8 ms·

I too used to think this way. I can't explain it now that I have a child and family and have lost people very close to me. Where as before the mere thought of i

I too used to think this way. I can't explain it now that I have a child and family and have lost people very close to me. Where as before the mere thought of innovating I felt like I was some of the first people ever to be doing something where in now I find it was all just a race. I.E. - Someone else could've finished that super fancy product and made lots of money. Just today I missed my daughter swimming for the first time and no amount of money or technology can fix that. I agree with you about the hopeful positive impact. Impact is hard to quantitively measure though so much as love is hard to measure. You only know how much you are loved by surrounding yourself with people who love you and sharing your love for them I guess. I never realized how alone I was until I had an inner circle to miss.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
I can't explain it now that I have a child and family and have lost people very close to me. As I posted to someone below you, I am married and have three kids. I have also lost a lot of my friends - I am an Iraq war veteran and was in the Air Force from 2003 until last Feb. All of that has led me to my conclusion because I see what is left after these people have gone away - and largely it's...nothing. Once their friends and family die, their "legacy" dies too, there is nothing lasting beyond those narrow impacts. So I feel like it's almost the easy way to go to focus on those around you and those relationships because they give the most immediate and personally impactful response - but they forgo a much wider and more grand legacy that could extend centuries.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  What do you see in a legacy? The opportunity to do good for humanity, or the opportunity to be remembered? For there will come a day when even Jesus, Shakespeare, and Newton will be forgotten. Eventually, we will all be forgotten.
  - jalonso510 11y ago
    Reminds me of Ozymandias: I met a traveller from an antique land, Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand, Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed; And on the pedestal, these words appear: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.” http://www.poetryfoundation.org/learning/guide/238972#poem http://www.poetryfoundation.org/learning/guide/238972#poem
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      The words are still there, aren't they? That counts.
      - shiven 11y ago
        That counts. By which math? 90% of the world doesn't know 90% of the history and doesn't care to know. The same history that includes big names of their era. Steve Jobs may be held up as an Ozymandias of our day, but will he be remembered for any of his "accomplishments" a thousand years from know? I doubt it. Why? How many Steve Jobs does 90% of our planet remember from 1000 years ago? One, two, ten, Zero? So is it about a named legacy or an anonymous one? If you are talking about impact. Sure. How about your impact on those whose actions affect your life the most? Whose choices influence your decisions about your life? Why does the focus have to be binary? Either, or?
  - trendroid 11y ago
    I feel 'leaving a legacy' would be dying knowing that your work left some tangible mark on humanity that you shared the planet with. It doesn't have to change people lives twenty years from now. Just the fact that my creations were enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people in an year(or five years) is the satisfaction most people would happily die with and would include in 'legacy'. Of course there is a different spectrum of 'legacy' for different profession and depending on your work the value of 'legacy' would fall somewhere in the spectrum specific to your work. So comparing 'legacy' across professions might not even make sense as long as you are helping thousands(or some higher number) of people. And as others have said, I believe 'impact' is a better word for hacker/scientific community than legacy.
- kraig911 11y ago
  I guess my juxtaposed argument is that to me the notion of any sort of legacy is just not good. I'd rather have my daughter be remembered for being a good dad. Than some guy who made something neat. A "legacy" is an ideology. To me when you're dead, you're dead, that's it.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I think I feel similar to AndrewKemendo. "Legacy" is a wrong word, maybe "positive impact" is better. Being a good dad is cool and nice, but if I had to chose one, I'd rather die knowing that I helped lift a million people out of poverty. Or even a thousand. I get strong feelings of love and need for relationships, but I sometimes feel they're more of an hormonal failure mode than anything fundamental. I want to love and be loved, and be the best I can be for those close to me, but I don't feel that those in my immediate vicinity are somehow morally more important than all those random people I don't know. I guess there might be no good answer, but the "common wisdom" is that to be happy, you should focus on yourself and your relationships as opposed to the world around you. Maybe it's a common sentiment, but there are people who genuinely don't feel that way.
