SI units, we should expect the value of money (relative to other items) to become higher, or for goods and services to become so cheap that we don't even bother about their prices.
In a technologically stagnating economy, we can expect the opposite: we can expect that if technology becomes worse off, then the value of money will get worse and the same physical item will become less valuable i.e will cost more in money. We see this happening with oil prices which are at the heart of energy intensive economies - gasoline is MORE expensive than in the 1970s even when adjusted for inflation. Same goes for other goods central to the economy, such as housing, healthcare and food. The more likely outcome is that to artificially stimulate the economy, central banks will keep printing more money and devalue goods in a never ending cycle. The only things that can really save us is technology that can make things cheaper.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/gasoline-prices-adjust...
It seems that Peter Thiel's ideas of a technologically stagnating society are making more and more sense.
If money is a medium for people to convert goods and services from one form to another, then in a technologically advancing world where things become cheaper in terms of SI units, we should expect the value of money (relative to other items) to become higher, or for goods and services to become so cheap that we don't even bother about their prices.
In a technologically stagnating economy, we can expect the opposite: we can expect that if technology becomes worse off, then the value of money will get worse and the same physical item will become less valuable i.e will cost more in money. We see this happening with oil prices which are at the heart of energy intensive economies - gasoline is MORE expensive than in the 1970s even when adjusted for inflation. Same goes for other goods central to the economy, such as housing, healthcare and food. The more likely outcome is that to artificially stimulate the economy, central banks will keep printing more money and devalue goods in a never ending cycle. The only things that can really save us is technology that can make things cheaper.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/gasoline-prices-adjust...
It seems that Peter Thiel's ideas of a technologically stagnating society are making more and more sense.
No, because I’m invested in the market, and wherever it goes, I go.
But the people who are waiting it out? They are guaranteed to fall behind, they will be living in 2014 while I am in 2041.
The market will only look scarier and scarier as the numbers go up and to the right.
But the people who are waiting it out? They are guaranteed to fall behind, they will be living in 2014 while I am in 2041.
The market will only look scarier and scarier as the numbers go up and to the right.
This time it's different ;)
It's all a total myth. On paper I am doing 2x better than my parents. We both have the same degrees in the same field.
In reality my wife also works as an engineer. (my mom was a stay at home mom), our house is smaller, I work longer hours, and the house will be paid off later in life (after 60). The reason? Fake government inflation numbers. www.shadowstats.org .
In reality my wife also works as an engineer. (my mom was a stay at home mom), our house is smaller, I work longer hours, and the house will be paid off later in life (after 60). The reason? Fake government inflation numbers. www.shadowstats.org .
That url www.shadowstats.org goes to a fake/spam/advertising website.
They meant http://www.shadowstats.com/.
Asset prices like are not included in regular inflation buckets for good reason. It's impossible for housing to be a good investment and affordable.
One aspect of public housing that needs more attention is it makes the accounting dramatically simpler. Rents and taxes converge.
One aspect of public housing that needs more attention is it makes the accounting dramatically simpler. Rents and taxes converge.
As much as I feel like joining in the "well you see the world went wrong" kind of argument the reality is that GDP isn't a great measure for growth. Even the economist who came up with GDP felt it was a grossly incomplete metric and wanted to figure out how to add in the economic activity of homemakers as well into the equation but Congress like most organizations love numbers even if they're not that useful. So we're stuck with an incomplete metric that in most cases is a meaningless figure. Sure, you can pump the GDP up many ways to make it look like you're doing great all the while the average life of expectancy of your citizens slides back (see the US even before COVID).
I wonder if refinement culture https://paulskallas.substack.com/p/refinement-culture is a consequence of that?
There's no escape from physical reality - real wealth is energy and matter, not bits*. There's only one true development metric - the Kardashev's scale.
Why - because no matter what any individual civilization values, once two civilizations meet, one that's sufficiently higher on the Kardashev's scale can effortlessly destroy the other, making it an objective value metric in the universe.
