491010 t1_it746jb wrote
Humans are much more reactive than proactive because we don't see it as a legitimate use of current resources when there are already existing problems that haven't been addressed. That's our greatest weakness. We only work for our current selves and not for our future selves.
DSVhex t1_it74xd7 wrote
Thruth Sayer.... Humans mostly only find a common goal once it threatens everyone. When people can no longer hide in their ivory towers.
As a species we are still seperate by the colour of skin, language and culture/religion. Until we can evolve past this there will only be pockets of humanity working for the good of all.
squanchingonreddit t1_it7grq8 wrote
One race, human race.
DSVhex t1_it7hbni wrote
How glorious would that be? No countries, just earth.
thebodymullet t1_it8dn6q wrote
Imagine all the people sharing all the world.
DSVhex t1_it8fll2 wrote
Utopia.... It nakes me sad to know it might be achieved one day but not in my lifetime...and I am under 40.
Ghost_HTX t1_it9b92f wrote
You-ooo-ooo ooo ooo.
You may say Im a dreamer. But Im not the only one.
jflex13 t1_it9wfqn wrote
Don’t quote that fucking violent wife beating hypocrite. I’m so over it.
My_soliloquy t1_it83x0a wrote
ZSpectre t1_it7bnm1 wrote
Yeah, I tend to boil this down to the age old tug of war between our limbic system (fear, desire, conditioning, etc.) and prefrontal cortex (conscious thought).
Perfect-Top-7555 t1_it774s2 wrote
“If we want to improve the world we cannot do it with scientific knowledge but with ideals. Confucius, Buddha, Jesus and Gandhi have done more for humanity than science has done. We must begin with the heart of man—with his conscience—and the values of conscience can only be manifested by selfless service to mankind. In this respect, I feel that the Churches have much guilt. She has always allied herself with those who rule, who have political power, and more often than not, at the expense of peace and humanity as a whole.” -Einstein and the Poet, third conversation, p. 92
Fantasy_masterMC t1_it8lxy0 wrote
Right, science is the 'how', the heart provides the 'why'. The 'why' must generally be answered before the 'how' becomes relevant.
vorpal_potato t1_itd6cem wrote
Meh. Ideals are great, but they don't count for much when you're stuck in the jaws of the Malthusian trap -- the default state of humanity, which we were only able to escape thanks to a series of incredible scientific and technological improvements that almost nobody bothers to appreciate. It bothers me to see people take abundant food for granted, completely heedless of the technological pillars holding up the sky. Word up to Buddha, of course, but Borlaug was probably much more consequential.
[deleted] t1_it7crqs wrote
[deleted]
QwertzOne t1_it9lppi wrote
I think it's part of current system. You're expected to deliver, sometimes it's hard or impossible and that's when bullshit starts. We prefer to bullshit, because it has less consequences for us than acknowledging problem and spending additional resources to get it right. No one will correlate long term success to your actions, but they will correlate short term failures, because how could your estimations/plans be wrong?
We only want to grow, to win, to prosper, so even slightest failure is not acceptable, so in this system we prefer low risk quick wins, instead of actual improvements that pose risk of failure or going over the budget/time.
Some people don't care about politics, but we live in systems that make us to act in certain way, but we reject everything that's not going according to our plans as irrelevant outliers, so we're currently blind to all mistakes that we make, we play to this system rules.
That's how we end up in situation where maybe half of the humanity or less treats climate changes seriously, but no one actually wants to do anything about it, because it's not profitable. You won't gain support by saying that degrowth has to be considered seriously, that we need to spend money on green energy and do something about oil companies, that we need to stop producing unrecyclable, unrepairable crap, that we need to stop deforestation, because all of that hits interests of some rich companies that want to make profit, so they will convince proper people, spread misinformation and status quo for them is secure, while our environment is dying.
I lost faith in this system, it's just ridiculous that we live in times where self-preservation is considered revolutionary idea.
[deleted] t1_itb9snh wrote
[deleted]
QwertzOne t1_itbcy98 wrote
>Not everything is due to "the system".
It actually is because everyone operates in its limits. Every system penalizes some actions, but incentivizes other kind of actions. Few years ago I was just focused on what this system taught me, so I worked hard, learned, finished university, got my first job and I kept working on my career.
I'm an engineer and it took me 8 years to finally reach the point, where I can save any money at all, during that period I didn't really cared about any long term issues, I laughed at environment issues, because it's unprofitable for companies and I believed that, if company financial situation will be better, I will also benefit, so I worked hard on my promotions.
