Rethinking Our Vision of Success | Hacker News Reader

Rethinking Our Vision of Success

edge.org

20 pointsbookofjoe11 comments

For those who don't know, John Brockman, the founder of The Edge (https://www.edge.org/memberbio/john_brockman) was deeply involved with Jeffery Epstein:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-ep...

https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-inte...

it's unfortunate, but worth not shooting the messenger on this topic.

He's talking about our transition from orange to green on the Spiral Dynamics model of psychological / spiritual evolution.

That's probably best discussed on a platform that doesn't have ties to Epstein. He was their largest source of funding for years:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-ep...

It seems to me that the problem with this is that accepting natural selection will only be attractive for the people who are selected for not for the people who are selected against.

That being the case, people will continue to compete to be the "winners" even if that means that they must utilize non-sustainable strategies.

The only way I could see this working is if society somehow puts in place a system to provide for the people that are "selected against". What would that even look like? How would it be implemented?

"The biology says that we're all equally valuable and equally mortal"

Sure, I agree with him.

But there are people who wouldn't. Even a universal language wouldn't overcome the communication barrier you would find with these kinds of people.

you've already constructed that barrier between you and them in your language toward them and describing them as though they aren't you they are different from you, according to you.

You are saying you agree that all people are equal, except for people who think some people are more equal than others.

It seems to me from the article that it's exactly the way you frame people that is a detriment to us all working together to prevent us all from dying horrible deaths in a venus like environment of our own creation.

We are self-destructing precisely because we separate ourselves by ideology, geography, mythology, language.

We describe humans as a "cancer" on the planet, what is our chemotherapy? All humans aren't cancer. The meek will inherit the earth, or so it is said. The opposite of the meek are the corporations especially those like WeWork that grow fast in their own selfish benefit without benefiting the body.

We need a way to remove those cancerous humans without killing all humans.

There are no laws that say, "You are not allowed to serve yourself at the expense of the planet." Corporations used to be required to have a mandate of public good.

Is our capitalistic drive better for the planet? Is technology more harm than it is good? Are Luddites on to something?

It really isn't profitable to sacrifice yourself. We need to make it so that doing without is rewarded. We need to change our philosophy of good. The supercar driver gets mates more than the pedestrian on the sidewalk.

Peacocking works. It's bred into us. We have to overcome our biology. We have to intentionally evolve ourselves into a better species, a more conscious, rationally longterm thinking society. Not one that is rewarded on 90 days out, but one that is rewarded on 90 years out.

We almost need to eradicate DNA as the mechanism by which we propagate.

I don't know how we can fight against that. I suppose we are by not having children. In a way, we are almost too smart. I think at some point, IQ hurts our chances to have offspring and I wonder why that is?

It seems if intelligence was a good thing, then you'd be more likely to mate if you had more of it, but that's not what the statistics indicate.

You can be too smart for your own good. I think humans are too smart for their own good. They are only smart enough to cause trouble -- existential trouble.

> you've already constructed that barrier between you and them in your language toward them and describing them as though they aren't you they are different from you, according to you.

I didn't get that at all. He said there are other people who would disagree. He didn't say they were inferior in any way.

The jump from someone acknowledging a group exists to assuming that person feels superior is a logical leap I am struggling to see. You clearly have an axe to grind (although after reading your comment I have no idea what your point is) but it really seems like you're the one looking down on everyone else.

I didn't say he said they were inferior, I said he said they were so different that it's impossible to even communicate with them. You assumed.

And no, I don't look down on everyone else, but I certainly do look down on some. People who play zero sum games -- or worse. People who take from others with deception. Con artists. Scammers. Lots of corporations.

I don't think we are all the same. I don't think we are all equal.

I think we make choices and some people choose to make the world a better place and some people choose to make their world a better place at the expense of the world.

Instead of fighting against people like that, we reward them with national leadership positions and corporate leadership positions. We throw money at them, when we should throw them in jail.

I hope you take this as constructive criticism instead of an insult because I honestly mean it as such:

It would be much easier to take you seriously if you didn't italicize so many words. It just makes you sound angry and self-assured in your righteousness.

I don't take it as an insult. I am angry, self-assured and righteous. You made a statement of fact.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. It's very difficult to get across tone in written speech. It's what italics are for.

If I say something to myself in my head as I am typing it or just before and the word is emphasized when I say it to myself, then I use italics.

That's what they are for.

No, I get that, and there are some subjects where I spend an unhealthy amount of my personal time debating with people on the internet. I catch myself in the same traps. I am careful to edit my comments before submitting them though, because I realize how it might be read by someone else. My point is your anger is apparent, and it takes away from your credibility.

Anyway, how you present yourself is clearly your decision. I was just trying to add some perspective.

Cheers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com