There are and will always be shortcuts to everything.

[Words]

A shortcut is something that allows one to accomplish a mission/function/desire/value at a shorter amount of time and effort relative to a previous longer, more arduous method. Shortcuts become traditional methods and more shortcuts are made to replace the previous shortcut...and this goes on forever. Technology and the development of technology is captures the essence of this idea. You walk, You bike, and then you drive. Less effort, less time. So, if you want to do something but are lazy, always try come up with a shortcut because there will always be one. If you can't find one, then that's just you being unintelligent. Intelligence...hm...one's ability to make shortcuts defines ones Intelligence.

Counters?

 

[BigApplePi]

Counters?

Last time I took a shortcut I ended up in the hospital.

 

[GodOfOrder]

But are these things really shortcuts when you factor in the development process; conceptualization, construction, implementation.

Yes a bike is faster than walking, and a car is faster than biking, but think how much time it took to develop a car.

 

[Words]

But are these things really shortcuts when you factor in the development process; conceptualization, construction, implementation.

Yes a bike is faster than walking, and a car is faster than biking, but think how much time it took to develop a car.

Think about the span of time, the hundreds of thousands of years humans have spent on walking. Now imagine and assign a number to that much effort exerted. Now think about the span of time and effort when they developed the car. Now you can compare.

 

[Words]

Last time I took a shortcut I ended up in the hospital.

Risks. Yes, that is critical. But laziness is more important than life.

 

[GodOfOrder]

Think not o the grand scale of time, but merely for the individual who first developed an idea. For this engineer designing and building a car was no shortcut, it probably took a decent chunk of his time.

However, you are correct that mother necessity makes us want to reduce our labor in the long run, and the one who can fill the gap we will pay well. But it seems the motive is not only to produce an easier way, but a more profitable way.

A considerable amount of effort is needed to break off the beaten path, and arriving at a new way of doing things often takes an unnecessarily long divergence from the path. However, it is still worth exploring the new possibility in hopes of finding a better way. But doing so is not in itself a shortcut because of the exploratory effort involved. Indeed these things are at first highly convoluted and abstract before they are useful, and it takes a true visionary to be able to make it useful. Lest a great innovation like the motor carriage remain a rich man's novelty.

 

[Words]

Think not o the grand scale of time, but merely for the individual who first developed an idea. For this engineer designing and building a car was no shortcut, it probably took a decent chunk of his time.

However, you are correct that mother necessity makes us want to reduce our labor in the long run, and the one who can fill the gap we will pay well. But it seems the motive is not only to produce an easier way, but a more profitable way.

A considerable amount of effort is needed to break off the beaten path, and arriving at a new way of doing things often takes an unnecessarily long divergence from the path. However, it is still worth exploring the new possibility in hopes of finding a better way. But doing so is not in itself a shortcut because of the exploratory effort involved. Indeed these things are at first highly convoluted and abstract before they are useful, and it takes a true visionary to be able to make it useful. Lest a great innovation like the motor carriage remain a rich man's novelty.

If it doesn't seem as short as you would want to see a shortcut would be, then it's just a matter of lack of intelligence. If it's a huge thing like a new mode of transportation or something that affects a lot of people, then what needs to be done is to gather as many manpower or brainpower. Profit-mindedness actually slows down things. It prevents shortcuts from happening because people get greedy with their ideas and they don't collaborate. It's kind of an unfair comparison. A social problem must have a social shortcut. A social shortcut, like the invention of a new transportation, must be seen as a shortcut not as an individual, but as a collective. Seen from a collective perspective and done with collective initiative, the social shortcut can truly be seen as a shortcut.

Regardless, if we were to look at this from an individual perspective, I would still say that how hard it is just insufficient intelligence.

 

[ImNiceToPuppies]

Shortcuts. ...I can go to some market in a third world country and from the time my meal was alive to the time it took to get to my plate, it would probably be quicker than in the US, without the aid of technology. One can say it's a short-cut to US methods. If they didn't wash their hands, I might even get to bite into it sooner. However, it's not the type of short-cut I prefer for people to take (i.e. food preparers)...as nice as they are. With that same example, technology doesn't always shorten a process too. In more developed countries, sterilization of equipment that prepares food takes longer than someone handwashing food at the market. However, the use of technology (eg sterilization with no shortcuts) is to keep food sanitary. ...There a lot of other examples of why and how something takes longer with technology than without that are far from considered shortcuts, even for the most basic tasks.

-i

 

[Nick]

@Architect I think you can tell us where all these shortcuts our population are developing will bring us to one day.... you know the date.

I like the idea of increased intelligence correlates basically to shortcuts. Those with a better intelligence should be able to "connect the dots" from object A to object B faster, more concisely and have the ability not only to connect A to B, but A to C, A to D, and the further you can connect the seemingly unconnectable dots together, the better you are in that regard.

 

[BigApplePi]

If a shortcut saves time to get there, we must take care we get there close to the condition if we didn't take it.

I just watched a program on "60 Minutes" where a drug manufacturer took shortcuts to get their drugs out because they had the opportunity to increase their volume. What they were doing normally would require FDA (Federal Drug Administration) inspection. They took numerous shortcuts to get their drug out and bypassed the FDA by a technical workaround. Hospitals bought in at half price (another shortcut). The drug got contaminated by a fungus and 48 people died and hundreds more are seriously ill. The company is now bankrupt and the CEO may go to jail. How intelligent was this short cut?

