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

Protopia

kevinkelly.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: Protopia

#11

Post by ClipBGNET »

koliber wrote: post #5

I’ve been mulling a congruent idea. When we think about goals we usually imagine a static end state. 75 kg body weight. 1,000,000 USD in my bank account. A happy life. We try to define the goals using units and aim for them. This is fine in most cases. It’s a way of thinking that is based around a static goal. But life is dynamic. More recently I started thinking of having dynamic goals. Instead of a body weight goal…

In software architecture, we often learn this exact lesson the hard way. Building a system optimized for a single, static perfect end-state almost always results in a fragile codebase.

The most resilient systems aren't built to reach a final form.They are built to be highly observable and easy to pivot when requirements inevitably change. Optimizing for adaptability (what you call dynamic goals) is far more valuable than optimizing for a fixed milestone. It's fascinating to see this engineering principle applied so perfectly to personal life.

Re: Protopia

#12

Post by koliber »

sph wrote: post #8
koliber wrote: post #5

I’ve been mulling a congruent idea. When we think about goals we usually imagine a static end state. 75 kg body weight. 1,000,000 USD in my bank account. A happy life. We try to define the goals using units and aim for them. This is fine in most cases. It’s a way of thinking that is based around a static goal. But life is dynamic. More recently I started thinking of having dynamic goals. Instead of a body weight goal…

A few notes about your comment, that I feel is well-meaning but carries a lot of common misconceptions: - aiming for an end goal is not fine in most cases, it is simply a very common, terrible idea. You need a process, not a goal. "Journey over destination", yadda yadda - 99% of human behaviour is governed by processes we call habits. Operating on the habit system is the key to long-term behavioural change, but one a…

Appreciate your thoughts. I think if we sat down and talked we would agree on a lot of things.

re: end goals: in most cases, you still need an end goal in mind in order to craft a process that will get you there. In the end, it is the process that matters and the goal is there only for measuring progress and adjusting course. However, a single process for a single goal is not enough in a dynamic changing world. You need a way of being able to react and adjust or even drastically change the process.

re: habits. Again, fully agree given a static goal. But if the circumstances change, the existing habits might no longer serve you. You need to be able to adjust habits.

re: hyper-rational. This is my style. I find that I can think, explain, and execute mechanically more effectively. It's practical. Deep down, there is a philosophy behind this, but I have a hard time explaining and applying philosophy.

Re: Protopia

#13

Post by Telemakhos »

forestrywat wrote: post #6

This sure suggests that we're all choosing to build this dystopia we're trending towards. I agree very much with the idea that we should be making the world better little by little, but better... better for who? Who benefits is a genuinely important question to answer. I believe "better for most", which means using our wealth to lift up many. Others believe "better for me" or "better for my tribe" or "better for my n…

There’s an unquestioned assumption underlying “using our wealth to lift up many,” namely that wealth lifts people up. A great deal of money has long been thrown at social problems that remain unsolved. Another way to look at it is that self-control lifts people up, and the accumulation or dissipation of wealth is consequent upon self-control. Pro athletes and lottery winners who never learned to manage budgets growing up tend to run through their money quickly and end up poor again because they lack the self-control needed to maintain and accumulate wealth. Having or lacking money is a result, not a cause; changing the consequent without addressing what is antecedent to the consequent will not result in lasting change.

Re: Protopia

#14

Post by sph »

koliber wrote: post #12
sph wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few notes about your comment, that I feel is well-meaning but carries a lot of common misconceptions: - aiming for an end goal is not fine in most cases, it is simply a very common, terrible idea. You need a process, not a goal. "Journey over destination", yadda yadda - 99% of human behaviour is governed by processes we call habits. Operating on the habit system is the key to long-term behavioural change, but one a…

Appreciate your thoughts. I think if we sat down and talked we would agree on a lot of things. re: end goals: in most cases, you still need an end goal in mind in order to craft a process that will get you there. In the end, it is the process that matters and the goal is there only for measuring progress and adjusting course. However, a single process for a single goal is not enough in a dynamic changing world. You n…

Agreed on most things, but it’s worth remembering why we have habits: because it’s much less energy-intensive, and brains are energy minimizer machines. It takes a lot of energy and effort to adopt a new habit. The philosophy angle is to remind one we are not machines and we will never be. The healthiest approach is to work with the grain (of our brain lol), not against it.

Thanks for the gratifying discussion

Re: Protopia

#15

Post by Avicebron »

Telemakhos wrote: post #13
forestrywat wrote: post #6

This sure suggests that we're all choosing to build this dystopia we're trending towards. I agree very much with the idea that we should be making the world better little by little, but better... better for who? Who benefits is a genuinely important question to answer. I believe "better for most", which means using our wealth to lift up many. Others believe "better for me" or "better for my tribe" or "better for my n…

There’s an unquestioned assumption underlying “using our wealth to lift up many,” namely that wealth lifts people up. A great deal of money has long been thrown at social problems that remain unsolved. Another way to look at it is that self-control lifts people up, and the accumulation or dissipation of wealth is consequent upon self-control. Pro athletes and lottery winners who never learned to manage budgets growin…

Ah yes the old "structural failing is actually a moral failing of the losers".

