χαλεπὰ τὰ καλά. (Beauty is hard.)– Solon or Plato
I recently realised I don’t know why quality is rare. Some possible reasons:
'Quality is rare because the number of quality states is much smaller than the number of bad states of things - and neither nature nor artifice are enough to target the former very well or very often.'
If you've spent much time looking at C20th modernism, this will seem plausible.
'Quality is rare because we estimate a thing's quality by its rarity, or by how hard it is to do.'
(Cop-out, true only of positional goods and not others.)
Labour theory of quality
'Quality is rare because it is actually a function of the amount of skilled labour spent on the thing, and skilled labour is rare.'
(False, even for just explaining or moralising exchange value.)
Inverse labour theory of quality
'Quality is much less rare than it used to be, because of machine production. Quality is proportional with driving humans out of manufacturies. The knowledge economy and the cultural economy are mostly crap because they are not automated enough.'
(Fits disturbingly well.)
'Quality is rare because good things occupy lower-entropy states and so, by the second law, require more Work to create and maintain.'
Is cleaning the best example of this?
The Metaphysics of Quality
Robert Pirsig has a complicated answer which he hides behind two big autobiographical / allegorical novels. As far as I can tell his answer is: quality isn't a property of objects or even situations: it's an interaction between your mind and your object, a Kant-style apperception. The implication is that you can cultivate finding quality everywhere, and this is a big part of the contemplative traditions of the world; why they're good.
I want to retort that things aren't that easy, that powerful forces put us in this state (see below) and that mere introspection should not be expected to foil such forces. But it's been a long time since I read Zen and I dimly recall that he's not naive, that he doesn't blame us victims.
'Quality is optimality. Optimality is rare because we were tuned for satisficing ("good enough"), not optimisation ("good as possible"). On the evolutionary scale, we didn't have time to optimise anything, so hasty mediocrity is our default state. We clearly can do better sometimes, we just don't do it without trying.'
'Quality is rare because prehistoric 'savannah' tasks admit of fewer grades of quality than those stipulated by audiophiles or wine buffs today. (The impala was either edible or inedible.) So our quality organs are underdeveloped.'
'Quality is rare because we evolved to value the new, and most things aren't new. An obsession with novelty was a winning strategy in the ancestral environment. So we devalue the common in order to direct more attention on the rare and thus and thus maximise diet balance / mating opportunities.'
Big issue with this: novelty has been increasing massively in the last 300 hundred years, and going by the ambient pessimism, I'm not sure people's experienced value has been tracking that huge increase. (Note also that this is social constructionism with a different hat on.)
Environment shift: Out of our depth
That is, our environment has shifted far from the one we formed our heuristics and hard-wired competencies in. The atomic actions of the modern world (punctuality, lifelong learning of new systems, temperance when surrounded by superstimuli, being relaxed in large crowds, extreme focus duration - sometimes for an entire hour!) are basically absent in the ancestral env. Neither our genes nor our culture have adapted enough yet.
Prediction: it should be much easier to find high quality in primordial things: hunting, swimming, dancing, group singing, language. 1
Evolved reward bias: pessimism
Paul Christiano notes that when you are designing agents, if you don't know the correct reward function then you are much better served by giving them falsely low reward (including random jump-scare penalties) than falsely high reward. The latter leads to inactivity and randomness; the former to desperate intelligence. This is the best single explanation.
These are not probably mutually exclusive. I’ll fill in new ideas and evidence for each as I go.
That bad things are easy and good things hard, that pain is sometimes chronic and pleasure always fleeting, seems like the largest part of “the Human Condition”.
Consider: if we were immortal but otherwise exactly as we are, then a lot of people would still have a terrible time. (Even ignoring the dementia and cachexia.)
But if we were stubbornly happy - if we often experienced joy for no particular reason, if the worst misfortune was quickly recovered from - then at least to me this seems like the remaining problems of mortality, meaning, progress would become ordinary ill-defined problems rather than the miserable ruinous wicked problems they are for many people now.
Tags: meaning, philosophy, transhumanism, suffering, biology