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

51–60 of 133 posts

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#51

Post by classified »

scottLobster wrote: post #20
xyzelement wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thro…

As much as I hate to hear it, what you describe is all too common.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#53

Post by greenyoda »

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.

> Can you design bigger systems?

Bigger systems don't necessarily meet customer needs better than smaller systems. They may just contain a lot of extraneous complexity.

> Can you lead bigger teams?

Bigger teams don't necessarily accomplish more than small, focused teams. The more people on the team, the higher the communication overhead, and the harder it is to maintain "conceptual integrity" in the product. Brooks described these issues in The Mythical Man-Month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

If employees get rewarded for building bigger systems and leading bigger teams, they'll have a bias toward doing those things ("empire building"), even when they may be against the better interest of the company and its customers.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#54

Post by greenyoda »

gruez wrote: post #14
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.

> Access to good learning resources (eg. khan academy)

There's also the whole world of free software. Any kid or school that can afford an old PC and an internet connection can install Linux for free and use all the free software that runs on it. We live in a golden age of cheap computers and free software.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#55

Post by wizofaus »

corbulo wrote: post #48
wizofaus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Future generations also deserve life liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness and fulfill their potential surely. The issue would not so much seem to be "continuous" growth but unfettered growth (as per a narrow set of metrics) now that potentially destroys the chances of our children and grand children enjoying the benefits of that growth. If it's necessary to make decisions to dampen (or even suspend) growth…

Who should be the authority on good growth vs. bad growth? Should this extend to caps on individual wealth aswell? Who should decide how rich people can get AND how much growth can happen? Seems like you're just changing masters.

There's nothing inherently special about the type of growth that tends to be focused on currently - it just happens to be what we've already got mechanisms in place to measure and requires relatively minimal effort to maintain. If a democratically elected government can, with the advice of appropriate experts, develop better metrics for measuring growth and determining its long term viability, how is that a bad thing?

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#57

Post by fzeroracer »

deafpolygon wrote: post #28

Says growth is bad, layoff sucks, then: > If you agree and you’re looking for a technical lead in your company, “check me out on LinkedIn” I mean, what company is gonna want to hire someone who thinks growth and expansion is bad.

Companies that can reach a happy equilibrium?

Consider the following: Valve software is a tiny company in comparison to any other company out there, yet they make steady revenue. Do you think Valve could be in a better spot if instead they spent all of their money on rapidly growing their business?

The fact that Valve is a private company and not completely beholden to the endless growth that companies prioritize means it can do things other companies cannot.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#58

Post by corbulo »

wizofaus wrote: post #55
corbulo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who should be the authority on good growth vs. bad growth? Should this extend to caps on individual wealth aswell? Who should decide how rich people can get AND how much growth can happen? Seems like you're just changing masters.

There's nothing inherently special about the type of growth that tends to be focused on currently - it just happens to be what we've already got mechanisms in place to measure and requires relatively minimal effort to maintain. If a democratically elected government can, with the advice of appropriate experts, develop better metrics for measuring growth and determining its long term viability, how is that a bad thing…

You're saying Joe Biden or Trump or Kamala Harris should have the ultimate authority over growth? Those are the people you trust to cap human potential?

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#59

Post by corbulo »

kilgnad wrote: post #41
corbulo wrote: post #29

Continuous growth is necessary to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If there cannot be continuous growth, who becomes the arbiter of human potential? People who call growth cancer? You can't be serious.

Growth itself is not cancer. Growth that never ends is cancer, because it eventually consumes all available resources in the system. I mean this is raw inescapable logic, there's no argument against this. There's an alternative way. A simpler life. The term for it is called equilibrium. It's not a bad way of life. It's very hollywoody but essentially the movie Avatar is sort of a window the essential nature of what a…

How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation?

If someone comes up with a new technology that will give us the ability to colonize the galaxy, or quantum teleport, or have years long battery life, should it be thrown away for being too disruptive to the 'equilibrium'?

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#60

Post by 411111111111111 »

waffletower wrote: post #50

“I´d like to share a revelation that I´ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way can survive is t…

While it's a funny quote it couldn't be further from the truth.

All mammals will do this, modern society is just significantly more successful at it.

Post reply on HN