Steve Tucker wrote:
> I agree both deductions are extreme, it's a method I use when testing new new ideas.
I agree testing extremes is good for verifying universal rules. But for strategies, which is what I think I am talking about here, it simply tells you the range over which the strategy is valid. I believe there is a range in which my strategy works.
> However, I don't know that I would find it necessary to divest myself of those
> resources. It seems that the satisfaction of achieving goals would increase with the scope of those
> goals, as that increase in scope is allowed by the resources acquired in the meeting of previous,
> more modest goals. For me, happiness consists in part of experiencing growth, moving the mark
> higher and trying to achieve more, rather than diminishing myself and then once again striving to
> reach my prior state.
I would agree that is mostly true. I think I have been steadily growing and achieving more. I have noticed however that my goals are getting larger but more abstract, so the physical resources I need to achieve them are getting less not more. In this context, more resources simply get in the way. Real world resources are never without cost as well as benefit, at least in the attention you have to pay to them.
I do like acquiring resources, mostly as a side effect of what I really want to do. Every so often, I try to clear out the surplus. Going back to the European/American split, I've noticed the "more is better" meme is very strong in the US. If an 8 oz steak is good, a 24 oz steak must be great, eh?
Perhaps the Fermi paradox (no aliens here) indicates that the "more is better" meme dies out at higher levels of intelligence ;-) In our current state, expanding fast across the universe makes the most sense. With more understanding, we might find goals that don't require it. Back to the Singularity again.
-- Bernard J Hughes firstname.lastname@example.org Timedancer Systems http://www.timedancer.com -- Creative Laziness at its best --