    - trendroid 11y ago
      >but the "common wisdom" is that to be happy, you should focus on yourself and your relationships as opposed to the world around you Apart from the genetics thing, part of it is that most people are not going to be involved in impactful work. They do bullshit jobs and fret over it way too much than they really should. In turn, they lose out on quality family time and take people close to them for granted. So some of the comments about 'deathbed regrets' is actually valid for such people. If they were really fretting about solving cancer, aids or any thing that would change millions of lives, the apparent wisdom would immediately make less sense.
- nostrademons 11y ago
  You tend to get what you value, so if you believe that your legacy is more important than your close personal relationships, there's nothing anyone on Hacker News could say that will make that "wrong". Just remember that everybody's legacy is fleeting. In a generation, Steve Jobs will probably be remembered like the Duesenberg brothers.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    I guess legacy is the wrong word - as it implies a level of vanity that is uninteresting in my opinion. Rather, lets call it impact. For example Leo Szilard I feel had a much broader and deeper impact on the world than did Einstein, but with significantly less fame. Same with Woz vs Jobs etc...
- Bahamut 11y ago
  On the flip side, you only get one life. Each person has to make the decision how he/she wants to live it. Is a larger legacy worth pursuing at the cost of those claimed to be dear to each person? That is a question one must consider, and I don't think there is a right answer.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  To first approximation, there are almost no people who would have a "grand legacy" that could extend centuries. How many do you know from 1850? Eventually, no one will remember you, and that is true even if you are the most successful person on earth. The urge to have a legacy is a manifestation of the fear of death, and is primarily an exercise of ego. It does not have to overtake one's life.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    It's not about being remembered, it's about your life having positive impact beyond those you can personally see.
    - camillomiller 11y ago
      Yeah, but the question nobody's posing is: why should it? That's a question I personally can't answer. I don't see any higher meaning in "leaving a legacy". You'll be dead anyway. Why shouldn't we focus on living a better, more relaxed and less stressful life while we're here to recognize that?
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        And the reverse question would be: why shouldn't it? Why should I focus on living happily and have family and relationships? I'll be dead anyway, and so will everyone I ever loved. So I guess it's up to one to pick for him/herself. Some want to focus on their own small world, others want to leave behind some lasting change affecting many.
        Dewie3 11y ago
        People try to be happy because they intrinsically want to be happy. Not because being happy matters after you're dead -- obviously you're not in a state to be happy after you're dead. At least not in this world. Why do people want to make a lasting change? Purely for intrinsic reasons? Or is there some hidden assumption like for example that it will make them happy in their later years?
blazespin 11y ago
It is a part of that being good to yourself he talks about. Creating things, lasting impactful things, is a great favor we all do ourselves. Martin Luther king wrote about it well in the 3 dimensions of man. Man being all he can be, is his length. It's an important dimension. But you must balance that with your breadth and height. Outwards to others and your spirituality. Worth a good read. http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_the_three_dimensions_of_a_complete_life/ http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documen...
misterbee 11y ago
There's nothing to "fix" about not being around for every single moment. "firsts" aren't really such a big deal. 1. There are many many "firsts". 2. Each one isn't really a "first", because so much of what we do is gradual, that's arbitary where you draw the line of accomplishment.
jamesrcole 11y ago
> ... before the mere thought of innovating I felt like I was some of the first people ever to be doing something where in now I find it was all just a race. I.E. - Someone else could've finished that super fancy product and made lots of money You're implying that technology doesn't ever improve people's lives. But, especially if you take longer term view, it clearly can and does.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

