7 ms·

> we may be too often missing the important part of being a decent human being. "decent human being" is too vague and easily manipulated term, so it could be b

> we may be too often missing the important part of being a decent human being. "decent human being" is too vague and easily manipulated term, so it could be better to follow hard metrics and data.

louthy 3y ago
Showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Will that do as a definition? Be altruistic.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  I would add: self accountability and willingness to work hard for self improvement. Some stereotypical American who is nice to others, visits church, serves Thanks Giving food to homeless can be considered as decent human being by local community. But at the same time, material damage on others lives from say driving V8 truck and blindly voting for local politician can be significant, but he is not interested in learning about this. And self improvement and self accountability are not considered critical by most of sociaties.
  - kian 3y ago
    So voting for the 'correct' local politician and driving an eco-friendly car are more important than being nice and helping others less fortunate? How very blue.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      > So voting for the 'correct' local politician and driving an eco-friendly car are more important than being nice and helping others less fortunate? if you do some calculations before jumping to your prejudgment, you may find that it is more important, and people are less fortunate because someone burns too much gasoline and votes for 'wrong' politicians. But it was simplified example, privileged people utilize more complicated schemes.
      - kian 3y ago
        Please, help me with this calculation, since I clearly lack the proper exchange rate -- how many gallons of excess gasoline or votes for the wrong 'local' (rather than national or state) politician equals being nice to people for a lifetime or helping those less fortunate? I get that you're trying to say that voting for the wrong local politician might lead to more 'less fortunates' -- principled individuals could argue this one either way, for either side of the political divide, about who the 'wrong' politicians are -- but how exactly does burning excess gasoline, and at what exchange rate? Perhaps we are talking about the impact on future generations? Is there a discount rate on future lives over present? Have you perhaps gotten rid of your car long ago and just walk everywhere selflessly slashing tires while trying your best to barely convert oxygen to carbon dioxide? At least I suppose the idea that being nice to the people around you is less important than voting for the right colors or driving the right cars or holding the right ideological opinions certainly does explain a whole lot about the current social climate. It is a shame people seem to have such a hard time with the idea of doing all of the above, and just seem to pick one or the other.
        riku_iki 3y ago
        > wrong 'local' (rather than national or state) politician I meant to say blindly voting for local politician going for state/national office just because he is local regardless of policies. > but how exactly does burning excess gasoline, and at what exchange rate? few hints how to build estimations: - check how much money Western countries paid to autocratic regimes for oil/gas. Check estimates how many people were killed/jailed/displaced internally and as results of conflicts initiated by those regimes - there are reports available about long term material damage from global warming. You can divide it by gasoline consumed for personal transportation by westerners and multiply by some calibration multipler to offset other factors (0.2 will be reasonable first estimation)
        kian 3y ago
        Now that you've given me a bunch of homework (rather than an exchange rate derived from that research), I can spend a bunch of my time to measure the human misery inflicted by driving at all (and how much extra is inflicted using a gas-inefficient vehicle). Of course, presumably several people will have died as a result of the electricity and gas used to manufacture and move the food that I will have required to spend the time used for that research [that you have presumably already done? For the moment, I'll trust your numbers and your intent, if you're willing to share them to save a few lives]. I do have the following estimate range for the value of a statistical life in typical Western democracies -- "In Western countries and