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

The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

peterturchin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 189 posts

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#111

Post by cmurf »

losteric wrote: post #59
tardygrad wrote: post #35

This was touched upon heavily in the book 'The Righteous Mind' by Jonathan Haidt, an amazing book if you're interested in this sort of thing and part of Bill Gate's reading list where I first found it. This quote (by Bertrand Russell) stood out: "Social cohesion is a necessity, and mankind has never yet succeeded in enforcing cohesion by merely rational arguments. Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers: o…

I blame the Cold War and decades of counter-collectivism propaganda. An entire generation grew up in that atmosphere... they became the nation's teachers and leaders, influencing the opinions of subsequent generations. Game theory shows small changes in behaviors and opinions can have massive downstream impact, as demonstrated by this interactive demo: http://ncase.me/trust/ (HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/ite…

This is fair. My dad grew up in the Great Depression in farmland, and the Federal government stepping in is what prevented widespread starvation. And during the dust bowl, again the Federal government came in and taugh everyone better soil management techniques. And from that, most people in that time and place were Democrats and expected that the government helped fund and organize the things that needed to be done on a grand scale that individuals couldn't do, nor did insurance.

Reagan did a lot of damage to the perception of what government should do and how citizens need to hold it accountable. Instead he described it in terms of being inherently bad, which is demonstrably b.s. but the country pretty much bought it as evidenced by his election, the ensuing cut in taxes, the near total stop in investments made to large scale private and and public infrastructure spending, and a shift to hoarding wealth rather than keeping it moving so that everyone benefits from it.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#112

Post by crispinb »

observation wrote: post #90
crispinb wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why then does the society with the flimsiest socialised provisions amongst rich nations (the US) also have on most measures by far the most precipitous collapse in social cohesion?

European countries are much smaller than the USA. I realize that within the USA there exist differences but I think your population centers are far larger than ours. Europe has a larger population but it is very dense with small, medium and then rarer large communities (similar to Japan I think). The USA appears to me (this could be quite wrong) to have large, very large and then sparse communities. I wish I could su…

The relevant comparison is amongst all the wealthy nations (European, N. American, Asian & Australasian), not "USA" vs "Europe" (the various nations constituting the latter have highly divergent social policies).

There are many differences among these nations. Some are densely populated (the Netherlands), some sparse (Australia). No comparisons I've ever seen amongst them however remotely suggests that as you add more sophisticated social welfare policies, this reduces social cohesion. On the contrary, such policies tend to smooth out the effects of inevitable industrial change, rendering populations more resilient. It's no accident that nations clinging to relatively crude social policy (the US, the UK) have far lower economic mobility than those using the state of the art (Sweden, Germany). And it is about sophistication, not absolute expenditure, by the way. France, for example, has high spending, but it's badly targeted and rendered inflexible by traditional interests, so on many indicators other than health, it looks more like the laggards (US, UK) than leaders (Sweden, Denmark, Canada).

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#113

Post by [deleted] »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #79
Animats wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The trouble with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings." -Wilde That's the problem with democracy. It's hard work.

One of the things that Tocqueville approved of in America is that everyone had some experience of government via jury duty. Which is compulsory (at least in principle, and in those days, probably in practice too). I've often wondered if random juries should play a larger role in day-to-day government. Forcing people to work like this is a huge tax and not to be taken lightly, but taxing peoples attention rather than…

[deleted]

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#114

Post by Consultant32452 »

ergothus wrote: post #55
Consultant32452 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It seems to be that collectivism, ironically, has made cooperation impossible rather than individualism. The government has taken on the role of "taking care" of your neighbor, so everyone stopped. Government guarantees you healthcare and income in retirement, so there's no need to have a family big enough to take care of you. And as the kid, your parents are taken care of, so your role is diminished. Whe…

Just throwing out a question here - What evidence do you have for the order of events? e.g. "The government has taken on the role of "taking care" of your neighbor, so everyone stopped" - how do you show that it wasn't the rise of urban centers, where you had too many neighbors to care for, that led to government stepping in where individuals were failing? For each of the items you list, I can see it going the direct…

The 19th century in the US was the great age of limited government. It was also the period of the greatest outpouring of charitable giving the world has ever known. This was the period when the first modern nonprofit community hospitals were created. It's when the Carnegie libraries were built, huge numbers of colleges were built. It's when the society of the prevention of cruelty to animals was built, the first international missions were started. Considering the technology available at the time it's really amazing what was accomplished. This was the boom time for personal charitable giving. And there were no income taxes and no tax breaks. So everyone who gave did so without being induced by the large government to do so.

I have no intention of making an argument that government is better or worse at: providing healthcare, building libraries, feeding the hungry, etc. All I'm suggesting is that when the government creates programs like SNAP then people have a tendency to believe that the hungry are being fed.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#115

Post by tisdy »

observation wrote: post #88
dsjoerg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I believe what you say? It sounds truthy and has plenty of logic to it, but I've come to ask for more before believing something.

