[woodruffw]

I think generalization is very important, but I also think this oversells it slightly: every other species in history has lacked the privilege of writing its progress down. A PhD in farm science doesn't need to know how to grow a potato today, because (in theory) they can open a book and learn how it's done.

My concern about specialization is less that we'll fundamentally lose basic skills, but rather that our academic and cultural trends away from general knowledge are socially harmful and ultimately harmful to specialization itself (which is ultimately a good and necessary aspect of scientific progress).

[tp69]

A PhD in farm science with access to a book about growing potatoes will have died of starvation 50-100 days before their first crop is ready to be harvested. It's the lack of time available to actually grow the food that proves terminal. Having access to knowledge is not enough. Being a species that writes stuff down is not, in and of itself, a guarantee of our survival.

If a group of critical specialists gets wiped out there will a) not be enough time to learn how to keep their complex system running, or b) not be enough time to learn and implement a less complex system to the required scale, before the food runs out and everyone dies.

For survival to be assured, there needs to be diversity in critical areas. The alternatives need to be actively studied and practised alongside whatever is dominant. The problem is that competitive economic systems systematically drive out the 'less efficient' approaches, leaving a gaping hole in our fall-back options. Put another way: 'Capitalism eliminates Plan B'.

The prevailing economic system (which rewards and promotes specialisation, homogenisation and efficiency) is incompatible with long-term survival (which depends on generalisation, diversity and inefficiency).