What I think ideas are for

Earlier today, I tried to express to Lu Wilson why, while I did agree with the problem statement(s) of their post No more ideas in the world, I didn't necessarily agree with its conclusion. I did this in a series of quickly written skeets which they didn't much care for. Which is fair, not everyone sharing their ideas on the internet has to humour everyone trying to engage with them if they don't feel like it's worth their time. It surely doesn't take away from the fact that I love Wilson's work and the singular way they have gone about doing it.

But still this felt like something I'd like to explain my thoughts on in a more long-form way, mostly to myself. Because I think it's actually a pretty interesting thing to think about, and I already learned a lot about my thoughts on it while writing that original response. So maybe there's more here. Let's see.

What I think "No more ideas in the world" is about

The way I understand "No more ideas in the world" is that it's a description of why the theme Wilson chose for their wikibloggarden is relevant in the world that we live in. That theme is No more ideas, an exploration of the, well, the idea that there are enough ideas and that instead of producing more of them, we should instead try to first do our best to kill them to see if they're any good to begin with and if they survive the process then merge them with other ideas that did the same. With the ultimate goal of reducing the total number of distinct ideas in the world. Because after all, it was ideas that have gotten us to where we are in the first place, and while ideas that are total in nature are actually isolating and insular, the process of merging them is about connecting with others, which is the only way of seeing real change implemented in the world. And judging from passages like "We think the only way to change the world is to bring new ideas and tools into it and take over everything and then "technology our way out" of any problems we have", I think that it's safe to say that this is still Wilson's ultimate goal: to see change implemented in the world.

As a working definition I pulled out of my ass, let's say "implementing change in the world" is about first identifying a problem with the way things are done, then identifying a possible "solution" to that problem, and then choosing a way to bring that solution into existence. At each step, a myriad of things might go wrong. You might identify the wrong problem, you might think up a bad solution, or you might fuck up when implementing your solution.

I think "No more ideas in the world" mostly addresses the first two steps: having ideas about what the problem is to begin with and what the right solution to these problems would look like. It's about "thousands of tech dudes lining up to make the brand new shiny thing that'll change the world!", even though "tech boys love toys and this has caused many problems for a lot of us".

The post posits that just maybe, more of what we already have isn't the solution to a problem brought about by what we already have. More technology isn't a valid solution to the problems caused by technology. Less is. But the ideas we get from the dominant communities in tech are about replacing the ones that came before with new ones, about expanding totally and ultimately replacing what is already there, a totality which itself is at the core of both the old and new ideas. So maybe the solution is to instead merge with what is already there in a way that improves it.

What I agree with

I agree with almost all of it. I agree that technology isn't a clear-cut "good" in the world and that more of something isn't the solution to it being a problem. I agree that ideas that have the ultimate goal of being implemented in a total sense–a new medium–are destined to fail if they are built by people who identify with this idea and have their ego wrapped up in it, instead of being ready to dissolve themselves in a true sense of community. And I agree that it would be nice if there simply was a bit more space, a bit more quiet, a bit more room to breathe.

Ideas aren't the problem

But I don't think that having ideas, implementing them and putting them out into the world is the problem. To the contrary, I think that this is necessary. Because it's the best way to learn how the ideas that are already implemented in the world, as well as the ones others have–so ultimately the ideas you might merge yours with or for which you will have to sacrifice them–actually work. You learn about how they interact with each other and will come out better equipped to collaborate. Because you will have actual, real world experience of the forces that act upon ideas once you release them.

This might help you see your own ideas already at work in the existing tools, or it might help you to better imagine how things could be. Why they are the way they are and not the way they aren't. It might lead you to realise that additive solutions aren't always the way, and that increasing complexity might be a bad idea. That subtracting from things might actually mean subtracting yourself from them. That the context in which ideas were formed matters and that they will always carry a bit of that context with them. Having ideas and building tools keeps your ego in check. It's also the best and fastest way to kill your ideas. And to be truly ready to work on other's.

Ultimately, if it's about building a team, you want a team with experience.

And yes, I really do think that this is honing your skill at what I'd call utopian thought, the ability to imagine what a better world might actually look like and seeing it among a thousand different possible ones. Because in a sense, this process is developing your taste. Not just for good solutions, but for good problems as well.