@@giacomosimongini5452 No, I think it's a good way to deal with someones frustration over simple things. I mean if you ask them for a practical way to explain it. then you can just let 'em figure "oh, well i mean yeah i guess.. but the whole things stupid" once someone realizes its stupid to be thinking about just how many shoes there are, they could be focused on other things they actually enjoy. lol It's also just pretty funny to think about having a conversation about something that silly in general. Arguing about the semantics of amount of shoes :)
@@DamonDesade It does sound rather hotchpotch of frivolous and pugnacious, but I won’t necessarily say It’s similar to complaining the weather; in the scheme of small talks. Surely this person’s observation ought to be heard, after all conspicuous consumerism isn’t a foreign concept. I think it is a reasonable discussion and a fruit for thought that’s worthy of a healthy discourse.
for one that presupposes, there is a limit to time n u know it when(no pun intended) (in the grand scale of things, it's not) + in his definition of what resource is; time is not a resource. is life a resource? is knowledge itself a resource? maybe but it would be a cyclical to make sense of it if we are using his definition.
The amazon bit sounds like a false dichotomy. Also the point is that there might be many more ways to deal with the over-stock situation other than destroying products.
I understand and agree with the Naval bit, but the Amazon bit was strange. I didn't watch this ITV show so not sure what the context was, but what if they're reasoning was more on the lines of; Ok Amazon bought too much stock, that's expected, but why do they destroy them instead of giving them away or recycling them??? I don't get why he took his viewpoint.
The point of the video fundamentally is that resource growth is knowledge And the more there are people, who are “well educated” with the assistance of modern technologies (IPhone, internet, Ai tools) the growth in knowledge is also similarly if not more exponential. Don’t believe me? Just look at all the deep tech industries nowadays. Mind blowing & exciting progress. Don’t fall for the buzzy bullshit like general crypto industries. The real technological advancements are impressive. Breakthroughs in machine learning & AI also allows for all other industries to start using these tools for their own R&D… I foresee an innovation burst & hardware technological age in a decade.
I think Naval is transitioning from rational optimism to irrationally optimist. Yes, in THEORY knowledge can increase and do so exponentially, the thing is we do not know when and at what capacity and/or utility to actually make a significant impact in solving global issues.
"We're running out of resources" is not a political argument against capitalism, it is an engineering problem(and quite a hard one too). Naval hand waving away real life problems is really unfortunate. After all he is a VC. One cant expect him to do anything else. But tbh I'm kinda disappointed.
shoes were once made by hand. Few were made, because few had the money to buy them. And if a pair of shoes got damaged or broke, they were taken to a shoemaker for repair, unless they were really destroyed. Today shoes are industrially produced at a low cost, but paradoxically in most cases they cost more in proportion to the past. For people today shoes have a value, they are a status symbol; in the past they were a status symbol in the sense that if you went around with new shoes it meant you were rich. Today people can end up having 5 or 10 pairs of shoes. Women can have even dozens if they are obsessed. And when they get ruined, they're no longer fashionable or you don't like them anymore, they're thrown away. For this we need to produce many more shoes than there are feet of all human beings. Think how beautiful it would be a world in which it’s not produced more than what is necessary. Not only a world where there is little production compared to demand, as has happened, for example, in recent years with video cards, which simply drives up the prices, but if you have the money you can buy anyway. No, I really mean the impossibility of having something. It would be the return of desire, of the existence of something that cannot be bought with money, of the dream. Today we are surrounded by things we can buy, and the obsession of the modern world is to find the money to buy them all.
Such type of ideas and mindset encourage people to run behind things and consumerism, such type of people will never be satisfied with their life. What's the point of having 20 shoes, instead think about those who doesn't have a single one to wear. Stop running behind the consumerism & materialistic approach and use your brain and intelligence in making more sustainable life.
Hello, thank you very much for your content Please add translation into Arabic for private books and RUclips videos. hope so much. Your followers from Egypt❤❤❤❤❤
But what if knowledge yields diminishing returns on resource "creation" , be it that with knowledge we can use resources more effectively or discover new resources. The invention, or rather finding of fire made a lot more resources available than years of research on how to use oil effectively will. My point is that whilst you are right with your statements on what resources are, you haven't made a convincing point that currently, we are running out of what we can process and there seem to be no big leaps available. Yes, there are infinite resources in the universe, and also, if some scientists achieve to explore how trash or more fundamentally energy can be turned effectively into any resource we want, knowledge would be the ultimate goal. But the key question is: when will that be? And until then, we are confined. So I think the main message is: we need a big leap from our status quo
I don't disagree entirely, but you're key question is unanswerable. The growth of knowledge is inherently unpredictable. For the past 500 years people asked this same question. Or they believed that science had effectively reached it's peak and future innovations would just be minor corrections for existing theories. And of course they were wrong every time, the next leap forward was just round the corner. So why are we special? Al the evidence suggests we are creating and exploiting new resources faster (or at least as fast) as any point in history.
