5 ms·

This is almost a solved problem; institutions are capable of sustaining intentions for insane periods of time. The major organised religious institutes have bee

by roenxi 3y ago

This is almost a solved problem; institutions are capable of sustaining intentions for insane periods of time. The major organised religious institutes have been pushing some basic standards for ethical living for millennia. There aren't a lot of projects that humans have considered worth a millenium of effort. Due to the limited abilities of humans that long ago they are all philosophical projects. But we can do it. And on a smaller scale, institutions can keep grinding away far longer than makes any sense. A grant and a trust fund can last centuries. Look at the educational institutions like Oxford for interesting examples of maintaining a culture. It is pretty easy to imagine a group like that sustaining long term technical projects. I don't think a millenium of sustained technological effort is actually that hard to achieve. We've obviously never done it before because industrial society is less than 1,000 years old. But assuming we don't self-immolate as seems likely then setting up ultra-long-term-projects isn't that hard to see.

5y345ywy 3y ago
Doesn't this really only hold true if you handwave away the emergence of new denominations within those religions over time?
- graemep 3y ago
  Not really, many old denominations have persisted for a very long time. Catholic and Orthodox churches, for example.
lifeisstillgood 3y ago
Institutions sustain themselves or rather the jobs of the controlling minds of the institution. Today’s Catholic Church would be viewed by its founders as some kind of uber-hippy bunch of democratic maniacs out to destroy civilisation. I think the difference here is we can view a company / institution as a machine to do a job, and between a company that has a controlling mind able to change its own machine “code” hence chnage its job. Without software the two things are needed - but with software we can concieve of a programmable company that just does its tasks as assigned for as long as inputs occur. If those tasks involve say sending jobs out to gig workers the idea kind of works It does mean you could build a Death Star using robots in place of gig workers (which is the obvious multi-generational solution) But it does imply something about our companies - that once the whole company can be specified in code, splitting off the “controlling minds” bit (ie management, plus developers) into seperate location seems interesting It also explicitly makes the issue of who decides what chnages and how come to the fore
- js8 3y ago
  > Today’s Catholic Church would be viewed by its founders as some kind of uber-hippy bunch of democratic maniacs out to destroy civilisation. Are you sure? It seems to me that Jesus would be dismayed by how establishment they've become and not nearly radical enough.
  - Filligree 3y ago
    These can both be true.
  - Loughla 3y ago
    And the money in the temple thing, too.
  - lukas099 3y ago
    I don't think they were thinking of Jesus as the founder of the Catholic Church. Although I think that is what the Vatican itself would say (?)
    - JackFr 3y ago
      I think the Vatican's perspective would be that it's a theologically meaningless and mostly ill-formed question.
      - lukas099 3y ago
        How so? Don't they derive authority from being an unbroken line back to Christ or at least St. Peter?
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      If we go with Constantine, I guess his strong impression would be how tame and uncommitted modern politics are.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
graemep 3y ago
Yes, but they believe in eternity, or reincarnation, of something longer than a lifespan. They also often believe in a defined obligation to future generations. Our contemporary culture does not. > Look at the educational institutions like Oxford for interesting examples of maintaining a culture. They have changed over the centuries though. The ethos and aims of Oxford are hardly what they were when it got its royal charter in the 13th century. True, it still values scholarship, but it has also changed in a lot of ways.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  In the olden days, students at Oxford mainly studied Divinity; nowadays there are schools of Business, Islamic Studies, high-energy physics and so on. There is still a number of Oxford "halls" devoted to Divinity, but the number of students and fellows engaged in that kind of work is tiny. So I agree: it's no longer the same institution at all.
  - graemep 3y ago
    > Islamic Studies Not that different a subject. A different focus traditionally, but still related to a monotheistic religion. > Business Definitely very different, especially in ethos. > There is still a number of Oxford "halls" devoted to Divinity, but the number of students and fellows engaged in that kind of work is tiny. and I believe the powers that be at the university would like to get rid of them?
lukas099 3y ago
Seems like survivorship bias. A lot of projects fizzle out. Vietnam War comes to mind.
- roenxi 3y ago
  Now I'm not exactly sure what the Vietnam war was supposed to achieve, and insofar as it fizzled out we need to define what, exactly, the aim was. I suspect it was pointless and fizzled out due to pointlessness eventually overwhelming the ability of the Americans to fight. However, if it was to combat communism/the USSR, which is my hazy understanding of the official justification, note communism has largely been expunged as a political ideology. All the communist states failed. The majors (USSR & China) have moved to capitalism. Well, China did. The USSR was removed from the map.
  - lukas099 3y ago
    > Those who argue that the United States’ opponents won the war cite the United States’ overall objectives and outcomes. The United States entered Vietnam with the principal purpose of preventing a communist takeover of the region. In that respect, it failed: the two Vietnams were united under a communist banner in July 1976. Neighbouring Laos and Cambodia similarly fell to communists. Furthermore, domestic unrest and the financial cost of war made peace—and troop withdrawals—a necessity, not a choice. From https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War In fairness, it also says that some people think the US won because it won the major battles and inflicted more casualties. That sounds like winning the battle but losing the war, to me.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      If your argument is that the Vietnam War failed to achieve its goals, in context I don't see how sustaining the war for a millennium would have helped. The US arguably identified (correctly) that their approach wasn't working and stopped. They then crushed communism. I don't see an argument that communism is a credible ideology these days. We all know what will happen to any country that makes a serious go of it - the citizens will starve and the economy will collapse. Then they can't spread communist ideology any more because they're broke and humiliated. The defeat was so resounding that the options became liberal capitalism, authoritarian capitalism or irrelevance. If I hated someone enough that I wanted to bring war to their doorstep, and then decided that wasn't enough, I'd wish communism on them to. So insofar as the US was defeated in Vietnam, they won the war so much that the battle turned out not to need sustaining. I don't think this example shows any sort of survivorship bias, I think it is just a case where the project was achieved quickly.

