I dream of a world where we try to solve problems first and monetize them second, and I don't mean growth hacking.
> It’s Y Combinator’s world, and we’re all invested in it.
There are many people who resent this world. I'd like to live in a world where success isn't measured by money.
That said, money is a focus for companies as it is a measure of resources and scale. Without money, a company can’t survive or grow, and with it, it can do more of its “solving problems” work for more people.
I really don’t see any truly successful people or companies focusing on money beyond that.
I dream of a world where we don’t create solutions, such as blockchain, and then try to find the problem.
We have no way to know if the other general recieved the message, we can only know that the block chain has committed it.
This is the same as a forum or a blog post. We can make a post, but we don't know if the our other party read it.
If the "enemy" army cut off internet access to one general after it responds to attack, even if a message is committed into a block chain, only one general is attacking at first light.
But I'd rather live today than in hunter gatherer times, even though they were materially more equal.
"Why not modern life with less inequality?" Well because growing the pie and splitting the pie are competing drivers. If Elon musk weren't already obscenely wealthy, he wouldn't have been able to execute against space x. I'd rather live in a world where Musk is worth a quarter of a trillion dollars than in one where we didn't have Space X.
It doesn't have to be a solvable problem to be the best way to measure success.
Your working definitions of "best" and "worst" still seem to be about net worth. If money isn't the measure of success, the delta probably wouldn't be net worth delta.
If NASA had the budget of the 1960s today we would be way ahead of what Space X is doing now.
And yeah, even without that I’d trade Space X for more global equality in a second.
Also, there are multiple solutions to the equation I posted and you chose to pick the worst.
There are downsides to inequality, but a metric that counts "everyone is miserable" as a success is an awful metric.
The alternative is not a world where people have it terrible, it could also be a world where everybody has it good and to strive every day to make it better still.
Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system.
So, your alternative would be better than what we have today, but your reading of my comment is incomplete.
No, my metric is chosen over yours because mine is not relative. I don't care how well the worst off had it compared to other people. I care how well off they are. This means that in order to make the world better, the only option is to improve the lives of the worst off.
> Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system.
Hence the focus solely on making them better off. Doesn't matter how well off Elon Musk is if it doesn't improve the lives of those in need.
> but your reading of my comment is incomplete.
Your comment was one sentence. I read the whole thing. If you meant something else, you gotta say it.
Note: I don’t particularly agree with GP.
Perhaps any effort to quantify success/status is destined to be gamed.
Maybe a multi-goal optimization, and using more concrete goals is better?
And goals should be directly related to fullfilment of human needs over both the short and long terms.
So let's say measure something like home ownership rate, good jobs, good healthcare accessibility, etc.
I certainly do use other metrics, though dollar value of some things remains a handy means to nutshell quantify some things.
what's the best way for the world to be more selfless and productive without that being a pipe dream?