4 ms·
This subject always reminds me of the quote from popular and beloved British actor Paul Eddington, which puts on display a very different and much gentler ethos
by ssivark 6y ago
This subject always reminds me of the quote from popular and beloved British actor Paul Eddington, which puts on display a very different and much gentler ethos from the “doer-ism” sprayed on us quite constantly: "A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be, 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little [harm], that would suit me."
It’s worth pondering whether the same (limited) perspective that caused several problems is sufficient to fix some problems without exacerbating others. The whole point of democratization of power is to distribute decision-making so people could make the right choices as locally apt.
- kshacker 6y agoInteresting... I used to have similar ideas about "at least do no harm", but the intolerance of the times radicalized me somewhat and the new mantra is not only to reduce the harm I do, but to also somewhat counter the harm others do: either by negating them or their deeds. Because if we let some harm seep through because we ignored it, that is still not good enough for our society. Now of course we (the people) look at things differently so me going carbon negative (for example) may encourage others to pollute even more because hey u/kshacker is going to fix it so I know the thought process needs further evolution.
- ssivark 6y agoThe point of the quote is not so much about countering harm caused by others, but first: How confident can you be that your actions to help are not misguidedly exacerbating problems? Is there a line beyond which one could be overconfident, our arrogant? What external feedback should you attend to?