Ask HN: What can you do today that will be significant in 1000 years?
What about a million years?
Today buildings are cheap which means that there is no incentive to keep them around until they become historically significant.
That 1000 year old abbey on a hill somewhere likely used to be the only masonry building for 100s of miles for a good chunk of its history and by the time masonry buildings became cheap enough to be mass produced to be considered a commodity it has gained sufficient historical value to be preserved for it.
It’s also interesting to think about historic property laws.
Land ownership is relatively a new concept and in many places you still cannot wholly own the land.
In the past you often couldn’t tear down a building and build a new one as you would lose well essentially your squatting rights.
Today however land is just as much of a commodity as ahytbing else which adds another factor that can against the value of the building.
That said, if you just want to better the lives of future generations, there are plenty of things you can do now. Give money to good causes. Get involved in politics. Plant a tree.
For me the answer to both is to do what I can to have a positive impact on those around me. I consider my efforts as a scout leader to be the most likely thing I have done to affect our future, though I doubt I will be remembered much beyond the next generation.
I think it's great your a scout leader. It will help shape the lives of children who will outlive you. And you're doing it out of a healthy desire to help others, and not a vain quest to secure your fame after your death.
A few thousand people trying to be Elon Musk, Edison, Ford, Carnegie, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates can definitely do work that will impact the world for generations to come.
If you want to live on long after you’re dead, create a university, or research institution
Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Howard Hughes Medical Institute...
Oxford University is almost 1000 years old.
Is giving money to causes today, the best strategy?
Would it be better to amass wealth in your own name, and then deploy it more strategically later in life?
This has the added advantage of the potential to self-fund an endeavor that might do good and increase your capacity to give down the line?
If you trust yourself not to fall into greed as you grow older, what’s the downside of this, besides missing out on some tax breaks?
I guess the real answer is why not both.
Was thinking of some of the examples of “little old lady makes largest donation to X after a life of saving”.
Honestly, I don't think it's all that easy to rule out valuing the future beyond death, or to categorically reject notions of continuation of identity beyond death. That we are a coherent, super defined identity that has a definite beginning and a definite ending is in large part a convenient, and comfortable, myth we tell ourselves. In reality ourself from moments ago is a (slightly) different being, and you from many years ago, say from your childhood, is an almost completely different being, not only physically but a completely different mind. I don't think most people have come to terms with this either (which is understandable imo because those concepts are very tricky to interpret in a non-nihilistic way); while this truth give perspective as to why other forms of propagating your impact in the world and on other people that go beyond just your future self are perhaps justified. That the continuation of part of your identity in your work, teachings, children, friends, beyond your death can be "rational".
Ultimately I think (and so seems your position) one of the main motivations people should have is to simply have a good, happy, meaningful life themselves (where meaning isn't fame or grandeur). But, again "rationally" (in a classical economic-ish sense), there's definitely a big place for helping other people and building a legacy imo, as previously justified and based on ethical principles like the Categorical Imperative[1]. Of course if everyone were singularly concerned with helping others, no one would be reaping the fruits of labor, then what would be the point of help? That's why the one's main motivation should always be your own happiness, whatever that even means.
Never said it was easy. It can take years of reflection. I'm suggesting the OP do that. Their life will be a lot more pleasant and fulfilling once they do that. Otherwise, they may spend their whole lives fruitlessly chasing after immortality.
> Otherwise, they may spend their whole lives fruitlessly chasing after immortality.
What about spending their whole lives fruitlessly chasing egoistic hedonism?
Again you didn't present a convincing argument that it is totally fruitless. As I've said, it certainly shouldn't be one's singular goal. But I think there's a role it should play.
I think we're talking past each other. You assume my position is promoting hedonism. It's not. I believe should take time to do things to make lives better for future generations, and humanity as a whole. I find that a better way to live.
However, if your motivation for making a difference is not a concern for others, but a need to be immortal in some way, that's a sign that you have an unhealthy attitude towards death.
Given the context (We're on HN, where transhumanism is more common than in broader society)and given the way the OP phrased the question, I sensed they might be afraid of death, and not simply concerned with making an impact.
Though I suggest even if you narrow your time horizon to the lives of your children you'll still find some worthy things to do with your life.
From my point of view, life is suffering and until you can justify passing that suffering down, having children is a purely selfish desire.
Correct. I saw a documentary last week about a 3000-year-old grave in Syria where they pumped in fresh air for a week or so before going in to get rid of the fungal spores in the air.
But, if I take "today" to mean literally one day, sadly I think assassinating a world leader is one of the few ways to significantly impact the world 1000 years from now. (An example [0]). It would have to precipitate a major event though (something like a world war).
And I'm only half joking. If any pieces of software we use now are actually going to be used in 1000 years, Emacs is very high on my list of survivors.