other liberal democracies, estimates for the value of a statistical life typically range from US$1 million—US$10 million; for example, the United States FEMA estimated the value of a statistical life at US$7.5 million in 2020". Should we be applying this value for lives in autocratic gas dictatorships, or should we be using a smaller number? Again, since you've clearly spent the time on this already, I'll defer to your calculations if you're willing to share them. Now all we need is a measure of the value of human kindness and what the appropriate discount rate is for local kindness vs exported kindness and present lives vs future lives, along with a measure of the inelasticity of demand for gasoline, to take into account the actual impact of us not making a purchase [since a gallon unconsumed by someone here does not equate to a gallon left in the ground or unconsumed]. Additionally, do these autocratic regimes kill fewer or more people when they are earning less and thus have a more tenuous hold on power? Presumably if we all reduced our gas consumption entirely, we might even be able to induce a violent revolution to overthrow them. Those are usually pretty bloodless, and I haven't ever heard of revolutionaries becoming the new autocratic regime before. You wouldn't happen to have any pointers on how to calculate any of the above, or even better, calculations you've already done yourself, would you? Finally, for bonus points, would you care to share the number of statistical lives that you ruin per year to support you and your family's own personal transportation and living habits so that I can have an idea of your revealed preference for following through on your expressed beliefs and your own actual personal exchange rate on the value of your life and happiness vs strangers across the globe? [ I should probably add, at this point, that I don't drive anywhere at all, and I take mass transportation when I do travel, which is very infrequently ]
- nox100 3y ago
  No, it won't, because that concern often leads to polices that have unintended consequences that in the end hurt the welfare of others.
- anjel 3y ago
  Practice empathy towards others and altruism follows in due course
- rayiner 3y ago
  But “unselfish concern for the welfare of others” doesn’t necessarily make those other people better off or help them. As someone from a poor country, I’d trade a million gentle, well meaning western feelers for a single Lee Kuan Yew. Selfless altruism is a red flag. Be suspicious of anyone who wants to apply a different standard to you than to themselves—even if they think they’re being altruistic about it. The golden rule is better: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> "decent human being" is too vague and easily manipulated term, I don't think so. I believe the most common conclusions about what defines a decent human being are good ones. That is, the qualities that come to mind most naturally and frequently are truly benevolent. Because they are defaults, they outlast efforts to slant and curate understanding.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  I tried to explain my point better in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38675446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38675446
johnnyworker 3y ago
That's like saying calories can't be counted with 100% certainty, so we should eat integers instead. > What has come to light is neither nihilism nor cynicism, as one might have expected, but a quite extraordinary confusion over elementary questions of morality — as if an instinct in such matters were truly the last thing to be taken for granted in our time. -- Hannah Arendt, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil"
- riku_iki 3y ago
  > That's like saying I disagree with "that's like that". I think your analogy is very far. Calories metrics are actually much better researched and measured compared to human decency.
  - funcDropShadow 3y ago
    Human decency has been investigate, discussed, analyzed, dramatised since millenia, however not by using numbers.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      > however not by using numbers. yes, which makes all previous results subjective and unreliable.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  There's some interesting evidence suggesting there are 4 basic personality types with very different outlooks on life. If you're in a hurry, skip straight to the caption for figure 3. Humans display a reduced set of consistent behavioral phenotypes in dyadic games https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451

