But also perhaps not conflating “success” with morally positive outcomes.
Being efficient at destroying the planet is to successfully destroy the planet.
I think the original point was precisely to separate the concepts that make something successful - to be successful at what you do - from a judgement on the outcomes - the thing that you are doing.
> But also perhaps not conflating “success” with morally positive outcomes.
The reason why I would conflate them is that success had a positive social implication. You get respect if you're successful. In order to separate these concept, I'd use language that doesn't have positive connotations. "Efficient" is more than accurate.
The scope of “success” under examination in this guide is tailored for an artificial economic organism that wants to survive and capitalize in a particular competitive marketplace (YouTube).
It is almost certainly not generalizable advice for achieving “success” in the cooperative game of life on earth.
That's probably why we need some morals to come in and balance stuff. You want quick and easy money, you run drugs or sell your body. I'm sure you can be very successful in both if you optimize to be successful in those ventures.
But those are not only societally looked down upon but illegal is most US states. Your success here also lies on the ability to operate discreetly out of the eyes of the law. Would that be a success? (even if I personally believe they should be legal).
Being efficient at destroying the planet is to successfully destroy the planet.
I think the original point was precisely to separate the concepts that make something successful - to be successful at what you do - from a judgement on the outcomes - the thing that you are doing.