\[continued\]
To connect the above two points, the problem is that we as a market are eager to get better stuff, which sets the stage for releases of gear that have not been effectively thought through or tested, and we end up paying for the privilege of testing it. That testing has mixed results as testing does, but more significantly that testing happens on such a huge scale that it is inevitably very wasteful. Needlessly so. Now in evolution of biological systems, there is no foresight or understanding, things just work or they don’t. In the analogy of the MTB industry and us as a market, we are capable of these things. As much as it isn’t in our collective consciousness, this is an undeniable fact. We could think things through more and understand the consequences of the way our pastime interacts with the industry that supports it. I really urge the maybe one person who reads this comment to seriously consider that. Don’t let yourself off the hook by ignoring that reality. The only way things will change so that we solve the kinds of complaints in this article are if we make it beneficial for the industry to behave that way. Take more time to develop and test products, and release significant updates that very obviously seem like improvements. And as a market we’d need to be more conservative in our consumption in order to select for the behaviour required to release things that are outstandingly better, not arguably better. Naysayers will point out that this isn’t in our nature, but that is our culture, not our nature. Cultures change, it just takes time, and not as much time as natural selection. This is me making a tiny effort to do just that.
Nov. 4, 2018, 11:28 a.m. - natbrown
\[continued\] To connect the above two points, the problem is that we as a market are eager to get better stuff, which sets the stage for releases of gear that have not been effectively thought through or tested, and we end up paying for the privilege of testing it. That testing has mixed results as testing does, but more significantly that testing happens on such a huge scale that it is inevitably very wasteful. Needlessly so. Now in evolution of biological systems, there is no foresight or understanding, things just work or they don’t. In the analogy of the MTB industry and us as a market, we are capable of these things. As much as it isn’t in our collective consciousness, this is an undeniable fact. We could think things through more and understand the consequences of the way our pastime interacts with the industry that supports it. I really urge the maybe one person who reads this comment to seriously consider that. Don’t let yourself off the hook by ignoring that reality. The only way things will change so that we solve the kinds of complaints in this article are if we make it beneficial for the industry to behave that way. Take more time to develop and test products, and release significant updates that very obviously seem like improvements. And as a market we’d need to be more conservative in our consumption in order to select for the behaviour required to release things that are outstandingly better, not arguably better. Naysayers will point out that this isn’t in our nature, but that is our culture, not our nature. Cultures change, it just takes time, and not as much time as natural selection. This is me making a tiny effort to do just that.