> we may be too often missing the important part of being a decent human being. "decent human being" is too vague and easily manipulated term, so it could be better to follow hard metrics and data.

louthy 3y ago

Showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Will that do as a definition? Be altruistic.

riku_iki 3y ago
I would add: self accountability and willingness to work hard for self improvement. Some stereotypical American who is nice to others, visits church, serves Thanks Giving food to homeless can be considered as decent human being by local community. But at the same time, material damage on others lives from say driving V8 truck and blindly voting for local politician can be significant, but he is not interested in learning about this. And self improvement and self accountability are not considered critical by most of sociaties.
- kian 3y ago
  So voting for the 'correct' local politician and driving an eco-friendly car are more important than being nice and helping others less fortunate? How very blue.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    > So voting for the 'correct' local politician and driving an eco-friendly car are more important than being nice and helping others less fortunate? if you do some calculations before jumping to your prejudgment, you may find that it is more important, and people are less fortunate because someone burns too much gasoline and votes for 'wrong' politicians. But it was simplified example, privileged people utilize more complicated schemes.
    - kian 3y ago
      Please, help me with this calculation, since I clearly lack the proper exchange rate -- how many gallons of excess gasoline or votes for the wrong 'local' (rather than national or state) politician equals being nice to people for a lifetime or helping those less fortunate? I get that you're trying to say that voting for the wrong local politician might lead to more 'less fortunates' -- principled individuals could argue this one either way, for either side of the political divide, about who the 'wrong' politicians are -- but how exactly does burning excess gasoline, and at what exchange rate? Perhaps we are talking about the impact on future generations? Is there a discount rate on future lives over present? Have you perhaps gotten rid of your car long ago and just walk everywhere selflessly slashing tires while trying your best to barely convert oxygen to carbon dioxide? At least I suppose the idea that being nice to the people around you is less important than voting for the right colors or driving the right cars or holding the right ideological opinions certainly does explain a whole lot about the current social climate. It is a shame people seem to have such a hard time with the idea of doing all of the above, and just seem to pick one or the other.
      - riku_iki 3y ago
        > wrong 'local' (rather than national or state) politician I meant to say blindly voting for local politician going for state/national office just because he is local regardless of policies. > but how exactly does burning excess gasoline, and at what exchange rate? few hints how to build estimations: - check how much money Western countries paid to autocratic regimes for oil/gas. Check estimates how many people were killed/jailed/displaced internally and as results of conflicts initiated by those regimes - there are reports available about long term material damage from global warming. You can divide it by gasoline consumed for personal transportation by westerners and multiply by some calibration multipler to offset other factors (0.2 will be reasonable first estimation)
        kian 3y ago
        Now that you've given me a bunch of homework (rather than an exchange rate derived from that research), I can spend a bunch of my time to measure the human misery inflicted by driving at all (and how much extra is inflicted using a gas-inefficient vehicle). Of course, presumably several people will have died as a result of the electricity and gas used to manufacture and move the food that I will have required to spend the time used for that research [that you have presumably already done? For the moment, I'll trust your numbers and your intent, if you're willing to share them to save a few lives]. I do have the following estimate range for the value of a statistical life in typical Western democracies -- "In Western countries and other liberal democracies, estimates for the value of a statistical life typically range from US$1 million—US$10 million; for example, the United States FEMA estimated the value of a statistical life at US$7.5 million in 2020". Should we be applying this value for lives in autocratic gas dictatorships, or should we be using a smaller number? Again, since you've clearly spent the time on this already, I'll defer to your calculations if you're willing to share them. Now all we need is a measure of the value of human kindness and what the appropriate discount rate is for local kindness vs exported kindness and present lives vs future lives, along with a measure of the inelasticity of demand for gasoline, to take into account the actual impact of us not making a purchase [since a gallon unconsumed by someone here does not equate to a gallon left in the ground or unconsumed]. Additionally, do these autocratic regimes kill fewer or more people when they are earning less and thus have a more tenuous hold on power? Presumably if we all reduced our gas consumption entirely, we might even be able to induce a violent revolution to overthrow them. Those are usually pretty bloodless, and I haven't ever heard of revolutionaries becoming the new autocratic regime before. You wouldn't happen to have any pointers on how to calculate any of the above, or even better, calculations you've already done yourself, would you? Finally, for bonus points, would you care to share the number of statistical lives that you ruin per year to support you and your family's own personal transportation and living habits so that I can have an idea of your revealed preference for following through on your expressed beliefs and your own actual personal exchange rate on the value of your life and happiness vs strangers across the globe? [ I should probably add, at this point, that I don't drive anywhere at all, and I take mass transportation when I do travel, which is very infrequently ]
nox100 3y ago
No, it won't, because that concern often leads to polices that have unintended consequences that in the end hurt the welfare of others.
anjel 3y ago
Practice empathy towards others and altruism follows in due course
rayiner 3y ago
But “unselfish concern for the welfare of others” doesn’t necessarily make those other people better off or help them. As someone from a poor country, I’d trade a million gentle, well meaning western feelers for a single Lee Kuan Yew. Selfless altruism is a red flag. Be suspicious of anyone who wants to apply a different standard to you than to themselves—even if they think they’re being altruistic about it. The golden rule is better: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> "decent human being" is too vague and easily manipulated term, I don't think so. I believe the most common conclusions about what defines a decent human being are good ones. That is, the qualities that come to mind most naturally and frequently are truly benevolent. Because they are defaults, they outlast efforts to slant and curate understanding.

riku_iki 3y ago
I tried to explain my point better in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38675446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38675446

johnnyworker 3y ago

That's like saying calories can't be counted with 100% certainty, so we should eat integers instead. > What has come to light is neither nihilism nor cynicism, as one might have expected, but a quite extraordinary confusion over elementary questions of morality — as if an instinct in such matters were truly the last thing to be taken for granted in our time. -- Hannah Arendt, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil"

riku_iki 3y ago
> That's like saying I disagree with "that's like that". I think your analogy is very far. Calories metrics are actually much better researched and measured compared to human decency.
- funcDropShadow 3y ago
  Human decency has been investigate, discussed, analyzed, dramatised since millenia, however not by using numbers.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    > however not by using numbers. yes, which makes all previous results subjective and unreliable.
anigbrowl 3y ago
There's some interesting evidence suggesting there are 4 basic personality types with very different outlooks on life. If you're in a hurry, skip straight to the caption for figure 3. Humans display a reduced set of consistent behavioral phenotypes in dyadic games https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451