Bits are of course necessary for organizing large-scale energy and matter manipulation - but efficiency can never go above 100%. Transport switched from manually planned transport routes to optimally solving the traveling salesman problem (NP completeness doesn't mean it can't be solved efficiently for real world problems, see eg. Gurobi) - significant gains from planning are over.
Right now, global energy shortage is directly visible: coal shortage and electricity rationing in China. Total blackout in Lebanon. Gas shortage in Europe. Coal shortage in India.
Without a massive increase in energy production, rest of 21st century is going to return to the pre-industrial norm of ~zero economic growth per capita.
https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/108875635/hew020f... from "Six centuries of British economic growth: a time-series perspective" https://academic.oup.com/ereh/article/21/2/141/3044162
* - without going into fundamentals of physics that make them all, eventually, equivalent
Bits are of course necessary for organizing large-scale energy and matter manipulation - but efficiency can never go above 100%. Transport switched from manually planned transport routes to optimally solving the traveling salesman problem (NP completeness doesn't mean it can't be solved efficiently for real world problems, see eg. Gurobi) - significant gains from planning are over.
Right now, global energy shortage is directly visible: coal shortage and electricity rationing in China. Total blackout in Lebanon. Gas shortage in Europe. Coal shortage in India.
Without a massive increase in energy production, rest of 21st century is going to return to the pre-industrial norm of ~zero economic growth per capita.
https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/108875635/hew020f... from "Six centuries of British economic growth: a time-series perspective" https://academic.oup.com/ereh/article/21/2/141/3044162
* - without going into fundamentals of physics that make them all, eventually, equivalent
Fortunately, such guys are not physicists.
I see all these posts and comments talking about productivity and the problem being the growth of productivity. Productivity wasn't ever a problem. Productivity has definitely increased. The problem is who or what benefits from it. My layman hypothesis is that a lot of created value has been thesaurized.
The problem with increasing productivity is that one consumption stops keeping up, it kicks off a bad spiral:
spending/productity goes down
labor income goes down
spending goes down (rich people save much more)
spending/productivity goes down
...
In principle, this can continue until the now-overkill old (physical) capital falls apart, and perhaps knowledge that went with it, and living amidst ruins, spending/productivity stabilizes again.
spending/productity goes down
labor income goes down
spending goes down (rich people save much more)
spending/productivity goes down
...
In principle, this can continue until the now-overkill old (physical) capital falls apart, and perhaps knowledge that went with it, and living amidst ruins, spending/productivity stabilizes again.
Thesaurized means “hoarded” for anyone else wondering :)
that's right. I didn't mean to make it sound fancy. The same term exists in my native tongue and it's the preferred term in the context of economics.
We could have had Mars colonies and flying cars in the 1980s. But we have chosen instead to Dull Our Senses With Valium. Oversaturate the "intellectual" labor market via some hastily approved dissertations that told us things we already knew, so that perhaps R&D funding could be directed towards the discovery of a new brain altering molecule not found in Nature. You saw to it that hundreds of cohorts of strong soldiers were paid in tax dollars for two decades securing the region where the majority of the worlds opium poppies grow ("democracy implementation"). Seventeen years before the Chernobyl/Challenger explosion, a generation of Brood X Cicada emerged after a battle group of impressively engineered UH-1 Huey Gunships dispersed Agent Orange all over the Lungs Of The Earth (but not the Strategic Rubber Trees necessary for Your Car Culture). Virtual reality has provided the healthcare for thousands of people who keep their warm bodies at a desk creating a fake world for someone to "experience" in the "safety" of their Climate Controlled Box. This very moment, a digital animator is getting paid Greater Than or Equal to the salary of a plumber, electrician, carpenter, welder, or robotics engineer to draw some aliens and spaceships, all day long, telling an imaginative story filled with information that adds nothing useful to the knowledge pool of an audience. "Art".