If you care to educate yourself so the rest of us aren't just snickering behind our hands next time you speak. Read Watts, Duncan, and Quan (2018), and Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, and Zhao about how poverty extracts "self-control". Or even just Webber's theodicy of fortune.

Re: Protopia

#16

Post by ShinyLeftPad »

bko wrote: post #10
ang_cire wrote: post #7

I like how the author defines dystopia as > reckless uprisings, a long dark age, the collapse of institutions, climate disasters, a black mirror of stunted humanity descending into chaos. rather than the much more common understanding or portrayals like 1984 or Handmaid's Tale, which in fact feature incredibly, overly -strong institutions, and a tyrannical lack of autonomy (so not a whole lot of 'reckless uprisings')…

> mass surveillance I hear this complaint here a lot and I guess there are more cameras, but arrests have gone down in absolute terms in the US despite growing population. > The total number of arrests in the U.S. fell sharply in 2020 during pandemic-driven shifts in public activity and enforcement—and it has changed little since then. The 2024 arrest total was 25% lower than in 2019, the year before the pandemic, an…

Is that reduction attributable to something like people fearing police state, you know with ICE shooting people and stuff

Re: Protopia

#17

Post by [deleted] »

forestrywat wrote: post #6

This sure suggests that we're all choosing to build this dystopia we're trending towards. I agree very much with the idea that we should be making the world better little by little, but better... better for who? Who benefits is a genuinely important question to answer. I believe "better for most", which means using our wealth to lift up many. Others believe "better for me" or "better for my tribe" or "better for my n…

[deleted]

Re: Protopia

#18

Post by jfengel »

forestrywat wrote: post #6

This sure suggests that we're all choosing to build this dystopia we're trending towards. I agree very much with the idea that we should be making the world better little by little, but better... better for who? Who benefits is a genuinely important question to answer. I believe "better for most", which means using our wealth to lift up many. Others believe "better for me" or "better for my tribe" or "better for my n…

Ideally, it's less "redistribute billionaires' wealth" so much as "figure out what parts of the system allow some people to accumulate money orders of magnitude more than the effort they've put in, and tune them to allow anyone who works to afford a comfortable life".

As it is, money makes money, while effort alone makes barely enough to scrape by (or not even that much). There are many, many paths to fix it, and they don't need to simply move the money around. There are assumptions that deserve more consideration, and they can lead to better results.

Re: Protopia

#19

Post by wartywhoa23 »

bko wrote: post #10
ang_cire wrote: post #7

I like how the author defines dystopia as > reckless uprisings, a long dark age, the collapse of institutions, climate disasters, a black mirror of stunted humanity descending into chaos. rather than the much more common understanding or portrayals like 1984 or Handmaid's Tale, which in fact feature incredibly, overly -strong institutions, and a tyrannical lack of autonomy (so not a whole lot of 'reckless uprisings')…

> mass surveillance I hear this complaint here a lot and I guess there are more cameras, but arrests have gone down in absolute terms in the US despite growing population. > The total number of arrests in the U.S. fell sharply in 2020 during pandemic-driven shifts in public activity and enforcement—and it has changed little since then. The 2024 arrest total was 25% lower than in 2019, the year before the pandemic, an…

>> D[r]one warfare

> Isn't this better than boots on the ground?

The answer to this question depends on whether you firsthand experienced sleepless nights in a city when drones fly directly over your house while you wait for them do dive or get missile defenced into it, a neighbour's house, or somewhere else, and then hear explosions and wait for the morning news to learn how many people died this night, to such little grief in news' comments it makes you wonder if there is any hope for this humankind at all.

Re: Protopia

#20

Post by boxed »

bko wrote: post #10
ang_cire wrote: post #7

I like how the author defines dystopia as > reckless uprisings, a long dark age, the collapse of institutions, climate disasters, a black mirror of stunted humanity descending into chaos. rather than the much more common understanding or portrayals like 1984 or Handmaid's Tale, which in fact feature incredibly, overly -strong institutions, and a tyrannical lack of autonomy (so not a whole lot of 'reckless uprisings')…

> mass surveillance I hear this complaint here a lot and I guess there are more cameras, but arrests have gone down in absolute terms in the US despite growing population. > The total number of arrests in the U.S. fell sharply in 2020 during pandemic-driven shifts in public activity and enforcement—and it has changed little since then. The 2024 arrest total was 25% lower than in 2019, the year before the pandemic, an…

> > Economic decline

> The middle class is shrinking, but the upper and upper-middle is growing.

Growing is size maybe, but the middle and lower classes are both getting much richer.

Post reply on HN