Comment by godelski
10 months ago
> We can't fix the problem by making better choices as individuals
That's wildly inaccurate. Your logic necessitates that "the system" is not composed of individuals.
The problem itself was created through individual actions...
The problem of individuals making optimal choices on an individual scale being sub-optimal on a society scale is so widespread we have a specific phrase to describe it: Tragedy of the commons
I would love to live in a world where everyone was altruistic and made correct choices for the long term good of society, but I don't. And there are limits to how much I'm willing to act as if I do, when in practice it just means I'm giving away resources to people who are purely (thinkingly or unthinkingly) selfish.
The problem is people think this is a remotely accurate statement. These things only work if you use very low order approximations. Like being the only person and time not existing. As soon as you build any accuracy your net benefit more aligns with society.
The classic example of this is the marshmallow experiment. It's myopic. We do it all the time but frequency doesn't make an action intelligent https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43873275
This isn't a tragedy of the commons issue. There's no finite resource we're all trying to draw upon in this case. The supply is generated by ourselves and it could be infinite if we chose to.
> Ultimately we can't change this behavior if no one is willing to defect from "conventional wisdom"
To me it reads as if you're contradicting yourself. It can be plainly seen that almost nobody is willing to defect. So change is impossible, you claim. Also change is possible, you claim. Which is it? You think people will change their choices as a result of you writing this comment and "winning" the argument?
I agree that people are responsible for the current situation, since their choices brought it about. That does not constitute a solution, though.
One or a thousand individuals changing their choice by themselves will do nothing. For tens of millions to change some external factor is required. If it was not, then it would have already happened. You say no external factor is required, so why do you think it didn't happen already, and why would it happen in the future?
There's no contradiction.
I claim the opposite. Just because few people defect doesn't mean that rate is fixed and immutable. That is where you misunderstand. Really, my comment is a "call to arms". It is a literally a plea to ask people of HN, including you, to become the change we all want to see. Follow your own logic. You have given up and are trying to justify it.
You are not mindless automata.
You have a choice.
Your actions matter.
Things have changed before, they can change again.
Every big problem is composed of many small problems.
We programmers are experts in breaking complex things down. Sure, fixing one small problem doesn't solve the big problem, but they do add up. That's all I'm arguing. I'm asking that others stop being apathetic and defeatist, to get up, and continue. I'm extending my hand, will you take it? There's more of us making effort, will you help?
> You have given up and are trying to justify it
While I get where you're coming from -- I think the correct thing to do is to both move for systemic change and attempt to live the life you advocate for -- I think the position of "I'm moral, why do other people need the system change in order to be 'moral' as well?" more totally abandons the actual goal (fixing things) than the other way around. Fundamentally, things tend to change for material, systemic reasons, and so most often the best way to get at issues is not to go after individuals (whose behavior is more a symptom than the disease) but the root cause, the systemic influences that cause them to act that way.
1 reply →
The problem was created by individuals deliberately acting collectively, not simply choosing one way or another in their routine individual capacities. The solution will require the same.