In a million years? Architect the intelligence that supplants us? (unless that intelligence turns out to be Emacs, then see answer 1)
Assuming you're not going to start a war or a religion, what kind of weapon or financial innovation could you invent that will change the world in a millennium?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder#Gunpowder...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote#Early_Chinese_paper_m...
Put the radioactive substance in awkward lines, so it resembles some form of writing.
Bury the radioactive substance, wait 1000 years for curious questions of how it got there and what it means.
1,000 years is time for a lot of generations to pass. Sure, your particular DNA might only make up some small amount of someone walking around in 1,000 years, but that is an action you can take in your lifetime that will be significant. Bonus points if you educate them well and give them the resources to be as successful as possible.
Imparting your values on the next generation is the most durable thing an individual can do. The way I see it, it's a multiplier. I can only do so much in one lifetime, but I can raise my children to value the same things as me, and thereby guide the impact that they and their children will have on the world.
One of the first things we have to throw out is the reliance on people. You can't statistically rely on 10-12 generations of people to do the same thing that you intended today. Also it is very unlikely that any contract you make today will exist and be enforceable in 1000 years. This eliminates setting up trusts, preserves, buying land and doing something with it, or any other long term project. And anyways something like this will take a number of people to be successful, why should you get all of the credit?
Next lets talk about war. Unless the war wipes out a significant portion of the population, I'm talking WAY more then the 3% of the population WW2 killed, most of the damage done will either recover, or change to be mitigated.
So what's left? You could do something that changes maps. The scope of this is VERY large, like build an island large. But there are cases where enough labor has been put in to permanently divert rivers, not just a damn. Or build "natural" structures that wind and rain haven't destroyed yet
You could do something that changes humans place in the universe. Create a viable form of interstellar travel, find a way to represent a life without a body (computer sim?), or maybe change our planet (before we escape it) so it's not habitual for humans as we are now.
For me personally I think it's enough to contribute to science and knowledge as a whole. I recognize that even if I have a profound discovery, given enough time it will be taught to 12th graders, see calculus. It's really the collection of discoveries that lead to profound discoveries that are the real MVPs.
It's like imagine an ancient protofish asking "what can we do that will be significant in a million years?" Get out of the water and try walking.
Convinced my boss to give the Polish woman who cleaned at the site I worked at a position as IT consultant (in Norway). She married a long time friend of mine a couple of years later (but I luckily had no influence on that except helping her getting her a job worth staying in Norway for.)
Helped one man who did a great job to but lacked formal education to keep his job by leaving a well paid job at the same team very voluntarily (although not as big a sacrifice as it might sound. I found the job extremely boring.)
Recently I also helped my neighbor to get a 50% pay rise.
In between I've made software to simplify life for people organizing work in non profits. (Stupid web page connected to a sms api. Almost had to chase them away from it as better options emerged and I got more and more afraid of getting hacked and leaking a whole lot of data on the Internet.)
What we can do as a species and what we actually understand about the universe are the two fundamental aspects of humanity that have any significance just ten generations later. And of the two, learning something new about the universe and sharing it is far more significant of an impact. It will last longer because of the nature of science to build upon previous discoveries.
I made and released a web version of it 14 years ago, and it's still my most played design (I desperately need to find the time to make a modern update, though. HTML5 at least). Doesn't exist in physical board game format yet, but I'm going to try to get a publisher for it in the next year or two (only been networking with the board game industry the past two years).
About that, I'd like to get in touch with you, I develop boardgames into their www version (well, in truth I've only done it for one Kuhhandel: https://github.com/AquiGorka/kuhhandel) let me know if it is something that might interest you.
Best, GOrka
Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith.
Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love.
No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint. Therefore we must be saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness.”
Neibuhr, "The Irony of American History" (1952).
But if you mean "what will people still be talking about in 1000 years:", of course it won't be all the bloodlines that didn't survive, or who their great^20 ancestor was. It'll be significant "historical events".
Are you really smart? Cure cancer. Unify quantum mechanics and gravity.
A great artist, composer, writer? Do your thing.
Grossly rich? Start a foundation.
Otherwise do something truly exceptional or outrageous.
In 1000 they will be a forest, providing everyone with fruit, shade and lowering the temperature by 4 degrees on average.
I was raised up believing I was somehow unique
Like a snowflake distinct among snowflakes, unique in each way you can see
And now after some thinking, I'd say I'd rather be
A functioning cog in some great machinery serving something beyond mehttps://www.quora.com/If-humans-vanished-from-the-earth-how-...
Art, new ways of thinking.
I think the _My Struggle_ series by Karl Ove Knaussgard will have changed the way people conceive of the written word over future generations.
Why shouldn't we be content being a small cog in a much larger machine?