Live data from Hacker News

The scarcity of the long term

kk.org

31–40 of 107 posts

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#31
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

> 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?

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#32
post #6

Many cathedrals took hundreds of years to build. The following around 500 years: Cologne Cathedral, St. Vitus Cathedral and Milan Cathedral. Sagrada Familia was started in 1882, and Gaudi is dead for 98 years. If the emperor demands, it will be built.

>Sagrada Familia was started in 1882, and Gaudi is dead for 98 years.

and you can clearly see which part was done by which architect, as it's style, and structure shifts. Is the same vision of Gaudi still present in more modern parts of it?

(personally i think no, after seeing on vacation)

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#33
There is scarcity of scarcity, which leads to this madness. People didn't use to have a particular problem thinking at least a generation ahead, but there us no demand for such things. There is no way to make too much money on any established product. Anything that has existed for more than several years is available in vast amount, and cheap. Anything that isn't completely new is good enough to the point where only an insignificant improvement can be made at monumenta costs.

What is desirable now are things like a fidget spinner, that makes some quick cash, and gets forgotten soon after.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#34
The Death Star illustrates a problem with long term thinking: that goals become obsolete too fast. The thing in A New Hope was a gigantic waste of resources.

Freeman Dyson famously commented that no project should be planned that takes longer than five years. Anything beyond that and the ground shifts out from under the foundations of the effort. One ends up with efforts that persist not because they are useful, but because they are established, because there is an entrenched constituency for the consumption of resources the project entails.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#35

> The only real scarcity would be of a long attention span. I get the author's drift, and broadly agree. But I don't think it's really a long attention span that would get in the way of (e.g.) a Mars colony, or interstellar travel; it's that people's views change from one generation to the next. My kids have been imbued with some of my attitudes, sure; but I've not had much of a hand in the raising of my grandchildre…

> the Roman Empire lasted about 200 years.

The Roman Empire lasted about 500 years - from 31 BC to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476. If we include the period of existence of the Eastern Roman Empire it would be almost 1500 years - until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#36

What's scary is that at time scales of one generation or longer societies seem to forget even very important things. How pandemic looks like. That war and militarization is not such a good idea.

Conversely I think NATO and being the "world's policeman" was more popular in the US after WWII when we realized we could be pulled into European conflicts. After decades of relative peace a lot of people are wondering why we're spending so much on defense.

Another motivation was to inhibit nuclear proliferation. Without a global policeman, everyone has a motivation to acquire nuclear weapons.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#37
One problem with long term projects is advancement on technology that would had made a faster, sturdier, cleaner or whatever the original project if it started from zero using it.

We send a mission to Alpha centauri that would take, lets say, 100 years to get there with the current propulsion technologies, and in 30 years we discover a new one that would take 20 years to get there. Or the same for big buildings (I don't know, arcologies) where new materials and techniques would turn obsolete how it started if it was long enough in the past.

And not only new ways to improve, but different priorities or things that are out of our control that happen during its development. What if the land where the The Line in Saudi Arabla is being built gets permanently flooded because sea level rise or the entire region becomes unlivabable because frequent high enough temperatures in the region? Even social trends may turn something built for the future obsolete, there are plenty of ghost megacities in China.

Both acceleration in technologies, and acceleration in changes outside what is the construction by itself (climate, society, etc) can turn into (potentially hamrful) waste decades of effort.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#38
Seeing a lot of comments about human lifespan, projects shouldn't take more than 5 years etc

The Florence Cathedral took over 140 years to build. There is clear precedent that humans can design, plan and then execute a project that spans multiple lifetimes.

Even better, they didn't have a final design when they started:

> While the main structure of the nave was completed by 1380, a solution to constructing a dome to top it was not determined until 1418. [0]

This also reminds me of a personal story when visiting Florence:

Florentine Tour Guide: "It took 140 years to build the Cathedral. How do you think they were able to do this given that it took so long?"

Me: "I would think they needed a committee since that can last longer than a lifetime if the current members add in new people as the old members die"

Tour Guide: "Yes! Exactly! So few people realize that is what happened."

0 - https://editions.covecollective.org/chronologies/constructio...

