SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The BBC has an interesting article on short-term thinking in humans, and attempts by various people to get society to think long-term instead:
For many of us currently in adulthood, how often can we truly say we are thinking about the well-being of these future generations? How often do we contemplate the impact of our decisions as they ripple into the decades and centuries ahead?
Part of the problem is that the ‘now’ commands so much more attention. We are saturated with knowledge and standards of living have mostly never been higher – but today it is difficult to look beyond the next news cycle. If time can be sliced, it is only getting finer, with ever-shorter periods now shaping our world. To paraphrase the investor Esther Dyson: in politics the dominant time frame is a term of office, in fashion and culture it’s a season, for corporations it's a quarter, on the internet it's minutes, and on the financial markets mere milliseconds.
Modern society is suffering from “temporal exhaustion”, the sociologist Elise Boulding once said. “If one is mentally out of breath all the time from dealing with the present, there is no energy left for imagining the future,” she wrote in 1978. We can only guess her reaction to the relentless, Twitter-fuelled politics of 2019. No wonder wicked problems like climate change or inequality feel so hard to tackle right now.
[...] the longevity of civilisation depends on us extending our frame of reference in time – considering the world and our descendants through a much longer lens. What if we could be altruistic enough to care about people we might never live to see? And if so, what will it take to break out of our short-termist ways?
People tend to value rewards received in the future less than they value the rewards received now --- in the sense of "I'd rather have a hamburger today than 10 hamburgers three weeks from now". Coupled with improved technology, this has lead us to the 24-hour news-cycle life that society is in now: we are inundated with "breaking news items" that use up our stamina and we never take the time to think long-term. In practice, this means we tend to use up resources without making provisions for kids, grandkids, or descendants 1000 years into the future. We use various rationalizations of this behavior (when confronted with the accusation), but careful analysis shows that we are mostly wrong (as long as we value individual future humans as much as individual humans alive today).
While it's a fairly long read, I think it's worth the time: some ideas that I've heard before are placed in a wider context, and there are several references that I, at least, wasn't aware of.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday January 12 2019, @02:10PM (8 children)
For me, at least, this seems like a poor strategy in most cases. This is because in most cases, the immediacy of the problem at hand is only painted-on by society.
There are many examples of this, but one of the easiest to understand is the use of interest bearing loans, such as credit cards, mortgages, etc. Borrowing funds, I would use up more of my financial resources getting something today than I would if I can simply wait to get it in the future. The end result is that I would get more now, but long-term, I would get less. Often much less; it depends on the amount of interest and the length of time.
The rational choice for me is to save, then buy only when I can afford whatever it is. In this way, I end up with more. Later.
IMHO, when "but I want it now" overpowers "efficient use of resources", I'm operating well outside rational bounds. So I try not to let that happen.
Other areas where this is fairly obvious are in areas of optional spending. I can pay X to see a movie now, or I can wait time Y, and pay considerably less than X once the movie has been available on personal media for a while.
The rational choice, at least AFAIAC, is to lean hard towards conserving resources and away from spending them to try to move something closer in time; to reduce Y. I've done this in purchasing my home, my vehicles, consuming media, etc. I've been very careful what I went after; there are bargains and there are not-bargains. Figuring out what that meant for me, and then pursuing the remaining objectives accordingly while eschewing those things that society and commercial marketers painted with "social value" (things of performance value to others, as opposed to having actual value to me and mine) has resulted in my having a lot that I enjoy, missing very little that I sincerely care about, and a reasonable level of financial security.
When having something earlier and more expensively is almost certain to significantly accelerate earnings such that the end result at time Y is more resources, that's when I will spend more. For instance, a fast desktop computer significantly improves my ability to earn — I spend more time thinking and coding, and less time compiling, that sort of thing. I try not to let my tools spend my time for me any more than I absolutely must.
A few thousand for a faster computer inevitably turns into many, many thousands of dollars of income before the opportunity to purchase that computer at a significantly lower price will arrive. A quality desk chair lets me work longer. Quality displays and keyboards the same. A great bed means higher quality sleep, and that in turn means higher quality work. Quality test equipment means less time wondering WTF is going on and solving problems faster.
Finding and focusing on these types of gains accelerates earnings. It is, IMHO, critically important not to confuse things like this, which have a concrete value, with things that only have social value. For instance, although where I live I need a vehicle, I don't need a Mercedes or a Lamborghini. I could afford either one (and the maintenance, insurance, etc.); but it would be an indulgence with nothing but artificially painted-on social value.
Rationally — my version of it — I'm not here to impress others. I'm here to create maximized position and leverage for me and mine.
I can't claim a perfect record here by any means, but this is where I've ended up. As near as can tell, most people feel differently and will readily go for reducing time Y at considerable expense to their overall gains. Is this rational for them, as the parent post implies? Perhaps. I only know it isn't rational for me.
--
We should start referring to "age" as "levels."
So when you're LVL 80, you're awesome.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @02:30PM (7 children)
You are trying to compare delaying consumption within your own lifetime to 1000 years (100-500 generations) in the future. Since no one knows what will happen in berween or what the world will be like then, it makes no sense to spend energy on such speculations unless all more pressing issues have been addressed.
Then again we just had 1500 years during which the dominant activity of the educated was to think/argue about theology, so humans are quite capable of wasting time on stuff like that. But you can also see that once that stopped being the main activity, the advances started pouring in,\. That could indicate the value (negative) such speculations really offer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @02:46PM (1 child)
WTF, typos getting worse and worse on mobile, trying new keyboard now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @02:55PM
Hows this one? I am using an new keyboard, have the typos improved?
Tetng sentence number 2.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday January 12 2019, @03:21PM (4 children)
No, I'm not. I'm addressing rational, practical choices, that are based on available data and circumstances, not imaginary ones so far off in the future that very little useful in terms of present planning can be known about them.
But hey, thanks for playing. 😊
--
Patience: What you exercise when there are too many witnesses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @03:28PM (3 children)
Wtf? Quote one thing you mentioned that wasn't a benefit to you within your own lifetime. The entire point is you have a much better idea of the circumstances within 30 years than 1000 years.
"Thanks for playing"... Hilarious.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday January 12 2019, @03:39PM (2 children)
You really have a problem with comprehension here.
I suggest re-reading. Slowly. I'll leave you to it. Or not, as you choose.
--
I have neither the time or the crayons to explain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @04:09PM (1 child)
Let's go one by one then:
Loans: looking ahead a few years/decades
Movies: looking ahead a few hours
Home/vehicles: looking ahead a few years/decades
Tools: looking ahead a few years
Large luxury items: looking ahead a few years
Which of these do you think is comparable to being concerned about 1000 years in the future? Why?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @06:47PM
It is almost axiomatic that the insulting loudmouth is the one getting things wrong. Excellent points about short and looong term.