8 ms·

I think technology will result in a great outcome for humanity as long as our greed is checked somehow. Most of the problems today are caused by our greed. I’m

• atomashpolskiy 5y ago
  Absolutely, most problems are caused by either of: - stupidity -fear -greed The problem is figuring out which instances of these are induced by society and civilization and which are inherent to human behavior in general. While we can try to address the former, the latter probably can't be fixed without significantly changing our definition/perception of what humans are.
• hughrr 5y ago
  History shows us that greedy people end up with their heads on sticks. Even when they have armies to protect them. It doesn’t take a lot to regress to that again.
  • rytis 5y ago
    I think it's excessively greedy who end up on sticks. Moderately greedy are doing just fine...
    • taurath 5y ago
      One of the main properties of many of the communist revolutions of the 20th centuries was the mass killing or removal of property of the landed gentry in those countries - sometimes more directly violent than others. Cambodia, China, Vietnam, N Korea, etc. I think recent history has shown that simply killing the Bourgeoisie tends to just eventually create another in the form of whoever had the power to do the other killings, and not always to better ends for the people. That form of communism has been shown to not really work. Democratic socialism though seems to work out pretty well for people.
  • biztos 5y ago
    There’s still plenty of money sloshing around the coffers of European royalty, even in modern republics. If you’re good at the greed thing I think the head-on-stick risk is pretty small.
  • eecc 5y ago
    Problem is the process that brings those heads on the sticks. It often involves death & destruction of plenty other people and infrastructure.
    • fogihujy 5y ago
      Not to mention the countless rebellions that ended with the rebelling peoples' heads on spears. Farmer rebellions usually fail.
  • watwut 5y ago
    I dont really think history shows that. The "greedy people" can keep power for very long and it takes special circumstances for the overthrow - and overthrow usually means instability with a lot of death, torture and pain for everyone.
    • hughrr 5y ago
      Yes it's not pretty
• akmarinov 5y ago
  A big part is our greed to procreate, take out 3/4 of humanity and climate change is solved
  • headmelted 5y ago
    Is it though? Even if there were an event that wiped out 75% of people, it kicks the can down the road at most 30 years due to a baby boom. Refusing to solve the real problem is what got us in to this mess. It’s also utterly like us as a species to think that killing 3 out of 4 people is an easier fix than just living within our means.
    • boredtofears 5y ago
      > It’s also utterly like us as a species to think that killing 3 out of 4 people is an easier fix than just living within our means. Individuals aren't really responsible for the mass amounts of pollutants put into the atmosphere the same way corporations are. In order for the human population to "live within it's means" at an impactful scale it would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon. Kicking the can down the road 30 years is by far the best option we have available to us at this point (not that it will happen in my lifetime).
      • rbanffy 5y ago
        > would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon. Capitalism won’t go without a fight.
      • headmelted 5y ago
        In order for the human population to "live within it's means" at an impactful scale it would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon. Yes.
        • headmelted 5y ago
• ghufran_syed 5y ago
  The problem is defining “greed”. It feels like when I want more stuff per unit time/effort, I’m just “trying to support my family and build a better life for my children”. But when other people do the same, it’s “greedy”. Is there any definition of “greedy” we could use for the purposes of this discussion that would apply yo all humans equally?
  • fogihujy 5y ago
    Yeah, especially when there's occasional extremists that refuse to acknowledge that putting one's own first isn't the natural state of things. I guess the way forward is to build a sustainable future for everyone and their families. And to get everyone to agree it's the best way to go about things.
    • ddalex 5y ago
      > putting one's own first isn't the natural state of things I am very confused about this statement, can you please explain what is the "natural state of things" ?
      • fogihujy 5y ago
        Let's imagine a hypothetical crisis, say a building on fire. You can save your own child/spouse/relative or you can save a complete stranger. You will succeed in saving any of them, but not both. Most people will chose child/spouse/relative without thinking twice and doing so is quite natural. Not everyone agree on that though, and would argue that the potential benefit the stranger could be to society should be taken into the equation. Luckily, reality isn't that black and white in most cases, but most people will prioritize their in-group. That's just the way people work.
        • mellavora 5y ago
          Clearly, people will prefer their own in-group. I think, however, you just made the parent poster's point. People will often prefer their own in-group to themselves. Thus, it depends on how one defines the in-group, and one's own interests. Looking at Coldtea's earlier comment: >It's either pushed to us by greed, or given to us as a substitute for things we'd rather have (no friends, but here are games you can buy), (no work-life balance, but here's Netflix you can watch when you're home exhaused from work), (no community, but here's social media, go argue with strangers), etc. showing how the 'in-group' has shrunk. Used to be a larger tribe, now you could be lucky to consider it an atomic family.
• coldtea 5y ago
  >I think technology will result in a great outcome for humanity as long as our greed is checked somehow. That's difficult, as technology is here mostly because of greed. Much of technology we don't really need, and even more so for most technology we consume (of course, you can't convince tech workers for that, as their salary, and hobbies, are based on the stuff). It's either pushed to us by greed, or given to us as a substitute for things we'd rather have (no friends, but here are games you can buy), (no work-life balance, but here's Netflix you can watch when you're home exhaused from work), (no community, but here's social media, go argue with strangers), etc.
  • jand 5y ago
    > That's difficult, as technology is here mostly because of greed. I am not sure if by technology you mean products or ideas. In case of the latter, that does not sound right. Smart driven persons do not have to be greedy in order to devote their live to something.
    • PeterisP 5y ago
      However personal interest (i.e. greed) is a big factor that motivates them to devote their lives not to something that's simply very interesting to them personally, but rather something that just happens to be practically useful for large numbers of people very unlike themselves. Smart people who have the ability and resources to change things don't really share the same problems as the target audience of mass market tech (I mean, hackernews is full of product reports illustrating this) - greed motivates them to solve problems of their "outgroup", filling the needs of all the people they don't really care about much.
• golergka 5y ago
  Most of the progress is caused by greed too.
  • andrekandre 5y ago
    greed or ambition? also, scientists, doctors, researchers, even maybe the military?, progress has been defined by a lot of different motivators than just greed i would think… (was einstein full of greed when he made his breakthroughs?)
• WanderPanda 5y ago
  I feel like greed is what drives technological progress and that you can not have the one without the other
  • AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    I was talking to a friend yesterday and he put forth the idea that the only reason humans even have civilization is because of sociopaths. We're apparently wired to function in a community of 30-50 where everyone depends on everyone else for survival so, he reasons, larger groups of people require perverse systems control. Sociopaths, having no empathy and seeking to use people for their own gain, seized power and conquered other tribes and imposed such perverse systems in order to exert their influence over a larger populace and land area. Only now, having lived for many many generations in one kind of civilization or another, people know nothing but the perverse system and think of it as natural and even good. There was a lot more to it than that, and largely speculative, but it was interesting. What if the reason we don't see alien civilizations all over our sky is that sociopathy in social animals is actually really rare or is always otherwise controlled for?
    • WanderPanda 5y ago
      This might not be directly related but the decline of birthrates tells me that there is something horribly unnatural going on.