Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

erikmcclure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 421 posts

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#221

Post by WalterBright »

maxbond wrote: post #169
WalterBright wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All people are selfish. People who give to others derive pleasure from it, and they like that pleasure. Not enough to base an economy on it, though. People soon get tired of working hard only to give the results to loafers.

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question, but instead repeated your original assertion. Let's say I declare that your observation is not true of me personally. Note that this doesn't necessitate any evidence external to me; I could introspect and discover this about myself, however you don't have the ability to "introspect" into my own mind. How could you prove to me I'm mistaken? And please note, I…

> How could you prove to me I'm mistaken?

By having a conversation with you. I'd point out your pride and self-satisfaction at being unselfish. If I knew of you more than that, I'd point out your selfish behavior. It's not hard, look at the clothes you wear, the car you drive, the cookie you ate, your grooming, and so on.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#223

Post by timeon »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #185
arp242 wrote: post #58

For a lot of things the problem is essentially a problem of scale. Those "ancient human tribes" who did so much better were tribes of 100-200 people, and it's actually not that hard to "do the right thing" with a relatively small group of people. Blaming it on the two-party system is such a short-sighted US-centric point of view. There are plenty of countries with other types of democracies, and they have roughly sim…

I've lived in a few places around the world. By far the best-run one was the Isle of Man, which (when I lived there) had a population of around 30K. It has an independent parliament (Tynwald, the oldest continuous parliament in the world), and it makes its own laws. The government has very little graft. Politicians seemed to genuinely work for the benefit of their constituents [0]. I always attributed this to the fac…

> that they lived in the communities they served

It is not just this. There are many small municipalities around the world where mayor/local council does not act like this. Most of things come down to voters. Their culture and breadth of views.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#224

Post by chthonicdaemon »

Fbnkigffb66tfbj wrote: post #182
grecy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the question is at what cost? The world will be a wonderful place when schools have all the funding they need and the Air Force must hold a bake sale to pay for new fighter jets. The US spent $8,000,000,000,000 on the "war on terror" [1], while 21% of adults are illiterate [2] [1] https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar [2] https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statisti...

> $8,000,000,000,000 It's a lot more readable to just write $8 trillion. Writing out all the zeros doesn't make your point any more convincing.

$8 trillion is ambiguous and forces me to understand whether you're using long or short scale (particularly for me, coming from a long scale culture, it trips me up often) [1]. I've often wondered though why scientific notation or SI prefixes have never caught on for currency. 8 T$ or $8e12 feel both shorter and less ambiguous.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#225

Post by QVVRP4nYz »

travisjungroth wrote: post #98

If your solution would work except for some reason, then you don’t actually have a solution . A drill that works in space except for all that vacuum and radiation isn’t actually a space drill. It’s a space drill for some alternate reality, meaning the one you’re not actually in. You haven’t solved the problem. You’re not as good of a problem solver as you think you are, sorry. Stop acting like you’ve solved it. You h…

Yeah, whole article could be summed up with Mencken quote from 1920:

> There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#226

Post by consp »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #185
arp242 wrote: post #58

For a lot of things the problem is essentially a problem of scale. Those "ancient human tribes" who did so much better were tribes of 100-200 people, and it's actually not that hard to "do the right thing" with a relatively small group of people. Blaming it on the two-party system is such a short-sighted US-centric point of view. There are plenty of countries with other types of democracies, and they have roughly sim…

I've lived in a few places around the world. By far the best-run one was the Isle of Man, which (when I lived there) had a population of around 30K. It has an independent parliament (Tynwald, the oldest continuous parliament in the world), and it makes its own laws. The government has very little graft. Politicians seemed to genuinely work for the benefit of their constituents [0]. I always attributed this to the fac…

> the UK politicians spent the contributions on other things

I'm pretty sure this is by design and the end result is as well.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#227

Post by lapcat »

> strategic voting is rational behavior

Is it? How many large-scale elections are decided by one vote?

I'm well aware that that the 2000 US Presidential election was officially decided by 537 votes (in Florida, though recounts were not allowed). Nonetheless, 537 votes is not 1 vote. If one person had changed their vote, it wouldn't have made a difference. If two people had changed their votes, it wouldn't have made a difference. If three people had changed their votes, it wouldn't have made a difference. You could try to coordinate all of your friends and family (in Florida), and it still wouldn't have made a difference.

Realistically, the chances of your vote changing the outcome of a large-scale election with millions of voters is practically nil. You have better odds of winning the lottery; as proof, people do actually win the lottery! But buying lottery tickets is not generally considered to be rational behavior.

Admittedly, there are a number of smaller, local elections that have been decided by one vote. In general, though, I would consider strategic voting to be irrational, indeed delusional.

If you want to significantly influence the outcome a large-scale election, then become ultra-wealthy and throw your money at politics. (Or you could just ignore the elections and buy off whoever wins.) The irony is that in a democracy, every vote is equal, which means none of us individually has any power as voters.

You don't need "ranked choice voting" or any other convoluted system in order to "vote your conscience", as it were. You could just do it, but we just don't.

I'm not suggesting that you ought to vote your conscience, by the way. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. But that's precisely why you could if you wanted to. From a kind of Kantian moral framework, you might vote as you would want everyone else to vote, and in that case, if you truly hate the two major political parties, then why would you vote for them, and want everyone else to vote for them? I don't believe that makes sense either strategically or morally.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#228

Post by pvdoom »

arp242 wrote: post #58

For a lot of things the problem is essentially a problem of scale. Those "ancient human tribes" who did so much better were tribes of 100-200 people, and it's actually not that hard to "do the right thing" with a relatively small group of people. Blaming it on the two-party system is such a short-sighted US-centric point of view. There are plenty of countries with other types of democracies, and they have roughly sim…

A better way to put it is, we could fix everything, we just don't, because it is not profitable and not in the interest of the people that have the money to invest in stuff.

I do think there is definitely an element of things being harder than they seem, but it's just an element. The vast majority is the for profit nature of our system, that does not reward making things better.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#229

Post by pvdoom »

Aunche wrote: post #140
arp242 wrote: post #58

For a lot of things the problem is essentially a problem of scale. Those "ancient human tribes" who did so much better were tribes of 100-200 people, and it's actually not that hard to "do the right thing" with a relatively small group of people. Blaming it on the two-party system is such a short-sighted US-centric point of view. There are plenty of countries with other types of democracies, and they have roughly sim…

He doesn't even give an example of "ancient human tribes," but modern day nomads whose traditions have also developed over thousands of years. If ancient human tribes were so great at avoiding tragedy of the commons, I would be eating a mammoth steak right now.

The whole tragedy of the commons was literally made up by a very reactionary dude to justify fucking people over and justify enclosure and privatisation. Historically people have actually had rather complicated and at the same time very effective ways of sustainably managing the commons. It also happens that privatisation is the thing that makes the tragedy of the commons happen.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#230

Post by concordDance »

The underlying point that the vast majority of problems are Moloch/incentive alignment problems is correct, but a lot of those examples are controversial. To take one:

> We know that automation is chipping away at low-skill jobs, which means our workforce needs to be better educated, and that providing free college to everyone would be a good idea, we just don’t.

University education is primarily a signalling mechanism. Getting a degree in English literature doesn't actually make you a better oil market analyst to an appreciable degree, it just signals the ability to do work with minimal supervision.

And if higher education is indeed a positional good then funding everyone to do it is just setting money/time on fire.

Post reply on HN