6 ms·

> The sad part is that we could actually solve some real problems by coordinating collective action on, say, starting a new city that's designed around non-moto

> The sad part is that we could actually solve some real problems by coordinating collective action on, say, starting a new city that's designed around non-motorized transit within the city limits. But we don't. We get Snoop Dogg crypto instead. Right. And if only we could all just band together, we could create world peace and end hunger! It's so easy you guys! Just everyone cooperate! You honestly think starting a meme cryptocoin is equivalent to the effort required to build a new city!? How are these things even remotely related?

pavas 5y ago
> if only we could all just band together, we could create world peace and end hunger I mean, that does sound like a true proposition. So why is it that we can't band together?
- savanaly 5y ago
  Take it up with evolution.
- WJW 5y ago
  Because humans evolved in a tribal setting with at most ~200 people per tribe (see Dunbars number), and as social animals have a very keen instict for in- and outgroups? Any group larger than that number (and often much smaller) will start to fracture into sub-groups that then compete with each other for status and resources. You can see this effect even in groups as small as 200-person startups, where there can be vigorous "us vs them" dynamics between the dev and marketing teams or even between dev and ops.
  - pavas 5y ago
    This kinda sounds like a copout. We can escape the fatalism of Dunbar's number and in/out-groups through leadership and recursively hierarchical structures. See any large (>~200 persons) company, collective action (civil rights, wars, social movements), nations, etc. I was asking a rhetorical question tbh.
3pt14159 5y ago
The payoff to kickstarting a city is absolutely bonkers. It's long term, but the compounding implied interest rate is still enormous. I don't think it is anywhere close to ending world hunger.

pavas 5y ago

> if only we could all just band together, we could create world peace and end hunger I mean, that does sound like a true proposition. So why is it that we can't band together?

savanaly 5y ago
Take it up with evolution.
WJW 5y ago
Because humans evolved in a tribal setting with at most ~200 people per tribe (see Dunbars number), and as social animals have a very keen instict for in- and outgroups? Any group larger than that number (and often much smaller) will start to fracture into sub-groups that then compete with each other for status and resources. You can see this effect even in groups as small as 200-person startups, where there can be vigorous "us vs them" dynamics between the dev and marketing teams or even between dev and ops.
- pavas 5y ago
  This kinda sounds like a copout. We can escape the fatalism of Dunbar's number and in/out-groups through leadership and recursively hierarchical structures. See any large (>~200 persons) company, collective action (civil rights, wars, social movements), nations, etc. I was asking a rhetorical question tbh.

3pt14159 5y ago

The payoff to kickstarting a city is absolutely bonkers. It's long term, but the compounding implied interest rate is still enormous. I don't think it is anywhere close to ending world hunger.