pull down to refresh

Technology gives us more for less, but what if we already have too much?
Endless food and entertainment options are making us sick (physically + mentally), and making more at lower costs won't help.
Those are two domains where you could argue the challenge of "scaling" is already solved.
Now the question is how do we deal with the abundance when we're programmed for a world of scarcity?
173 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 8h
At least at this stage of human development, hardship is not hard to come by.
I haven't had much hardship in my life, but the two or three serious hardships have usually resulted in growth and good things in my life.
I don't think that over-abundance is too much of an issue really. Most people will have challenges presented to them through the rough edges of life.
Perhaps the thing that our relative abundance can do for us is teach is to see to the challenges we do face as valuable events.
reply
I think we're making the wrong tradeoffs, more so than just having too much in general.
reply
25 sats \ 5 replies \ @kr OP 9h
What trade-offs should we be making instead?
reply
I think it's just a different framing of your point.
We're overconsuming things that make us unwell. There isn't too much food, for instance. Plenty of people go without adequate nutrition and they'd be better off if we weren't bidding it away from them.
Consuming less of those things would allow us to enjoy higher quality goods of the same kind, different kinds of goods, more leisure time, and/or save more.
There's no universal right answer, but properly valuing one's wellbeing would lead to changes like that.
reply
56 sats \ 3 replies \ @kr OP 9h
It seems like we've nearly eliminated famine, probably aided by the popularization of shipping containers in the 1960s.
While there is still substantial malnutrition in the world, it's going to be hard to parse through that data to figure out how much of it is people struggling to find food vs. people choosing to eat food that isn't nutritious.
But looking at the total number of calories the world produces each year, we certainly have enough to give all 8 billion people the 2,000 or so that they need (though distribution still needs some work). This wasn't the case until ~50 years ago.
reply
You might be interested in the book Poor Economics, if want to understand what kinds of tradeoffs are being made by the global poor. It's a heavily studied area and it's quite interesting.
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlokchainB 35m
Adding this to my reading list. Just bought a used copy on Amazon for $5
reply
I’ll be curious what you think about it. I remember it as being pretty eye opening.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @adlai 7h
I think we need a complete inversion of reasoning, similar to how I rub most entrepeneurs the wrong way because I'm from the "data is a liability" camp, rather than "data is the new oil" or whatever The Economist sold you.
The important number isn't two thousand calories per day; it's how much you excrete, excrude, and expel per financial quarter, and whether the resulting output gets used in any intelligent way. Industrial capitalism profits this problem away by seeing that the firsthand consumer paid for goods this week, and thus producing some amount of goods to sell the next; and urban civilisation copes with the individual productions by providing various waste management services. So I'm not too pressingly worried about industrial capitalism and its future, if you'll excuse the reference...
However, our thinking is still lacks the holistic perspective. We're still chasing the two thousand calories, rather than asking ourselves, "am I giving the world some good shit?"
reply
reply
Abundance of bad food is like abundance of toxic waste in your garden.
Scaling by sacrificing quality is easy (and profitable, if you can get away with it.) The challenge is to scale without making that sacrifice, in the face of insatiable greed.
We don't have enough of the right stuff.
reply
There is a lot of very low quality food about- and its very hard to avoid it- I have to consciously resist the junk food that is heavily promoted and presented. If you can, grow your own as much as possible. As for entertainment it is more available than ever before for a lower price if not almost free but again an effort needs to be made to consume quality rather than quantity. Yes technology has delivered abundance but also a lot of junk- it takes an effort to a void the junk.
reply
People consuming "endless food" is not a problem of there being too much food, but a problem within those people.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @lunanto 4h
Abundance is a double-edged sword. Food and entertainment overload are real problems. Maybe it's about building new habits, like intentional scarcity, to reclaim balance
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @brave 4h
This hits deep. We've solved for more, but now we're drowning in it. I wonder if the answer lies in redefining enough - like, how do we train ourselves to embrace limits in a world pushing excess?
reply
I think one must be very clear about his values and priorities. Like he decides what shows to indulge in on Netflix and for how long - and sticks to it and doesn’t feel FOMO about not watching other shows. Remembering the adage “you can do everything, just not all at the same time” might help with grounding oneself. In other words, don’t be greedy!
reply
Beauty lies in the eyes of beholder. It's upto the intelligent we use to utilizes resources and materials. Depending on the circumstances I think we can decide on scarcity and abundance in nature. Well that's want I believe and it's a great Post!
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @fred 8h
We already at capacity in some industry. So much that scaling will be setting a death sentence but the human mind knows no boundary and the need to innovate and find loopholes is where he excel at is what his good at.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @adlai 7h
the human mind knows no boundary
nah we humans are bounded; you must be thinking of Boltzmann Brains.
reply