Greater Than X is shutting down. This was always the plan (the services business was designed to be a learning engine), but the timing is largely the result of a series of unfortunate events…
Leading Greater Than X has been my every day life for five years. Although there’s a lot that can be said, I’ll keep this post reasonably brief. I’ll attempt to narrate a very high level story of what we did and the impact it had. I will continue talking about lessons learned and next steps over the coming months.
Thank you to everyone who supported us…
Super post, Tom. Question (one I seem to be asking a lot): Where in the fund's thesis does the health angel play out? I mean, most of the 'lifestyle diseases' crippling society are very closely associated with diets high in animal products (and processed crap generally). Are you banking on the opportunity for 'optimisation' of the products coming out of the breweries (i.e. replacing a bunch of saturated fat with something that is likely to reduce, rather than contribute inflammation)?
Would love to get your perspective on this. I realise it's nuanced and might require some decent unpacking...
Powerful, particularly given the clinical literature on heart disease reversal through dietary/lifestyle intervention...
m. It’s like r…treating symptoms (minimizing damage) in the field of medicine rather than curing the root problem. It’s like removing a blockage from an artery (symptom) without fundamentally changing the patient’s diet and lifestyle (root cause).
An empowering and concise ending. Thoughtful and well referenced content too. I'll be sure to share this with plenty of folks.
Although I've commented on the fly as I've read through this, I've finished feeling a little like much of the great work from folks like Kate Raworth could have been better utilised. I mean, if we go a layer (or many) deeper, and "change the goals of the system" and transcend paradigms etc.
I say this because you call out capitalism (more specifically, I'm assuming, neoliberalism) as the cause of why things are so screwed up. I'm wondering why anti-trust was the 'treatment' you are pushing...? Is this merely pragmatic (relative to designing a 'doughnut economy' this might seem 'easy').
Would really love to hear more about why you opted for this relative to other proposals or opportunties to make things better?
I mean, how much of this narrative is sounding something like, "... democracy, as it stands, is broken. We cannot rely on the sociopolitical system as is. We need to design new systems, not try change the old ones..."
Feeling like the analysis could have gone layers deeper to try get at root cause.
…ure U.S. president could simply direct their attorney general to enforce the law as it was written. But after decades of judicial “education” in the benefits of monopolies, after multiple administrations that have packed the federal courts with lifetime-appointed monopoly cheerleaders, it’s not clear that mere administrative action would do the trick.
I really 'get' the premise of this statement. But to me it feels grossly oversimplified. Is this really a binary decision making context? Believe me when I say I'm not fighting for big tech. I'm reasonably confident that, on balance, this 'category' of players may now be in the net negative (impact on society). I'm still struggling to get the utter confidence/conviction of the anti-trust angle (as kinda the sole solution. Recognise I am oversimplifying here). I'll read on and comment further at the end.
… profits, or we can work to fix Big Tech by making them spend their monopoly profits on governance. But we can’t do both. We have to choose between a vibrant, open internet or a dominated, monopolized internet commanded by Big Tech giants that we struggle with constantly to get them to behave themselves.
A powerful demonstration of a system leverage point. Wondering, how much have folks like Dona Meadows work on systems analysis informed your position?
Copyright scholar James Boyle has described how the term “ecology” marked a turning point in environmental activism. Prior to the adoption of this term, people who wanted to preserve whale populations didn’t necessarily see themselves as fighting the same battle as people who wanted to protect the ozone layer or fight freshwater pollution or beat back smog or acid rain.
Vaccines have - as far as I can tell - resulted in overwhelmingly positive outcomes. But all vaccine population models account for negative consequences. What really matters is whether a given vaccine rollout falls within those expected parameters. Could obviously dive into the nuance of this... But it's worth calling out is the oddness of the statement about "100% certain" given the context of this post and the broader issues it covers. By the way, if you wanna dive deeper into the specific ops trust in the governance of tech, TIGtech did some wonderful work here: https://www.tigtech.org/
I’m 100% certain that vaccinating is safe and effective, but I’m also at something of a loss to explain exactly, precisely, why I believe this, given all the corruption I know about and the many times the stamp of certainty has turned out to be a parochial lie told to further enrich the super rich.
A confluence of Happy Gilmore, Conor McGregor and the Dalai Lama.