Comment by simianwords

> "emergence" as inherently good

I did not claim it as inherently good, only that it is preferable.

> capitalism systematically collapses higher-order questions about what kind of world were building into first-order value propositions like "growth," "utility," and "innovation."

There is nothing about capitalism that ignores second or third order effects of its policies. Let me make it clear what kind of capitalist system we have in place - private ownership and free market regulated by a government that works for and is elected by the people. In this system the free market works but only till it progresses certain things the people voted for like standard of living, freedom etc. If free market does instead has unintended consequences we have levers to guide it where we want like taxes and subsidies.

> Capitalism resists second-order critique from within because it translates every possible value: justice, meaning, even critique itself, into terms it can price or optimize

I think I see were you are getting at but I have to be honest - I think it is coming from a naive place (I'm open to be proven incorrect).

Imagine you had the power and the responsibility to shape lives by enacting policy decisions. You are presented with a fairly complex problem where you have a large number of people, each one with their own lives and interests and you have to guide them into doing something preferable. No matter where you come from, left or right in the political axis, you will end up using quantitative methods. I imagine your problem is with such optimisation. If so, what is your exact critique here? How would you rather handle such a situation? How would you manage a system of so many people and without quantitative method? Religion?

> If you were engaging at the second-order level, you'd interrogate not what the system produces, but what it refuses to ask, and who gets to decide. That silence is precisely my point.

Ok please elaborate (only if you have engaged with my question above).