Efficiency is a good shortcut; greed is a bad one.

 

[Architect]

How intelligent was this short cut?

It was a long cut.

Instead of short cuts I generally prefer leverage, known as gearing in the financial world.

@Nick

Architect I think you can tell us where all these shortcuts our population are developing will bring us to one day.... you know the date.

Indeed, though as I indicate above it's leverage which gives you accelerating returns (second derivative) rather than shortcuts.

 

[Words]

Shortcuts. ...I can go to some market in a third world country and from the time my meal was alive to the time it took to get to my plate, it would probably be quicker than in the US, without the aid of technology. One can say it's a short-cut to US methods. If they didn't wash their hands, I might even get to bite into it sooner. However, it's not the type of short-cut I prefer for people to take (i.e. food preparers)...as nice as they are. With that same example, technology doesn't always shorten a process too. In more developed countries, sterilization of equipment that prepares food takes longer than someone handwashing food at the market. However, the use of technology (eg sterilization with no shortcuts) is to keep food sanitary. ...There a lot of other examples of why and how something takes longer with technology than without that are far from considered shortcuts, even for the most basic tasks.

-i

You're mixing up the purpose of health and the purpose of quick eating. It's taking longer not because of the technology. It's taking longer because you care more about health. Different tech for different purposes. If all you cared about was quick eating, you can easily get tech that's made purely for that.

It was a long cut.

Instead of short cuts I generally prefer leverage, known as gearing in the financial world.

That reminds me of that guy in Google and his speech. "Find all the leverage in the world and only then can you truly be lazy."

Leverage doesn't really factor in time. It's more about effort.

 

[BigApplePi]

Leverage doesn't really factor in time. It's more about effort.

Leverage ... the intelligence you were looking for plus opportunity.

 

[SpaceYeti]

But are these things really shortcuts when you factor in the development process; conceptualization, construction, implementation.

Yes a bike is faster than walking, and a car is faster than biking, but think how much time it took to develop a car.

None of the time spent developing cars was my time, thus they save me time.

 

[BigApplePi]

None of the time spent developing cars was my time, thus they save me time.

Suppose the government proposes taxing the hell out of us so we can create nuclear fusion in, say forty/fifty years. That would be an energy shortcut on our time.

 

[Duxwing]

Suppose the government proposes taxing the hell out of us so we can create nuclear fusion in, say forty/fifty years. That would be an energy shortcut on our time.

Or better yet, diverting 10% of the military budget to AI R&D: The singularity would be upon us in a decade!

-Duxwing

 

[scorpiomover]

Or better yet, diverting 10% of the military budget to AI R&D: The singularity would be upon us in a decade!

Already been done. Who do you think is funding and controlling new robotics to replace the lost limbs of soldiers, the growth of new organs, exoskeletons and much, much more? It's all moving into military research.

 

[ImNiceToPuppies]

You're mixing up the purpose of health and the purpose of quick eating. It's taking longer not because of the technology. It's taking longer because you care more about health. Different tech for different purposes. If all you cared about was quick eating, you can easily get tech that's made purely for that.
Shortcuts


I'll be happy to clarify. The FDA doesn't distinguish between the two, health and food (for quick eating or for slow eating):

-The FDA was formed primarily because of shortcuts to food processing taken by the public until the early 1900s. In the section about the history of the FDA, The Jungle is referenced. (Refer back to my first post, for those who are not into reading gory details about meat processing.)

-The FDA doesn't associate "technology" with "shortcuts". The word itself sends red flags if they hear it. They'll show up at a company's door unannounced... In the industry, e.g. sterilization methods on state-of-the-art equipment will take as long as necessary to safeguard the consumer, regardless of the technology being used...even disregarding some of the capabilities of the technology to uphold regulations. They're supposed to think of the consumer first and of our health, including the patrons of the local taco truck or market...or of street food we pop into our mouth at festivals.

-Even as years have gone by, the FDA's regulations have only undergone one or two major revisions from the time they were first published...if I recall my training correctly. I imagine as more years go by, they will remain unchanged for the most part unless to add additional safeguards for the consumer and our health. They probably will still not be dazzled by any new technology.

The FDA provides additional clarification to the public through their website: www.fda.gov

-i

 

[SpaceYeti]

Suppose the government proposes taxing the hell out of us so we can create nuclear fusion in, say forty/fifty years. That would be an energy shortcut on our time.

I don't think "create" is what we'd do with nuclear fusion.

 

[Reluctantly]

Shortcuts just create other problems...

Reminds me of cell phones. They made it easier to get in contact with people, but now it's standard that anyone can bug you at any moment of the day, especially for some jobs.

And cars...we can get places faster, but now we are expected to afford transportation and do more work in more locations because of it...even transportation itself becomes work...

Even a lightbulb...made it so we could see in the dark. But now people stay up past dusk, doing work and making their mind's restless and awake when it would be better to get a full night's rest.

Computers...give us a lot of capability for better and more efficient business, but now we have to keep up with technology in order to stay competitive in the business world...

blah, shortcuts - making what was previously harder, easier, and what was previously easier, harder...


LET'S FIGHT WORDS.