Every time you see litter strewn about a parking lot, or a tent city under a bridge - remember that "squalor" is an attitude and independent of the amount of digits in your bank account. It happens because you let it, because you don't care or are too frightened to do something about it. You don't want to "Hurt Someone's Feelings With Discipline". These scenes are stains on the society you have neglected, but you can afford to fly over it and escape to personal bunkers as a "life hack" to avoid the decay we are now enduring. Take The Money And Run. "Someone else's problem".
Most of your "millionaires" just have amplified versions of what most people need to function in this society. Low-brow envy provocation. If you need a house, they will have at least one and it will be bigger than yours. If you need a car, they will have allocated to themselves an entire fleet (can you drive more than one at a time?) that goes faster than you (speed equally limited in shared congestion of neglected infrastructure). If you need a mate, they are going to flex as advertisement of all their possessions to attract as many as possible. Lipstick on a Pig. You are worshipping simple tools like cars [0], phones [1], and clothes [2].
Your civilization's treasury is being raided by children's minds in adult bodies, whose guardians planted them inside the greenhouse so that they would be sheltered from the winds and waves [3].
Strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times. Hard Times Create Strong Men.
You do not possess a culture worth spreading. Perhaps you will inherit the Earth, but your filthy ideals will not contaminate Mars.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWMpHc77qNI
[1] https://www.youthfeed.org/mobile/most-expensive-phone/
[2] https://poshmark.com/listing/GUCCI-DOUBLE-BREASTED-SUIT-NWT-...
[3] https://youtu.be/1FjOIqSuhO8?t=679
Tyler Durden's Rubber Band
Every time you see litter strewn about a parking lot, or a tent city under a bridge - remember that "squalor" is an attitude and independent of the amount of digits in your bank account. It happens because you let it, because you don't care or are too frightened to do something about it. You don't want to "Hurt Someone's Feelings With Discipline". These scenes are stains on the society you have neglected, but you can afford to fly over it and escape to personal bunkers as a "life hack" to avoid the decay we are now enduring. Take The Money And Run. "Someone else's problem".
Most of your "millionaires" just have amplified versions of what most people need to function in this society. Low-brow envy provocation. If you need a house, they will have at least one and it will be bigger than yours. If you need a car, they will have allocated to themselves an entire fleet (can you drive more than one at a time?) that goes faster than you (speed equally limited in shared congestion of neglected infrastructure). If you need a mate, they are going to flex as advertisement of all their possessions to attract as many as possible. Lipstick on a Pig. You are worshipping simple tools like cars [0], phones [1], and clothes [2].
Your civilization's treasury is being raided by children's minds in adult bodies, whose guardians planted them inside the greenhouse so that they would be sheltered from the winds and waves [3].
Strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times. Hard Times Create Strong Men.
You do not possess a culture worth spreading. Perhaps you will inherit the Earth, but your filthy ideals will not contaminate Mars.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWMpHc77qNI
[1] https://www.youthfeed.org/mobile/most-expensive-phone/
[2] https://poshmark.com/listing/GUCCI-DOUBLE-BREASTED-SUIT-NWT-...
[3] https://youtu.be/1FjOIqSuhO8?t=679
Tyler Durden's Rubber Band
[deleted]
Some of the best talent is working hard to make the world a better place… at Facebook.
No wonder why society hasn’t transformed into a solarpunk utopia
No wonder why society hasn’t transformed into a solarpunk utopia
Because when spending is insufficient the prop up employment, money flows to advertising to squeeze out every last bit of demand, rather than productive capacity so supply can keep up with demand.
[deleted]
I grew up watching the original Star Trek series in reruns in the 1970’s.
2021 is not what I imagined.
Back to the Future 2 took place in 2015
Blade Runner was 2019
So, I’d say we all expected quite a bit more.
The world changed much more in the 50 years before I was born than 50 years after
Something definitely went wrong somewhere