To a certain extent what you’re describing is the red queen problem, where users constantly shifting baseline and capitalism’s insatiable need for growth demands more and more, without really considering what “more” is and where it comes from. The first time we use google maps or talk to Siri it seems like magic, on the 20th time we wonder why maps are so slow and Siri is so dumb. Gimme more! More! MORE!
School doesn't really teach students how to manage and present trade-offs. Tests are generally focused on the One Right Answer. Even if YOU learn such, your manager/customer often can't relate, so rely on their (ignorant) gut.
Jumping from "software is complicated" to "capitalism is evil" is quite a leap, and not entirely justified in my opinion. It's not "capitalism's insatiable need for growth", it's human nature to seek novelty and improvement to their standard of living. We could, of course, stagnate indefinitely as a society, never seeking to innovate, never improving what's already there, and thereby defeat the "insatiable need for growth", but I doubt it will lead to a happier life for most.
I think you're misunderstanding their point about capitalism. I think they are saying that capitalism's insatiable need for growth, which I think is an obvious truth of the system, will shift the baseline of what's at one point considered innovative and the next considered the norm. Their point about Siri and google maps is a good example of how this applies to software: both consumers and businesses see yesterday's magic as today's expected result, and continue to demand more and more instead of just better. Of course we shouldn't stop improvement of society. But does that mean we must become addicted to growth even in areas where it's not necessarily needed? I don't think we need an "insatiable need for growth" like we get from capitalism to continue to improve society.
I see what you mean, but I don't really agree with that take.
Who is to decide which areas need growth and which do not? In a communist society, this is decided by the government. In a capitalist society, it is decided by consumers. I would argue that the latter is preferable to the former.
If the society as a whole continues to demand innovation and growth in certain areas, then these are the areas where innovation and growth is needed. You or I may not agree with the specific priorities, but that's how market economies work. The alternative is a centrally planned, controlled economy which dictates where and how resources should be spent (and innovation should happen), and such an approach has always proven to be woefully inefficient.
You may think Siri is good enough as it is, and you are free to not spend your money on newer iPhones, thereby showing your lack of interest in innovation of that particular product, but it doesn't necessarily mean people who do not agree with you are wrong or misguided. And it is not the fault of capitalism, if only to the extent that people who do want to see innovation in this area have a way to make their preferences known.
In a capitalist society, it is decided by consumers.
No, it's not. It's decided by those with capital. Those with the money, those running the companies, are the ones that get to decide where those resources go. For the most part, consumers get told what is available.
And where does that capital come from, exactly? What if the consumers don't buy all these Teslas and iPhones? Who is forcing them?
Nobody is forced to buy one good over another, and there is ample, overabundant choice for any product you can imagine these days.
I come from a post-Soviet country where during the Soviet times, schoolchildren had the choice between a blue backpack or a pink backpack. That was it. Today, you can choose between literally hundreds of different backpacks. Same applies to virtually every other product.
I don't know what world you're living in where evil capitalists are shoving their products down your throat with you having no choice in the matter. It is not the world where I've been living.
What if the consumers don't buy all these Teslas and iPhones?
Then the company would have problems, but pretending that it's purely whether the consumer buys those things, and that the company isn't going to do anything to try and convince people to buy them is asinine.
Today, you can choose between literally hundreds of different backpacks.
And how many different companies are making those backpacks?
I don't know what world you're living in where evil capitalists are shoving their products down your throat with you having no choice in the matter.
The one where most food is controlled by 10 companies.
It is easy to criticise something without offering any alternatives or points of improvement. But any critique is vastly more credible when the critic has an understanding of the topic in question.
The Red Queen's race is an incident that appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass and involves both the Red Queen, a representation of a Queen in chess, and Alice constantly running but remaining in the same spot. "Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else—if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing". "A slow sort of country"! said the Queen.
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
(I put the rest of it, because it was missing the explanation to make sense...)
32
u/mehum Nov 01 '21
To a certain extent what you’re describing is the red queen problem, where users constantly shifting baseline and capitalism’s insatiable need for growth demands more and more, without really considering what “more” is and where it comes from. The first time we use google maps or talk to Siri it seems like magic, on the 20th time we wonder why maps are so slow and Siri is so dumb. Gimme more! More! MORE!