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#39

> The only real scarcity would be of a long attention span. I get the author's drift, and broadly agree. But I don't think it's really a long attention span that would get in the way of (e.g.) a Mars colony, or interstellar travel; it's that people's views change from one generation to the next. My kids have been imbued with some of my attitudes, sure; but I've not had much of a hand in the raising of my grandchildre…

One of the unexpected effects of learning Hebrew for me, was something I didn't realize at first. Only almost thirty years since I could confidently use the language I accidentally watched a video where someone was researching the phonetics of the language (it's more or less generally agreed that nobody really knows how ancient Hebrew sounded). So, the researcher asked people from different communities (eg. Yemenite Jews, Samaritans, etc.) to read aloud a passage from Genesis.

It was very surprising to me that I could, more or less, understand what they were saying, despite the accent. Then came the realization that I could actually understand something written thousands of years ago by someone whose mind worked in a very different way, and yet I could, sort-of, communicate with that person.

---

I had to move a lot in my life. So, I don't have any childhood photos, nor do I keep in touch with my classmates from wherever I studied, I had to switch the language I use in my everyday life at least twice. I always "traveled light", so, I almost don't have any objects that are more than some ten years old. Except for the razor my grandfather brought from Germany in 1945 (now, I realize that it was probably looted, but many years back I was kind-of proud to inherit that). It says on it that it was manufactured in 1939.

I've never really met my grandfather -- he died when I was one y.o. I don't know what kind of person he was in his everyday life, in fact, I've ever only seen a single photograph of him. And yet I know that in many ways, subconsciously, I continue things he was doing. We have very different perspectives on life: he was a member of the Communist party, and I'm strongly in the Humanist camp. He liked gardening, and I hate being in the country etc. But, in a more broad sense, I keep a lot of the same culture he was part of: I'm pretty sure we learned the same multiplication table, or that we both had to read War and Peace at school, we both have the same idea about alphabet or using a dinner table for, well, dinner. And in that sense, I'm distinctly farther away from someone who sits down on a mat to eat their dinner, or, like ancient Greeks, who semi-lied down on a bench for their dinner.

In fact, it's very easy to trace my and my grandfather's differences to a common ancestor. It's not hard for me to understand why would he think the way he did, even though he's in the opposite camp. It's much harder to understand those who cannot disagree with me because they don't even know what they can possibly disagree about.

---

We don't have an obvious structure for projects that take multiple generations to complete. Not like the cathedrals that used to be built for hundred years or more, or even the books that used to be written by generations of scribes. But we still carry out such multi-generational projects by following conventions. We read books written by the previous generation, reinterpret them and embed their discoveries in our own.

It would've been nicer if we could organize this inheritance better, but it's not fair to say that it doesn't exist.

Re: The scarcity of the long term

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Roman Empire lasted about 200 years I thought it lasted much longer than that in the East?

I guess about 500 years, if you include Byzantium? But Byzantium was a very different creature from Rome.

According to the popular conciousness, the Roman Empire lasted from 27 BCE to 476 CE in the west (i.e. 503 years), and from 27 BCE to 1453 CE including Byzantium (i.e. 1480 years).

But that's a really bad way to think about it. A Roman in 30 BCE and 20 BC probably wouldn't notice much difference. There was still a Senate, still elections, still powerful men exerting massive influence over the lives of ordinary people. Essentially someone had just written 'Augustus' in chalk at the top of all the organization charts.

Similarly, in the west a Roman in 470 CE and 480 CE wouldn't have noticed much difference. There was still a Senate, and powerful 'barbarian' generals were still exerting massive influence over the lives of ordinary people. There even was still an Emperor who was nominally in charge - he was in Constantinople, but the Emperors hadn't lived in Rome for decades.

The fall of Constantinople was probably a bit different since a whole new political regieme was imposed, but even there I believe the Ottomans actually claimed to be the inheritors of Rome and the rightful emperors (Rome was Pagan, then Christian, why couldn't it now be Muslim?)

Realistically, there were a series of political regimes which evolved into each other time:

* Aristocratic Republic,

* 'Constitutional' Monarchy,

* Absolute Monarchy,

* Military Dictatorship,

* Theocratic Dictatorship.

Post reply on HN