@@bonobo2181 hi, but i don't see a point disagreeing with what you say. My point was that right now, we live in a world with finite resources where science hasnt reached a point to allow us to consume without boundaries. So i hope that someone comes up with a solution soon, i never doubted IF there is one; but when there will be one, and if that will still be on time for us
@@amiria8501 Well that is always a risk for sure. The growth of knowledge is never guaranteed. It's for this reason that scientific/technological/moral progress should be the #1 most important goal of society. The more barriers in the way of progress, the more we risk getting wiped-out by some unknown threat that we couldn't prepare for in time.
@@bonobo2181 i think the easiest way to tackle the issues: reduce population drastically and increase general education level drastically.That would buy us time and even if we lose population, we can compensate for lost talent with better education. On the other hand, i dont know if technological progress can go hand in hand with moral progress .. i feel like one constrains the other if visualized in a function. All together, i think also we should maximize happiness. I dont know if people are necessarily happier today than hundreds of years ago... look at africa: yes, life expectancy grew, but at what cost? People were forced into the techbological process the west made, and it might sound weird, but i think they were better off on their own in terms of happiness
Naval is using doubt and skepticism about the problems of waste and consumption currently, with the hope that we will somehow be smarter in the future to solve the sins of the past. 🤦🏻♂️
I get the point, and see some usefulness in it. But do you remember learning about the Fertile Crescent in sixth grade? Somebody washed a critical resource down the Euphrates 4K years ago, and the place has never been the same again. Because we’ve escaped some of our tethers to physical limits, does it follow that we will escape them all, forever, and in a straight unbroken line? This is a cognitive leap that requires unwavering faith and an ignorance of events like the Bronze Age Collapse and dozens of subsequent civilizational declines.
"at what point in society did we decide that we have too many shoes?" hahahaha. PERFECT line of questioning.
Sorry, I just have to make sure you're ironic. You are, aren't you?
@@giacomosimongini5452 No, I think it's a good way to deal with someones frustration over simple things. I mean if you ask them for a practical way to explain it. then you can just let 'em figure "oh, well i mean yeah i guess.. but the whole things stupid" once someone realizes its stupid to be thinking about just how many shoes there are, they could be focused on other things they actually enjoy. lol
It's also just pretty funny to think about having a conversation about something that silly in general.
Arguing about the semantics of amount of shoes :)
@@DamonDesade It does sound rather hotchpotch of frivolous and pugnacious, but I won’t necessarily say It’s similar to complaining the weather; in the scheme of small talks. Surely this person’s observation ought to be heard, after all conspicuous consumerism isn’t a foreign concept. I think it is a reasonable discussion and a fruit for thought that’s worthy of a healthy discourse.
Define resource- "Through knowledge, we can convert from one thing to another"
my most valuable resource (time) is running out
for one that presupposes, there is a limit to time n u know it when(no pun intended) (in the grand scale of things, it's not) + in his definition of what resource is; time is not a resource. is life a resource? is knowledge itself a resource? maybe but it would be a cyclical to make sense of it if we are using his definition.
As always, thank you
Loved it Naval.
The amazon bit sounds like a false dichotomy. Also the point is that there might be many more ways to deal with the over-stock situation other than destroying products.
I understand and agree with the Naval bit, but the Amazon bit was strange. I didn't watch this ITV show so not sure what the context was, but what if they're reasoning was more on the lines of; Ok Amazon bought too much stock, that's expected, but why do they destroy them instead of giving them away or recycling them??? I don't get why he took his viewpoint.
It sounds like this is a piece of a larger interview or discussion, Where can I listen to the whole thing?
let me know if you find the discussion
Population growth is exponential while resource growth is linear. That’s the issue.
The point of the video fundamentally is that resource growth is knowledge
And the more there are people, who are “well educated” with the assistance of modern technologies (IPhone, internet, Ai tools) the growth in knowledge is also similarly if not more exponential.
Don’t believe me? Just look at all the deep tech industries nowadays.
Mind blowing & exciting progress.
Don’t fall for the buzzy bullshit like general crypto industries.
The real technological advancements are impressive.
Breakthroughs in machine learning & AI also allows for all other industries to start using these tools for their own R&D…
I foresee an innovation burst & hardware technological age in a decade.
I think Naval is transitioning from rational optimism to irrationally optimist. Yes, in THEORY knowledge can increase and do so exponentially, the thing is we do not know when and at what capacity and/or utility to actually make a significant impact in solving global issues.