I can't explain it now that I have a child and family and have lost people very close to me. As I posted to someone below you, I am married and have three kids. I have also lost a lot of my friends - I am an Iraq war veteran and was in the Air Force from 2003 until last Feb. All of that has led me to my conclusion because I see what is left after these people have gone away - and largely it's...nothing. Once their friends and family die, their "legacy" dies too, there is nothing lasting beyond those narrow impacts. So I feel like it's almost the easy way to go to focus on those around you and those relationships because they give the most immediate and personally impactful response - but they forgo a much wider and more grand legacy that could extend centuries.

sliverstorm 11y ago
What do you see in a legacy? The opportunity to do good for humanity, or the opportunity to be remembered? For there will come a day when even Jesus, Shakespeare, and Newton will be forgotten. Eventually, we will all be forgotten.
- jalonso510 11y ago
  Reminds me of Ozymandias: I met a traveller from an antique land, Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand, Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed; And on the pedestal, these words appear: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.” http://www.poetryfoundation.org/learning/guide/238972#poem http://www.poetryfoundation.org/learning/guide/238972#poem
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    The words are still there, aren't they? That counts.
    - shiven 11y ago
      That counts. By which math? 90% of the world doesn't know 90% of the history and doesn't care to know. The same history that includes big names of their era. Steve Jobs may be held up as an Ozymandias of our day, but will he be remembered for any of his "accomplishments" a thousand years from know? I doubt it. Why? How many Steve Jobs does 90% of our planet remember from 1000 years ago? One, two, ten, Zero? So is it about a named legacy or an anonymous one? If you are talking about impact. Sure. How about your impact on those whose actions affect your life the most? Whose choices influence your decisions about your life? Why does the focus have to be binary? Either, or?
- trendroid 11y ago
  I feel 'leaving a legacy' would be dying knowing that your work left some tangible mark on humanity that you shared the planet with. It doesn't have to change people lives twenty years from now. Just the fact that my creations were enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people in an year(or five years) is the satisfaction most people would happily die with and would include in 'legacy'. Of course there is a different spectrum of 'legacy' for different profession and depending on your work the value of 'legacy' would fall somewhere in the spectrum specific to your work. So comparing 'legacy' across professions might not even make sense as long as you are helping thousands(or some higher number) of people. And as others have said, I believe 'impact' is a better word for hacker/scientific community than legacy.
kraig911 11y ago
I guess my juxtaposed argument is that to me the notion of any sort of legacy is just not good. I'd rather have my daughter be remembered for being a good dad. Than some guy who made something neat. A "legacy" is an ideology. To me when you're dead, you're dead, that's it.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I think I feel similar to AndrewKemendo. "Legacy" is a wrong word, maybe "positive impact" is better. Being a good dad is cool and nice, but if I had to chose one, I'd rather die knowing that I helped lift a million people out of poverty. Or even a thousand. I get strong feelings of love and need for relationships, but I sometimes feel they're more of an hormonal failure mode than anything fundamental. I want to love and be loved, and be the best I can be for those close to me, but I don't feel that those in my immediate vicinity are somehow morally more important than all those random people I don't know. I guess there might be no good answer, but the "common wisdom" is that to be happy, you should focus on yourself and your relationships as opposed to the world around you. Maybe it's a common sentiment, but there are people who genuinely don't feel that way.
  - trendroid 11y ago
    >but the "common wisdom" is that to be happy, you should focus on yourself and your relationships as opposed to the world around you Apart from the genetics thing, part of it is that most people are not going to be involved in impactful work. They do bullshit jobs and fret over it way too much than they really should. In turn, they lose out on quality family time and take people close to them for granted. So some of the comments about 'deathbed regrets' is actually valid for such people. If they were really fretting about solving cancer, aids or any thing that would change millions of lives, the apparent wisdom would immediately make less sense.
nostrademons 11y ago
You tend to get what you value, so if you believe that your legacy is more important than your close personal relationships, there's nothing anyone on Hacker News could say that will make that "wrong". Just remember that everybody's legacy is fleeting. In a generation, Steve Jobs will probably be remembered like the Duesenberg brothers.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  I guess legacy is the wrong word - as it implies a level of vanity that is uninteresting in my opinion. Rather, lets call it impact. For example Leo Szilard I feel had a much broader and deeper impact on the world than did Einstein, but with significantly less fame. Same with Woz vs Jobs etc...
Bahamut 11y ago
On the flip side, you only get one life. Each person has to make the decision how he/she wants to live it. Is a larger legacy worth pursuing at the cost of those claimed to be dear to each person? That is a question one must consider, and I don't think there is a right answer.
littletimmy 11y ago
To first approximation, there are almost no people who would have a "grand legacy" that could extend centuries. How many do you know from 1850? Eventually, no one will remember you, and that is true even if you are the most successful person on earth. The urge to have a legacy is a manifestation of the fear of death, and is primarily an exercise of ego. It does not have to overtake one's life.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  It's not about being remembered, it's about your life having positive impact beyond those you can personally see.
  - camillomiller 11y ago
    Yeah, but the question nobody's posing is: why should it? That's a question I personally can't answer. I don't see any higher meaning in "leaving a legacy". You'll be dead anyway. Why shouldn't we focus on living a better, more relaxed and less stressful life while we're here to recognize that?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      And the reverse question would be: why shouldn't it? Why should I focus on living happily and have family and relationships? I'll be dead anyway, and so will everyone I ever loved. So I guess it's up to one to pick for him/herself. Some want to focus on their own small world, others want to leave behind some lasting change affecting many.
      - Dewie3 11y ago
        People try to be happy because they intrinsically want to be happy. Not because being happy matters after you're dead -- obviously you're not in a state to be happy after you're dead. At least not in this world. Why do people want to make a lasting change? Purely for intrinsic reasons? Or is there some hidden assumption like for example that it will make them happy in their later years?

blazespin 11y ago

It is a part of that being good to yourself he talks about. Creating things, lasting impactful things, is a great favor we all do ourselves. Martin Luther king wrote about it well in the 3 dimensions of man. Man being all he can be, is his length. It's an important dimension. But you must balance that with your breadth and height. Outwards to others and your spirituality. Worth a good read. http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_the_three_dimensions_of_a_complete_life/ http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documen...

misterbee 11y ago

There's nothing to "fix" about not being around for every single moment. "firsts" aren't really such a big deal. 1. There are many many "firsts". 2. Each one isn't really a "first", because so much of what we do is gradual, that's arbitary where you draw the line of accomplishment.

jamesrcole 11y ago

> ... before the mere thought of innovating I felt like I was some of the first people ever to be doing something where in now I find it was all just a race. I.E. - Someone else could've finished that super fancy product and made lots of money You're implying that technology doesn't ever improve people's lives. But, especially if you take longer term view, it clearly can and does.