The Goh-Feinberg Theory suggests a parallel between individual modes of human happiness and phases of technological development. (The Goh-Feinberg Theory is entirely fictional. I made it up for the short story SNOW FALLS ON NYCTROPOLIS but I feel like I might be on to something.) 🧵 1/

There are three ways humans can be happy. The first is CONTENTMENT, which is the absence of want. You’re not cold, hungry, alone, in pain or victimized? You’re probably content. If you know Mazslow’s pyramid, this is the stuff on the base. 2/

Next, there’s PLEASURE, an instant reward arising from a fixed structure. (This sounds awkward but is important later.) You eat sugary fat, have an orgasm or go down a waterslide and your nervous system gives you a payout you don’t get eating kale, shaking hands or picking up a laundry basket. 3/

Finally, we have JOY, the uniquely human reward of positively contributing to something greater than yourself. Elite athletes who immiserate their bodies to win? Getting joy. Same with ‘starving artists.’ People show a tremendous capacity to sacrifice contentment and pleasure for joy! 4/

(As an aside, this explains why GREAT BRITISH BAKING SHOW is so genius. It presents all three. The contentment of food, married to the pleasure of deliciousness and - crucially - contestants were doing it largely for the love of the process, NOT as pros.) 5/

Joy motivates people to write poetry, collect butterflies, get REALLY INTERESTED in some particular field and, generally, fiddle around to find out in the POSITIVE way. Art starts with joy. Someone really wanted to draw a cool horse. 6/

Science often starts with joy as well. Someone is really curious why some peas have wrinkly skins and some are smooth. Someone else wants to know why paper sticks to amber but only when you rub it on wool. 7/

Maszlo’s pyramid put joy at the top, the thing towards which every other aspect of life trended. “Self actualization,” right? But for arts, sciences, thought-forms passed on outside the human body, joy is the BASE. 8/

An invention starts with some dabbler fascinated with a small thing, and a discovery is made. Others get interested and make their own innovations, discoveries, contribution. At some point, IT MAKES MONEY. 9/

…and with that dollar sign, $, the serpent slithers into Eden. In this case, the serpent is capitalism, and it’s analogous to pleasure. It’s a system of reward and, as with fat and sugar, in the modern world is tends towards excess. 10/

I’ve been a bit of a capitalism hater now and again, but here’s one thing it does REALLY WELL: It improves products fast. I’ve seen cell phones get smaller and more reliable and also able to run Tetris in my lifetime. The first person to ride a horse was a hobbyist who loved horses, I’d bet… 11/

The inventors of the saddle, the stirrup and, especially, the bit? Those were people motivated by making the system work better. The pure Invisible Hand fanboys insist that this upward trend is possible FOREVER. The present tech scene presents a more plausible alternative: Enshittification. 12/

(Corey Doctorow coined the phrase “Enshittification” for what I was personally calling “downdates” — when something that was supposed to make a product better actually did the opposite.) 13/

The poster case for this is Adobe. It’s gone from being a reasonably priced tool everyone loved to an expensive subscription barnacled with AI nonsense. Capitalism cannot stop pleasure-seeking. If it was a human, it would be an alcoholic compulsive masturbator. 14/

The end point of this, in my SF story, was for an idea to be had (joy/discovery phase) get iterated to a highly functional state (pleasure/capitalism phase) and, once perfected, become common property of humankind — a contentment/universal ownership state to close the circle. 15/

For example, no one owns the concept of “the spoon” and there hasn’t been a meaningful innovation to it since the spork. If the spoon was invented in 1990, by now it would be wi-fi enabled and only sturdy enough to lift a potato if you paid for Spoon Elite Premium™️. 16/

The reason for this is capitalism’s lack of end-game. It HAS to innovate. “Good enough” isn’t. And when there is no way to make the product better for its user, the innovations turn extractive. 17/

Once, Facebook was there to help you reconnect with gramma or schedule your V:tM game. Now you’re there to help FB refine its microtargeted AI slop. Once, Google was a great search engine. But they’ve innovated themselves into a grotesque parody of their onetime function. 18/