"We're running out of resources" is not a political argument against capitalism, it is an engineering problem(and quite a hard one too). Naval hand waving away real life problems is really unfortunate. After all he is a VC. One cant expect him to do anything else. But tbh I'm kinda disappointed.
Naval, can you please explain why postponement of joy is the way to go?
shoes were once made by hand. Few were made, because few had the money to buy them. And if a pair of shoes got damaged or broke, they were taken to a shoemaker for repair, unless they were really destroyed.
Today shoes are industrially produced at a low cost, but paradoxically in most cases they cost more in proportion to the past. For people today shoes have a value, they are a status symbol; in the past they were a status symbol in the sense that if you went around with new shoes it meant you were rich.
Today people can end up having 5 or 10 pairs of shoes. Women can have even dozens if they are obsessed. And when they get ruined, they're no longer fashionable or you don't like them anymore, they're thrown away. For this we need to produce many more shoes than there are feet of all human beings.
Think how beautiful it would be a world in which it’s not produced more than what is necessary. Not only a world where there is little production compared to demand, as has happened, for example, in recent years with video cards, which simply drives up the prices, but if you have the money you can buy anyway. No, I really mean the impossibility of having something.
It would be the return of desire, of the existence of something that cannot be bought with money, of the dream. Today we are surrounded by things we can buy, and the obsession of the modern world is to find the money to buy them all.
Miindblowing.
Such type of ideas and mindset encourage people to run behind things and consumerism, such type of people will never be satisfied with their life. What's the point of having 20 shoes, instead think about those who doesn't have a single one to wear. Stop running behind the consumerism & materialistic approach and use your brain and intelligence in making more sustainable life.
Hello, thank you very much for your content
Please add translation into Arabic for private books and RUclips videos. hope so much.
Your followers from Egypt❤❤❤❤❤
But what if knowledge yields diminishing returns on resource "creation" , be it that with knowledge we can use resources more effectively or discover new resources.
The invention, or rather finding of fire made a lot more resources available than years of research on how to use oil effectively will.
My point is that whilst you are right with your statements on what resources are, you haven't made a convincing point that currently, we are running out of what we can process and there seem to be no big leaps available.
Yes, there are infinite resources in the universe, and also, if some scientists achieve to explore how trash or more fundamentally energy can be turned effectively into any resource we want, knowledge would be the ultimate goal.
But the key question is: when will that be?
And until then, we are confined.
So I think the main message is: we need a big leap from our status quo
I don't disagree entirely, but you're key question is unanswerable. The growth of knowledge is inherently unpredictable.
For the past 500 years people asked this same question. Or they believed that science had effectively reached it's peak and future innovations would just be minor corrections for existing theories. And of course they were wrong every time, the next leap forward was just round the corner. So why are we special?
Al the evidence suggests we are creating and exploiting new resources faster (or at least as fast) as any point in history.
@@bonobo2181 hi, but i don't see a point disagreeing with what you say. My point was that right now, we live in a world with finite resources where science hasnt reached a point to allow us to consume without boundaries.
So i hope that someone comes up with a solution soon, i never doubted IF there is one; but when there will be one, and if that will still be on time for us
@@amiria8501 Well that is always a risk for sure. The growth of knowledge is never guaranteed. It's for this reason that scientific/technological/moral progress should be the #1 most important goal of society. The more barriers in the way of progress, the more we risk getting wiped-out by some unknown threat that we couldn't prepare for in time.
@@bonobo2181 i think the easiest way to tackle the issues: reduce population drastically and increase general education level drastically.That would buy us time and even if we lose population, we can compensate for lost talent with better education.
On the other hand, i dont know if technological progress can go hand in hand with moral progress .. i feel like one constrains the other if visualized in a function.
All together, i think also we should maximize happiness. I dont know if people are necessarily happier today than hundreds of years ago... look at africa: yes, life expectancy grew, but at what cost? People were forced into the techbological process the west made, and it might sound weird, but i think they were better off on their own in terms of happiness
You have no moderation in your arguements. Which makes them invalid.
Naval is using doubt and skepticism about the problems of waste and consumption currently, with the hope that we will somehow be smarter in the future to solve the sins of the past. 🤦🏻♂️
I get the point, and see some usefulness in it. But do you remember learning about the Fertile Crescent in sixth grade? Somebody washed a critical resource down the Euphrates 4K years ago, and the place has never been the same again.
Because we’ve escaped some of our tethers to physical limits, does it follow that we will escape them all, forever, and in a straight unbroken line? This is a cognitive leap that requires unwavering faith and an ignorance of events like the Bronze Age Collapse and dozens of subsequent civilizational declines.
First
It sounds like this is a piece of a larger interview or discussion, Where can I listen to the whole thing?