It could be kin selection. In the past people lived closer to and interacted more with people of similar genetic ancestry. The real question is why wouldn't civic qualities decline. You can look at this on an economic lens - people don't need to depend on familial relations as much because of money. You can look at this with a racial/ethnic lens - more genetic variance reduces cooperative behaviours (see Charles Murr…

> Should we genetically manipulate ourselves to increase our pro-social behaviours? It seems clear that if society flies apart then all the critiques I've mentioned will be true simultaneously, I do not see how that can plausibly be positive. What about genetic intervention?

You had me and then you lost me.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#116

Post by Consultant32452 »

cat199 wrote: post #78
Consultant32452 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It seems to be that collectivism, ironically, has made cooperation impossible rather than individualism. The government has taken on the role of "taking care" of your neighbor, so everyone stopped. Government guarantees you healthcare and income in retirement, so there's no need to have a family big enough to take care of you. And as the kid, your parents are taken care of, so your role is diminished. Whe…

Isn't caring for your neighbor an inherently 'collectivist' act?

Yes of course, but let me try to shine a light on the distinction I was trying to make.

If I as an individual become aware that there are hungry people in my area, I may as an individual choose to put forth some effort, funds, etc. to attempt to rectify this problem. This is an individual act for the collective good. You are emotionally attached to your own act and have a personal interest in improving the system of feeding people because you want to make sure your money feeds the most people possible.

Conversely, if we all decide we're going to take some of your money, whether you like it or not, and decide how all of us cumulatively wish to solve the hunger problem, that is not an individual act. It is not an act of your conscience. It separates you emotionally and cognitively from the people you're feeding. You never meet them, you never get to know them. You have no attachment whatsoever to what's going on. You just pay taxes and hope the bureaucracy does a decent job, or more likely you stop thinking about feeding the hungry altogether because it's "taken care of." You still want your money to be used efficiently/effectively but the entire scope of government is far too big for the average person to deal with at that level.

I'm not intending to make any argument about which way is the most effective at: feeding the hungry, providing healthcare to the poor, etc. That's a different debate altogether. I'm only pointing out that the government giving some of your money to feed people is a completely different social experience than you doing so yourself. And further that when the government tells you it's going to take care of feeding everyone, it tends to drop off your radar.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#117

Post by Consultant32452 »

cakedoggie wrote: post #71
Consultant32452 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It seems to be that collectivism, ironically, has made cooperation impossible rather than individualism. The government has taken on the role of "taking care" of your neighbor, so everyone stopped. Government guarantees you healthcare and income in retirement, so there's no need to have a family big enough to take care of you. And as the kid, your parents are taken care of, so your role is diminished. Whe…

So according to you, NO ONE takes care of their neighbours, NO ONE helps anyone in their family when they need it, and NO ONE does charity work, because the government know fulfills that roll. But we can all plainly see that this is completely wrong, and people do do all that.

As with virtually every case of the use of "everyone" when I said everyone stopped I did not mean it literally.

And yes, families are far more likely to be broken today than in decades past. The elderly are more likely to be dumped in a home somewhere. Welfare has ravaged families. The single motherhood rate is 8x what it was in the 50s because we incentivize broken families. Over 50% of adults are single now. That's historically unprecedented, and it didn't start heading that direction until the 1950s when socialist programs started really taking hold in the US.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#118

Post by galaxyLogic »

My view is that people shouldn't be putting too much of their resources into collaboration, charity and helping their neighbors (only). Rather if they want to "do good" they should spend time and effort making the government better, more transparent, more accountable, less corrupt. A better government can better help everybody.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#119

Post by george_ciobanu »

tomohawk wrote: post #72

Cooperation used to be by free association through civic organizations. As the government has grown in scope, it has eclipsed these, and it really isn't surprising that civic society has declined as a result. When people freely participate in civic activities, they are being generous. There is no coercion. When government does the same thing, it is coercive. The activity does not occur unless taxes are collected. Cho…

The weight shifts but the overall value stays relatively constant: Quebecers give less than most Americans to homeless people because there are lots more social programs in place. Overalk, those in need get roughly the same amount of support.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#120

Post by lend000 »

tomohawk wrote: post #72

Cooperation used to be by free association through civic organizations. As the government has grown in scope, it has eclipsed these, and it really isn't surprising that civic society has declined as a result. When people freely participate in civic activities, they are being generous. There is no coercion. When government does the same thing, it is coercive. The activity does not occur unless taxes are collected. Cho…

Seems to me like it's rather tangential to the true source of political division in America, in which both sides now tie ideas/facts to one of two "teams" / political parties, and actively reject discussion about something that appears to hurt their team or benefit the other. See: Republicans and global warming, Democrats and national debt, either party and any bad decision by a President of their party.

Doesn't help that when one side is wrong, the other makes sure to kick some dirt in the face and rub it in as long as possible.

Post reply on HN