Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

So true. There's two types of research; one that builds upon prior knowledge to new conclusions, and another that undermines everything previous to be incorrect or incomplete. The first is done by your average PhD in Physics, for example, while the latter was Einstein and then Heisenberg, Planck, and Born.

While someone can be successful in the latter kind (undermining previous knowledge) through a fresh new hypothesis, the former kind of research, and the more common kind, requires understanding everything prior and reaching the current point of knowledge in that field. It's become increasingly hard, as evidenced by the increasing number of years of education it takes to master a subject.

Thing is, it doesn't seem to pay, at least in the employment market.

Employers want specialists, and pay for them. If your CV is two or three distinct things (I don't mean a selection of languages, or front and back end dev here, I mean distinct skills like say programming and accountancy) it's very unlikely to get you a better salary.

In fact if you've diverged from a straight specialism throughout your career it's probable you'll be punished with a lower salary, and problems getting hired in the first place. Expect a lot of challenging interview questions as to why you haven't followed a straight line from junior, through senior into project management (which of course is a different skill, making this even more inconsistent).

I'm sure those same disparate skills could be hugely useful if you're starting a business or startup, but for employment it's likely to make life harder, even though many employers would benefit just as much from your increased breadth of perspective.

So outside a few rare employers, and a few lucky applicants, I don't think there's much out there for generalists, sadly.

It takes 50,000 hours of productive practice to master a trade or study. Who has the time to accomplish three of these?

I know this is true from my own experience.

I'm quite happy to admit (it's kind of self-evident) that criticism is easier than building. It's a known known now that our economy does end in catastrophe - the collapse of ecosystems (on which all life, ours included, depend) is happening apace, is entirely well-documented, and barely starts to be addressed by shifts to renewables. That's mostly limited to power generation, and in any case climate collapse is only one amongst thousands of ecosystem challenges.

Knowing, as we do, that an ever-expanding economy leads to global collapse doesn't imply that we know the fix. I don't. Personally I doubt there is one. I think nothing in H. Sapiens' evolutionary inheritance empowers it with the attributes necessary to manage a global civilisation.

> besides a "holier than thou" vibe.

If you get that vibe from me, that's just my inadequate communication. I'm neither claiming to live better personally (which is anyway just more consumerist narcissism), nor to have a blueprint for a sustainable global civilisation (which would make me a towering genius).

The only claim I'd make here is that I'm not in denial about physical reality (which economists and most business people are).

> And can you blame the poor for wishing for a better life?

The poor aren't the problem. The rich are. Adequate food and shelter could be achieved without trashing our home. Endless expansion of consumption cannot.

> can it really be neurotic when it's the culmination of seven billion individuals actions

It's not. There's such a thing as culture - human 'individual' actions have systemic causes. A culture of ever-increasing consumption is neurotic. It replaces the essential (functioning ecosystems) for the trivial (expanding consumer consumption).