I like the phrase "financial gravity" as a way to frame the phenomenon in a way that avoids the darker (and broader) connotations of "corruption". At Humanitix we spend a lot of time thinking about this, and have much respect for the likes of Patagonia, Thank You, and others. We took the "charity path" so to speak, which has been both challenging and rewarding. Watching OpenAI's charity orbit decay into IPO fireball has been somewhat depressing, but I think it highlights one of the keys to our own continued success in resisting the pull; we don't need much in the way "capital" from the "ism". We don't need to build data centres, or produce and warehouse goods.
Having said that I don't mean it to undermine your points of "strong ethos". Simply existing in the tech world as a charity takes great strength of ethos. Try explaining to AWS that you should be eligible for "start up credits", but no, you don't have "investors" to prove you're going to the moon.
So I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that so few other companies have tried low-overhead tech start ups as charities. The ecosystem works against it in many ways, but it has become one of our missions to prove that it can work as a business model.
Anyway, thanks for the book (and this thread). I'll be passing it around on the work Slack.
I see a lot of "complexity is inherent to existence" type comments. They aren't wrong, but they show that OP's phenomenology could use a little frame work, so to speak. "We've made the world too complicated" could be fairly seen as "complexity is something humans expressed under specific conditions". Not saying we should always strip agency from the discussion (lest we slip into nihilism), but I think it's fair to frame the complexity as a material condition in which we live, rather than something that recedes if you "look at the birbs".
If you can make peace with that, you might then perceive that while all material conditions are complex, it's our existence within them that's fraught. I'd suggest that the discomfort you feel is from inhabiting conditions that change faster than competence can be transmitted across generations. Pre-modern humans (and other animals) didn't experience this (as often, or as intensely at least) because their conditions changed at evolutionary speed. We used to grow up in the same world as our grand parents. Now our parent's lessons are obsolete before we're born, and we're left to cast around for certainty that only comes with generational adaptation. That's almost the definition of anxiety. Thankfully, looking at birds can actually help deal with anxious thoughts!
I like the phrase "financial gravity" as a way to frame the phenomenon in a way that avoids the darker (and broader) connotations of "corruption". At Humanitix we spend a lot of time thinking about this, and have much respect for the likes of Patagonia, Thank You, and others. We took the "charity path" so to speak, which has been both challenging and rewarding. Watching OpenAI's charity orbit decay into IPO fireball has been somewhat depressing, but I think it highlights one of the keys to our own continued success in resisting the pull; we don't need much in the way "capital" from the "ism". We don't need to build data centres, or produce and warehouse goods.
Having said that I don't mean it to undermine your points of "strong ethos". Simply existing in the tech world as a charity takes great strength of ethos. Try explaining to AWS that you should be eligible for "start up credits", but no, you don't have "investors" to prove you're going to the moon.
So I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that so few other companies have tried low-overhead tech start ups as charities. The ecosystem works against it in many ways, but it has become one of our missions to prove that it can work as a business model.
Anyway, thanks for the book (and this thread). I'll be passing it around on the work Slack.