by roenxi 3y ago

5y345ywy 3y ago

Doesn't this really only hold true if you handwave away the emergence of new denominations within those religions over time?

graemep 3y ago
Not really, many old denominations have persisted for a very long time. Catholic and Orthodox churches, for example.

lifeisstillgood 3y ago

Institutions sustain themselves or rather the jobs of the controlling minds of the institution. Today’s Catholic Church would be viewed by its founders as some kind of uber-hippy bunch of democratic maniacs out to destroy civilisation. I think the difference here is we can view a company / institution as a machine to do a job, and between a company that has a controlling mind able to change its own machine “code” hence chnage its job. Without software the two things are needed - but with software we can concieve of a programmable company that just does its tasks as assigned for as long as inputs occur. If those tasks involve say sending jobs out to gig workers the idea kind of works It does mean you could build a Death Star using robots in place of gig workers (which is the obvious multi-generational solution) But it does imply something about our companies - that once the whole company can be specified in code, splitting off the “controlling minds” bit (ie management, plus developers) into seperate location seems interesting It also explicitly makes the issue of who decides what chnages and how come to the fore

js8 3y ago
> Today’s Catholic Church would be viewed by its founders as some kind of uber-hippy bunch of democratic maniacs out to destroy civilisation. Are you sure? It seems to me that Jesus would be dismayed by how establishment they've become and not nearly radical enough.
- Filligree 3y ago
  These can both be true.
- Loughla 3y ago
  And the money in the temple thing, too.
- lukas099 3y ago
  I don't think they were thinking of Jesus as the founder of the Catholic Church. Although I think that is what the Vatican itself would say (?)
  - JackFr 3y ago
    I think the Vatican's perspective would be that it's a theologically meaningless and mostly ill-formed question.
    - lukas099 3y ago
      How so? Don't they derive authority from being an unbroken line back to Christ or at least St. Peter?
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    If we go with Constantine, I guess his strong impression would be how tame and uncommitted modern politics are.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

graemep 3y ago

Yes, but they believe in eternity, or reincarnation, of something longer than a lifespan. They also often believe in a defined obligation to future generations. Our contemporary culture does not. > Look at the educational institutions like Oxford for interesting examples of maintaining a culture. They have changed over the centuries though. The ethos and aims of Oxford are hardly what they were when it got its royal charter in the 13th century. True, it still values scholarship, but it has also changed in a lot of ways.

denton-scratch 3y ago
In the olden days, students at Oxford mainly studied Divinity; nowadays there are schools of Business, Islamic Studies, high-energy physics and so on. There is still a number of Oxford "halls" devoted to Divinity, but the number of students and fellows engaged in that kind of work is tiny. So I agree: it's no longer the same institution at all.
- graemep 3y ago
  > Islamic Studies Not that different a subject. A different focus traditionally, but still related to a monotheistic religion. > Business Definitely very different, especially in ethos. > There is still a number of Oxford "halls" devoted to Divinity, but the number of students and fellows engaged in that kind of work is tiny. and I believe the powers that be at the university would like to get rid of them?

lukas099 3y ago

Seems like survivorship bias. A lot of projects fizzle out. Vietnam War comes to mind.

roenxi 3y ago
Now I'm not exactly sure what the Vietnam war was supposed to achieve, and insofar as it fizzled out we need to define what, exactly, the aim was. I suspect it was pointless and fizzled out due to pointlessness eventually overwhelming the ability of the Americans to fight. However, if it was to combat communism/the USSR, which is my hazy understanding of the official justification, note communism has largely been expunged as a political ideology. All the communist states failed. The majors (USSR & China) have moved to capitalism. Well, China did. The USSR was removed from the map.
- lukas099 3y ago
  > Those who argue that the United States’ opponents won the war cite the United States’ overall objectives and outcomes. The United States entered Vietnam with the principal purpose of preventing a communist takeover of the region. In that respect, it failed: the two Vietnams were united under a communist banner in July 1976. Neighbouring Laos and Cambodia similarly fell to communists. Furthermore, domestic unrest and the financial cost of war made peace—and troop withdrawals—a necessity, not a choice. From https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War In fairness, it also says that some people think the US won because it won the major battles and inflicted more casualties. That sounds like winning the battle but losing the war, to me.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    If your argument is that the Vietnam War failed to achieve its goals, in context I don't see how sustaining the war for a millennium would have helped. The US arguably identified (correctly) that their approach wasn't working and stopped. They then crushed communism. I don't see an argument that communism is a credible ideology these days. We all know what will happen to any country that makes a serious go of it - the citizens will starve and the economy will collapse. Then they can't spread communist ideology any more because they're broke and humiliated. The defeat was so resounding that the options became liberal capitalism, authoritarian capitalism or irrelevance. If I hated someone enough that I wanted to bring war to their doorstep, and then decided that wasn't enough, I'd wish communism on them to. So insofar as the US was defeated in Vietnam, they won the war so much that the battle turned out not to need sustaining. I don't think this example shows any sort of survivorship bias, I think it is just a case where the project was achieved quickly.