Comment by Infinitesimus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Infinitesimus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Hmm, are you theorizing or do you believe these things?

For instance, do you believe your life to be worth less than that of everyone else who has more money than you? What if that money was inherited and they didn't work a day in their lives? What about the life is say, Nikola Tesla who didn't have much money but laid foundations upon which a lot of our world is built today?

Is the person who negotiated for more money than you make now (while doing less useful work) have a more valuable life than yours?

Imagine you were walking with a friend of equal net worth, by your logic, if they suddenly found $100 on the ground and took it, their life is suddenly more valuable than yours? What if you both got struck with an illness and the doctor triaging said "huh, Kaiyou is worth $100 less than their friend so I guess I have to let him die and focus on the slightly wealthier person".

Have you ever enjoyed the company of someone who was economically worth less you? What of the benefits of their contributions (think of your teachers, researchers, janitors, construction workers, etc.). Assuming human value can be simply measured in made up constructs of money and debt obligations ignores a lot of what makes our experience richer

> Is it moral to replace broken things instead of trying to fix them, considering that fixing will be more expensive and the thing might just break down again after a while anyway? That's not a question about morality, is it? Except if you replace "things" with "humans". I personally do not understand why this difference exists, however.

It seems a big driver of your beliefs is that humans are worth nothing inherently. Morality enters the game entirely because we're conscious and have created morality questions and concerns for ourselves. Your shoes never quite evolved to have those questions (though if we ever achieve some loosely defined form of AGI, those questions will come into play)

I'm observing reality and reaching conclusions.

But I'm not viewing things as fine grained as you are, but more fuzzy. A hundred bucks are basically nothing, but if I'm a doctor and have to decide whether to work for someone paying me a thousand dollar per hour or for someone paying me a thousand dollar per day, who am I going to choose to work for is obvious. If the difference in money isn't big, than things aren't as obvious.

I don't know much about what Nikola Tesla did, but maybe it's similar to someone having failed to negotiate adequate compensation. Which in turn is similar to someone getting killed and having his wealth outright stolen. The outcome is kinda the same: someone who didn't create the wealth reaps the benefits. Here's the thing, though, all said and done it doesn't matter who created the wealth, but who has it. Or let's rephrase that. Between the guy who cured cancer and the one who killed that guy, but got all the research results. Does it really matter to you who sells you the cure as long as you get the cure, if you suffer from cancer? Sure, there's injustice and all that. But does it really matter enough for you to not buy the cure for cancer from the murderer and die instead? And that is my answer. If you can amass wealth you are worth more. Even if you stole the wealth. You might then be hated and persecuted, but with enough wealth, that's not really that much of a problem, as there are few people not willing to buy the cure of cancer from a murderer if their life is on the line with no alternatives.

It's all about benefits in the end and wealth is a form of benefit. If you're good at gaining wealth, you're worth more than people who are bad at gaining wealth.

I'm following more now ( I wish we could chat over coffee or something post-covid cos this is interesting stuff )

> Which in turn is similar to someone getting killed and having his wealth outright stolen

I don't quite see the similarity but that's because I believe in a general, fuzzy way, all our lives are sacred but grant that individuals make exceptions for personal gain and their perceived "greater good".

> If you can amass wealth you are worth more. Even if you stole the wealth. You might then be hated and persecuted, but with enough wealth, that's not really that much of a problem, as there are few people not willing to buy the cure of cancer from a murderer if their life is on the line with no alternatives.

Ain't that the truth. Still focusing on a single axis of our humanity (material wealth) but from that axis, what you say is correct.

Money is thankfully not all that life comes down to imo. Observing reality, money does drive a lot of the world and we directly and indirectly use that as a proxy for what someone's life is worth but I think we can accept the reality while still advocating for meaningful change.

That's part of why several people each day choose not to optimize purely for $$ but consider some deemed higher purpose (arguable ofc) of helping others be happier, healthier, finding spirituality, researching in academia when you could make 2x the money in industry, and fighting to improve the outcomes of others who are less... fortunate.

I previously misinterpreted what your perspective as "fuck it, it all comes down to money so nothing matters", but I now see it more as an observation and statements of the world's perspective and not necessarily that you believe your life is worth more than that of an incidentally poorer person.

Yes, you're on point. I once thought people's life where worth something because they are people, but I came to dispel this illusion. The illusion stems from our natural in-group preference, giving things that are similar to us a higher value. Animals aren't really like us, but the more similar they are to us, the higher we value them. Just look at the different treatment insects, fish and mammals receive from us. Or the different treatment plants and animals receive. Or stones and plants. The more similar something is to us, the higher we value it. It's an ingrained survival strategy, I assume.

Vegetarians extend this in-group preference to animals, but not to plants. I've once watched an interesting series about how a Vampire secretly turned more and more people of a village into his own kind. Most didn't have a problem hunting humans after the change, but there was one character who chose to starve and die instead of drinking the blood of humans. That left a deep impression on me. So now I'm thinking, if you don't sacrifice your own life for your ideals, are your ideals even worth anything? If you want poor people to receive money, but don't want to transfer all your own wealth to them, aren't you just a hypocrite?

It's true that not everyone chases after money, but it's undeniable that lots of money equals power. If you don't partake in the competition, you can't win. You might succeed in deceiving yourself and others, but you won't wield the power of money. There are other forms of power, of course, like religion or other organizations, for example companies or countries. But even then, if you strive for the top of any of those, you'll naturally amass more money than the people at the bottom of the hierarchy. If you don't want the responsibility that comes with wielding such power, all you can really do is live in peace and hope that the powers that be leave you alone. You don't have any initiative and also no right to complain.

There's this saying that power corrupts, but I don't think that's the truth of it. Power only reveals your true character. Like the character from the story I mentioned, who received the power of being a vampire, but chose to starve himself to death.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com