Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Continuous growth is cancer

christianheilmann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 133 posts

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#11

Post by flangola7 »

roenxi wrote: post #7

I'd challenge the idea that this is unsustainable because of the specific system. Entropy and resource limits mean whatever we do is unsustainable under any system as far as we tell, both theoretically and in practical timespans. Nobody seems to have an argument for where the physical resources will come from, or how we deal with exponential population growth without just having regular famines (even worse than losin…

The rest of the ecosystem is not benefited by humans being cancer. Humans are not benefited by obliterating biodiversity, although they may not have felt many of its effects yet.

Growth is not inherently good, uncontrolled growth is certainly not.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#12

Post by gtop3 »

softwaredoug wrote: post #6

“Growth” at the individual level has become a euphemism It really means extrinsic motivation. It means being willing to play the game to hit whatever milestones are laid out for you. To push yourself for those milestones to reach a reward. Not because those goals are intrinsically rewarding - but because you want to demonstrate what you need for promotion or raise. If the goals were intrinsically rewarding, we would…

"Growth" isn't a euphemism for extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is a broader term than the way you are using it. A person can be extrinsically motivated to not smoke, to be charitable, or countless other behaviors that would generally be spoken about in a more positive connotation than my parent comment's tone.

Some psychology books, and some individuals, put a moral spin on their favorite type of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic). The truth is both can lead to healthy and unhealthy behavior.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#13

Post by gruez »

flangola7 wrote: post #11
roenxi wrote: post #7

I'd challenge the idea that this is unsustainable because of the specific system. Entropy and resource limits mean whatever we do is unsustainable under any system as far as we tell, both theoretically and in practical timespans. Nobody seems to have an argument for where the physical resources will come from, or how we deal with exponential population growth without just having regular famines (even worse than losin…

The rest of the ecosystem is not benefited by humans being cancer. Humans are not benefited by obliterating biodiversity, although they may not have felt many of its effects yet. Growth is not inherently good, uncontrolled growth is certainly not.

>Growth is not inherently good, uncontrolled growth is certainly not.

That's a nice soundbite, but what does that translate into in terms of actual policy? Do we cap growth at 2% or whatever and call it a day?

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#14

Post by gruez »

breck wrote: post #8

> starting to feel that the system is incredibly flawed It is! To this day the vast profits in tech are generated by (c)opywrong laws, which make no sense, and are downright evil—because poor kids get access to crap information even though we have the technology to get humanity's best information to everyone. There are some people that have exploited these bad laws, like BG (see his 1976 letter^1) and have made vast…

>To this day the vast profits in tech are generated by (c)opywrong laws, which make no sense, and are downright evil—because poor kids get access to crap information even though we have the technology to get humanity's best information to everyone.

How is "poor kids get access to crap information" due to copyright? Access to good learning resources (eg. khan academy) is easier than ever.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#15

Post by gruez »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #3

I find it hard not to fully agree with this article. Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? To comment on the writing: that title is genius.

>Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets),

Seeing how communist regimes aren't exactly practicing degrowth, I think it's more accurate to say it's a human obsession.

>we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount?

Ostensibly companies aren't hiring for the sake of headcount. What they're actually after is market dominance, which can be obtained by building a better product, which require people.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#16

Post by rTX5CMRXIfFG »

gruez wrote: post #15
rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #3

I find it hard not to fully agree with this article. Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? To comment on the writing: that title is genius.

>Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), Seeing how communist regimes aren't exactly practicing degrowth, I think it's more accurate to say it's a human obsession. >we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? Ostensibly companies…

No argument about the point on communism, but as regards the headcount--I was referring to what I've seen mentioned more than a few times in HN comments where, apparently, FAANGs or some teams therein have engineering manager positions where the size of the team that one leads greatly translates to that employee's success (perceived or real) in the company. It's also a good number to look at for recruiters when said managers start applying for jobs elsewhere.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#17

Post by Rury »

monero-xmr wrote: post #10

Productivity is the only way wealth is created. From 99% employed farming to 1% employed farming, but using technology to make this possible. This is why we have wealth - we can all get more of our needs fulfilled, because fulfilling those needs requires less inputs (labor, time, physical elements). This is such a fundamental and all-encompassing truth it is sad more people never grasp it. Capitalism is but one way t…

I don't think it has anything to do with the type of human organization really. Rather, it's really just a matter of the wills of people, and whether they have access to capital.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#18

Post by gruez »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #16
gruez wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), Seeing how communist regimes aren't exactly practicing degrowth, I think it's more accurate to say it's a human obsession. >we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? Ostensibly companies…

No argument about the point on communism, but as regards the headcount--I was referring to what I've seen mentioned more than a few times in HN comments where, apparently, FAANGs or some teams therein have engineering manager positions where the size of the team that one leads greatly translates to that employee's success (perceived or real) in the company. It's also a good number to look at for recruiters when said…

>I was referring to what I've seen mentioned more than a few times in HN comments where, apparently, FAANGs or some teams therein have engineering manager positions where the size of the team that one leads greatly translates to that employee's success (perceived or real) in the company

How does that translate into tech companies overhiring? Even if managers want more people on their team for progression purposes, they can't exactly expand their team to whatever size they want. They're subject to budgets set by finance.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#19

Post by mxkopy »

gruez wrote: post #13
flangola7 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of the ecosystem is not benefited by humans being cancer. Humans are not benefited by obliterating biodiversity, although they may not have felt many of its effects yet. Growth is not inherently good, uncontrolled growth is certainly not.

>Growth is not inherently good, uncontrolled growth is certainly not. That's a nice soundbite, but what does that translate into in terms of actual policy? Do we cap growth at 2% or whatever and call it a day?

Most if not all of our social problems can be solved with enough education. If you're the type of person to read census data for fun you'll probably not want to have kids. If you're exposed to the liberal arts continuously throughout your life, you're less likely to take metrics at face value. The system is just like any other: you put garbage in it, and you'll get garbage out of it.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#20

Post by scottLobster »

xyzelement wrote: post #9
softwaredoug wrote: post #6

“Growth” at the individual level has become a euphemism It really means extrinsic motivation. It means being willing to play the game to hit whatever milestones are laid out for you. To push yourself for those milestones to reach a reward. Not because those goals are intrinsically rewarding - but because you want to demonstrate what you need for promotion or raise. If the goals were intrinsically rewarding, we would…

In my experience, the "goals" you hit are really capabilities. Can you design bigger systems? Can you lead bigger teams? Can you define winning strategy? Those aren't artificial milestones, they are real things (eg, you'd need them if you ran your own company) and growing from someone who "can't" to someone who "can" is exhilarating.

Maybe in an ideal world, but in my experience most corporate "goals" are just "influential" people playing political games with minimal if any real-world productivity attached. They might as well be playing Monopoly but with real money. None of them ever get fired even in abject, catestrophic failure. The only "capability" for them to cultivate is convincing enough other influential people to give them resources through various political means so that they have the biggest chair when the music stops or they retire. It's largely up the ICs to produce the "real things" as best they can given circumstances foisted upon them.

Maybe at some companies "designing bigger systems", "leading bigger teams" and "defining winning strategy" is correlated with said resource extraction, but that's all. The moment those capabilities aren't in sync with resource extraction, they become worthless. The ideal company abuses its workers and robs its customers, and will get as close to that ideal as it's allowed. It's only force of popular will that keeps that in check, and the rare decent person who makes it into leadership.

Post reply on HN