Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> There needs to be some top-level department with stop-work authority over everything to coordinate who's doing what maintenance when, equipment replacements and switchovers, and the overall plan for what's being produced when.

I find it very hard to believe that this can not be automated to the point of requiring much more than a dozen controllers (4 groups of 3 people, on a 12-on/36-off work schedule). And there is nothing stopping this "top-level" department to be a company in itself.

But anyway, let's say that I'm underestimating the amount of human brainpower that is needed to get this work done safely. Not to be a Luddite, but shouldn't we be asking ourselves if there really is any type of (isolated) economical activity that is so fundamental for us that can only be done with more than 150 people involved?

It's not like we can not refine oil with less than 150 people. It's just that we can not do it at the scale and efficiency that we are used to, right? Instead of having one "giant" refinery that requires thousands of people, perhaps the limitation would force us to have smaller plants spread out around the world, or to have the downstream industries actually doing the refinement themselves, etc.

So, how about instead of looking for maximizing the efficient usage of resources in order to keep the economy growing at an accelerated pace, we start to focus on a constant growth rate and better distribution?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: