Quick Viral vs Slow Growth

If everything is beautiful, then is there a need for the word "beautiful?" In the same way if every post you make it viral, is there such a thing as "viral"?

In an age where visibility is instant and algorithms reward immediacy, we’ve grown obsessed with the quick rise: the viral moment, the explosive launch, the overnight success. But fast is not always enduring. Like radioactive decay, systems or trends that surge rapidly often have short half-lives. They peak, then fade, sometimes faster than they arrived.

By contrast, slow growth builds resilience. Just as elements with long half-lives decay gradually, systems that grow steadily tend to last. Trees take years to mature, but some live for centuries. Tortoises evolve slowly, but they outlive predators that sprint. Brands, relationships, and ideas that are nurtured over time—rather than blasted into fame—often carry more depth and staying power.

This reminds me: one of my favourite projects from the list of projects I've never.. I mean.. almost started is to put Charlie Munger's 150 Year $2 trillion business-plan into action (<-- stay tuned for more info about that).

---

Anyway, the obvious thing to notice here is that quick virality feels powerful, but it’s fleeting. A viral moment may bring a million views, but that attention does not linger. Once the trend passes, the crowd moves on. Slow growth doesn’t rely on spectacle—it relies on trust, consistency, and evolution.

So while chasing virality might get you attention for a moment, cultivating slow growth might just earn you legacy.