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

401–410 of 421 posts

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

#401

Post by maxbond »

WalterBright wrote: post #399
maxbond wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not really. Following my values usually feels neutral. Sometimes it feels absolutely terrible. What I'm trying to tell you is that this is an intrinsic goal, not an instrumental goal. If you were to ask me, "why do you have values?" or "why do you follow your values?" I wouldn't even know how to answer, it would be like asking a fish why it swims.

> No, not really. Then why do you do it? How would you feel if you did act selfishly?

I've already addressed this. Why does a fish swim? What would a fish do if it wasn't swimming?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_and_intrinsic_val...

Alternatively; why do you do things you enjoy? Why do you do things that benefit you? Why does it matter to derive benefit?

---

As far as I see it, the point of contention here is that you believe there exists only one intrinsic goal. I not only disagree but contend that I experience other intrinsic goals.

At this point, I don't really see how one of us could convince the other. You don't believe my self-reported experience for one reason or another. I know I have other intrinsic goals, so your hypothesis is exploded from my perspective. I was trying to demonstrate that you don't have access to other people's experiences and can't really know what motivates them, but you seem unmoved.

But if you have a different idea or line of argument I'm happy to entertain it.

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

#402

Post by nolongerthere »

maxbond wrote: post #374
nolongerthere wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I initially engaged with you in this conversation I did so because you appeared to be discussing things honestly but based on other comments you've made here its clear you are in fact trying to push an agenda that denies reality and instead excuses murder.

Pardon? When did I do that? Murder is inexcusable. Terrorism is inexcusable. I don't see where I ever implied otherwise.

You forcefully made a claim that was totally false that essentially firmly excused murder. I see you finally kinda corrected in it a follow up, but of course the follow up will not get nearly as much attention as the very false initial statement.

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

#403

Post by pvdoom »

panick21_ wrote: post #342
pvdoom wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Both broad generalizations are wrong. Yes historically many societies have put in place various solutions to the tragity of the commons. But its also wrong that this was always the case and that all these solutions were great. > It also happens that privatisation is the thing that makes the tragedy of the commons happen. That is just fundamentally false. Privatization is one potential solution for a Tragedy of the co…

> I would suggest Elinor Ostrom work on the topic.

Isn't her fundamental restatement of the tragedy of the commons that if the people decide to cooperate, then it doesn't happen? Which is a pretty thorough refutation to the original tragedy of the commons, as we see it in the Econ 101 meme. Problem is that privatisation (together with markets, cause the two always go hand in hand) introduces incentives to compete and to exploit, which achieves ... well a tragedy of the commons. And the second problem is that historically, privatisation has pretty much always been done in an unfair way.

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

#404

Post by pvdoom »

inglor_cz wrote: post #258
pvdoom wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Historically, people also cut down most of the forests in the Mediterranean for firewood and shipbuilding without even attempting to balance the process, causing major problems for their descendants. Most of this activity predated modern capitalism by millennia. Historically and currently, people polluted common waters and air with all sorts of agricultural and industrial runoff. Heck, someone around me has been feed…

And a lot of those things you list are not tragedy of the commons as stated, but a consequences of the very thing that Hardin was defending - the enclosure of the commons and privatisation. Because privatisation and capitalism both encourage competition, and unsustainable behaviour towards common resources. This is why we see agricultural and industrial runoffs, oceanic stock depletion etc. Historical communities tend to have tools and practices that prevent all of that stuff from happening, practices that have been put aside with colonialism, enclosure and markets ...

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

#405

Post by pvdoom »

concordDance wrote: post #232
pvdoom wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Historically people have actually had rather complicated and at the same time very effective ways of sustainably managing the commons. Ones that scale to more than a million people?

Yup.

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

#406

Post by prometheus76 »

croes wrote: post #392
prometheus76 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different set of "higher goods". I'm not a humanist. I'm a Christian. So going to church to worship God is more important than staying home to stay alive.

You can also praise God at home and I am pretty sure that He prefers it if you do not deliberately jeopardise His creation so that you may no longer be able to support your family and do His work. Also what happened to "Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”?

I can't participate in the Eucharist at home. Also, you are still assuming that sickness and suffering are inherently bad. There are worse things for your soul than sickness and death. Sickness and suffering in general heal your soul, and death means you have repented as much as you can and you are returning to your Lord. There is nothing to fear. Suffering and sickness shouldn't be avoided out of fear.

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

#407

Post by littlestymaar »

moring wrote: post #386
littlestymaar wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are secondary concerns: you need to agree to the end goal before you can even reach them, and the biggest problem is that many, if not most, affluent people don't want to solve the problem in the first place for either ideological and/or financial reasons, which in the American plutocracy means this will never happen. If you agree to the end goal, you can pick whatever answer you like to your financing question…

> (...) and the biggest problem is that many, if not most, affluent people don't want to solve the problem in the first place for either ideological and/or financial reasons, which in the American plutocracy means this will never happen. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in this discussion, because to me it seems like we're jumping from "this is really simple" to "it can't be done" and back. Which is i…

You are indeed misunderstanding, not only my arguments but also the arguments in the original article, so let me rephrase it:

1. Many problems, including homelessness, are relatively straightforward to solve for a willing State entity in a developed country. Everyone in power that says otherwise is simply lying. This is the “this is really simple” part.

2. The people that get elected and are ruling are not willing to fix these problems. And the reason they aren't is that it's really hard for someone who is willing to actually get elected because of the plutocratic nature of the system. This is the “really hard” part. It's not that it's complex, it's that the interest of the people is fighting against the ideology and economic interests of the ones who have the political power to get someone elected.

See, there's no contradiction at all, and reminding people that “yes, we can in fact have nice things” is actually a political strategy to try overcome #2.

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

#409

Post by tptacek »

johnnyworker wrote: post #398
stale2002 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Can you please stop haranguing people like this? If your arguments are as strong as you clearly feel they are (for instance: you have responded to people challenging them by simply repeating them verbatim), you should be able to make them without this kind of incivility.

A casual survey of the site suggests that, if one is forced to distill the conflict down to two simple sides, "Israel" and "Palestine", the side you fall in enjoys majority support among commenters on HN. You do that side no favors by writing so shrilly about it.

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

#410

Post by WalterBright »

maxbond wrote: post #401
WalterBright wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, not really. Then why do you do it? How would you feel if you did act selfishly?

I've already addressed this. Why does a fish swim? What would a fish do if it wasn't swimming? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_and_intrinsic_val... Alternatively; why do you do things you enjoy? Why do you do things that benefit you? Why does it matter to derive benefit? --- As far as I see it, the point of contention here is that you believe there exists only one intrinsic goal. I not only disagree but co…

> Why does a fish swim?

It will likely die if it does not. Animals' actions are an endless search for food and mates and stimulation.

> you believe there exists only one intrinsic goal

Only one? No. But it does underly our decisions and actions.

> I was trying to demonstrate that you don't have access to other people's experiences and can't really know what motivates them, but you seem unmoved

I'm unmoved because I see how selfishness destroys about every human initiative that relies on unselfish behavior.

Frankly, I don't believe you do things from which you derive neither benefit nor satisfaction. Even people who self-harm derive a benefit from it.

Post reply on HN