Today I'm tired. I don't want to sprint anymore, despite all these promotions I'm not getting actually richer, they promised me good life and I'm supposed to work like idiot, while some billionaires just sit on their asses and earn more in one year than I would be able to earn over few lifetimes? No, it's not fair and that's actual issue, because I don't want to work anymore for people that think they deserve 300x my salary and see nothing wrong with it.
This system teaches to be egoistic asshole. You want real money and influence? You're not getting it by ethical choices, you have to abuse as well and then sky is the limit, but don't kid yourself that you can achieve this just by typical 9-5 job and investing money, because you don't have luxury of rich people that can afford risks: http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/
That's why I think that this system is mainly to be blamed for lack of long term vision. How anyone is supposed to focus on environment, if you have to attend your rat race and you don't have energy or will to care about anything important? We just run daily to survive, who cares what will happen in 50 years, if danger is imminent for majority right now.
stupendousman t1_it8odcj wrote
> That's our greatest weakness.
It's one type of problem solving framework. It's actually the most logical. You can't anticipate every possible serious problem, so some forethought mixed with tech innovation and engineering is the best that can be done.
>We only work for our current selves and not for our future selves.
This is incorrect. Each individual has their own time preferences. These vary over time.
TheRoadsMustRoll t1_it89osv wrote
that hasn't always been true. many medieval cathedrals took generations to build. the people laying the foundations would be dead and buried by the time the cathedral was finished and they knew it. so they were proactively working for the greater good of generations yet to be.
in the modern world (the last 100-200 years) we've been idolizing short term profits and short-sighted individuals to the point where a confluence of very serious issues have built up around us. we're valuing denial instead of action but that's just a modern strategy. it appears to be a fairly unreasonable and unsustainable approach imo.
marsten t1_it8ix35 wrote
Cathedral-building is a good example and it highlights what is different now: We have so much less certainty about the future than we did in medieval times. Back then people could visualize pretty accurately the world their great-grandchildren would be living in. Now? It's bewildering. What will AI be like in 20 years, let alone 200? How will social norms change? What will be the dominant societal problems? In the face of so much uncertainty it's hard to make long-term plans.
TheRoadsMustRoll t1_it8ldg1 wrote
>In the face of so much uncertainty it's hard to make long-term plans.
agreed. we've sped up our lead time (for adopting/using new technologies) exponentially. it's hard to know what the future context is going to be at this rate.
i would argue that we could be a lot more efficient at it if we actively mitigated our denial and greed with some reason and humility.
BoredKen t1_it8t6bw wrote
Not true at all. Just look at the regulations responsible for repairing the ozone hole.
Governments are definitely proactive when they need to be, otherwise they would cease to function pretty quickly.
MithandirsGhost t1_it9n7mc wrote
Even when we are proactive and prevent tragedy people don't understand the necessity. I remember a lot of people complaining about how Y2K was an overblown hoax despite the millions of dollars and years of work that went into Y2K mitigation. "All these millions spent on Y2K and it didn't even happen."
andyman234 t1_ita1yp5 wrote
Our governments are pretty much set up this way. You’re not going to get RE-elected for anything if you spend money solving a problem 5 election cycles from now… you may not be around to take credit.
Vocalscpunk t1_itab32r wrote
Welcome to healthcare
TheRyfe t1_itb2yma wrote
That’s just the nature of the current competitive atmosphere amongst nations. Everyone tries to fuck each other over asap so they have the edge in 5 years. The key is to have some sort of super national authority (which every super power is trying aggressively to be which is fucking with everyone) without ties to any nations. I’d like a unicorn as well tbh
Wild_Sun_1223 t1_ittwrmm wrote
We need to rewire our motivational system so that long term collective risk feels as visceral as short term personal risk. Or where the prospect of long term collective advantage actually emboldens us toward short term personal suffering.
funk_rosin t1_it7v2na wrote
Well for one because our current self is real while our future self remains a hypothetical
alex20_202020 t1_it8420y wrote
Nope. I recently realized we are mostly proactive. I had been telling my mother she does not think about (work for) the future, then realized she does it all the time. E.g. she goes to the supermarket not when she is dying of hunger and does not immediately eats food from the shelves, she brings food home to have food available and eat later when hungry.
Only the future we work for is rather near, not far one. And we tend to continue business as normal/before even if world changes.
KorayRED t1_it992fh wrote
Can confirm. I am human and I am very reactive.
JaggedEdgeRow t1_it9htqv wrote
I agree, but I think this facilitates one of our strengths as well. Humans are incredibly good at adapting to drastic changes in environments. My thought is that even though our horrible habit of pushing existential events off is repugnant, we’ve also developed a habit of being really good at finishing an assignment right before midnight. We are master procrastinators with ADHD, if you will.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments