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: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @03:11AM (5 children)
I would like to take her seriously but she has two things going against her:
She is a socialogist
And she is a woman (I think)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday January 12 2019, @03:25AM (3 children)
I have some amazing women working for me. They do a great job. While looking fabulous. And maybe there can be a little action happening there. What's not to like, right? I'll tell you what -- inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression "the weaker sex" was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye -- or perhaps another body part!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 12 2019, @03:35AM
So, you'd just like to take here, but not seriously?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @03:48AM (1 child)
How many amazing women named Richard Fisher?
Tyler Durden showed us how to deal with sleazy rich guys. You tie up their balls with a rubber band, and you cut them off with a pocket knife.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday January 12 2019, @04:35AM
Fight Club, I saw that one. But, I wish I hadn't. Very sad, very violent film. That one caused so much damage to so many folks, mentally. As anyone can tell from reading your Tweet. And we have so many films like that coming out of Hollywood, out of Canada (foes) -- many places. Making our children very violent. Look what happened in Parkland. We're losing a lot of people to the movie industry. The level of violence is really shaping young people's thoughts. You bring your children to the theater, you don't know if it's going to be something nice, something fun. Or something that's going to do a lot of damage to them. Mentally. Something that makes them very violent. And we're looking very carefully into, should there be some type of ratings for these things. So you know when you go in!!!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @04:03AM
How is it any worse than being a worthless caveman like you ?
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @03:22AM (4 children)
The environment takes a back seat. Look at the yellow jackets in France, that gas tax they're protesting would have been good for the environment.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 12 2019, @03:34AM
Yes, because the environment needs a bigger bank account. Or, the corrupt bastards who claim to be concerned with the environment need bigger bank accounts.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday January 12 2019, @04:15AM
I'm into all types of energy. But the wind & solar are highly overrated. People don't know this, the wind, the solar are causing tremendous problems for the environment. They're killing so many birds & bats. Arizona, you kill a Big long-nosed bat -- so beautiful -- if you shoot a bat, they put you in jail for 20 years. Because that one's endangered. Red Horse Wind, they killed HUNDREDS of bats. And according to their Cyber Model, it's possibly thousands killed there. And many birds too. In many cases, they don't know how many they killed. Because after the turbine hits them, there isn't enough left to identify.
And the solar, it has what they call the Hot Spot. Very dangerous for our bats, our birds. One moment they're flying, very happily. And the next, they're cooked to a crisp. You get Fried Bat. Or Fried Eagle. Because they flew into the Hot Spot. Horrific!
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Saturday January 12 2019, @05:23AM
Economical prices for energy advance technology and civilization. The only way the gas tax would be good for the environment would be if the people the tax kills are turned into fertilizer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @05:41PM
I'm pretty sure the main complaint of the gas tax is that it basically only hits regular people. Companies with large fleets have tons of exemptions and deductions they can take to basically eliminate it. When it would make more sense to levy this tax at operators of large vehicle fleets that can afford to convert their fleets to electric over time if incentivized rather than Jean Dupont who only has one car that he can't afford to replace.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday January 12 2019, @04:33AM (2 children)
Interesting, but no, short term thinking is definitely not our biggest mental problem. Even the article implicitly admits that if there is an increase in short term thinking, it is more a product of our current social environment than an innate property of our minds or instincts.
For instance, in the past, people have spent centuries on building projects. Start building a cathedral in the 1400s, and finish in the 1800s. Sagrada Familia was started in 1882 and is expected to be completed around 2030.
If anything requires long term planning, it's space exploration. Just covering the vast distances will take many years. Sending a probe to Alpha Centauri, nearly the closest star system, would take about 70,000 years at the speeds the Voyager probes travel. If we can accelerate a tiny probe to 0.1c, it's still going to need some 50 years to reach Alpha Centauri and send back data.
And parents are constantly thinking of their children's futures. Parents do not want to screw things up for their children. Many will think far ahead, for instance, think about paying for college when the child is still in preschool.
I'd say sociopathy, greed, destructive competitiveness, and sheer stupidity are bigger problems. So far, we've kept our competitiveness restrained enough not to reach for the nuclear weapons. Hopefully that means that's not going to be a killer problem. Greed could be a bad one-- its closely related to short term thinking-- but I think we can manage it. Which leaves demagoguery and other idiocies as perhaps the #1 worry.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Saturday January 12 2019, @05:40AM (1 child)
Yes, but ...
In the 1920's and earlier people expected to near future to be pretty similar to the present. They weren't always right, but they were usually right. Today that's a very bad bet. When I went to college, I didn't worry about whether the specialties I was training for would still be needed when I graduated...and I was right. Today I wouldn't know what to suggest that kids study.
When you believe that you can reliably predict the future (in broad) then long term plans make sense. When you don't believe that....
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @02:52PM
History repeats.
This is the roaring 20s all over again.
At the end is a war and a huge global recession.
Care to place a bet who will cause it this time?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by leftover on Saturday January 12 2019, @04:52AM (4 children)
As a devoted father and grandfather, I can honestly say I spend rather a lot of time thinking about various terms of 'the future'. It is not a pleasant pastime. Don't know about you but there are no "Truthful News" or "Long-Term Analysis" options in my newsfeed. Trying to filter the equivalents from the sewage streams offered as news would take more that 24 hours per day. I am far beyond merely "angry" at this situation, the people who orchestrated it, and the people who defend it against their own best interests.
My problems are fatigue and discouragement. Doing "whatever I can do" does not even leave a transient smudge, it has no effect at all. Convincing myself to do more of the same has been difficult but, barring sudden superpowers, is all there is. So I continue.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @02:49PM (1 child)
Run for office.
Make the world a better place.
One jurisdiction at a time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @12:00PM
You're assuming that those that successfully ran for office are running things...
In practice they're no longer the ones pulling the strings, they are now one of the strings being pulled
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday January 12 2019, @05:06PM
There are many others that feel as you do. You deserve Insightfuls rather than merely Interestings but you're already at +5. You recognize some of the injustices and you feel compelled to do at least a little to try to improve the world. That already means you're far less of a problem than the malevolent, sociopathic pricks that are orchestrating most of the damage. You're doing what little you can. People with more power and more wealth can do a lot more. A lot of them make the world a worse place but some do improve it and that in itself is something that needs to continue. It's about damage limitation. Just because things are awful now doesn't mean they wouldn't be a whole lot worse if people stopped being conscientious who currently are. I totally hear you about the fatigue though. Exasperation.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday January 12 2019, @06:02PM
I hear you. I am weary in my bones also for the same reasons. But it is only ever determined individuals who make a difference.
I've been involved in activism for a long time. At the center of every organization is one person with an iron will that others cluster around. In every public hearing on policy, everything pivots on the impassioned testimony of one person. Not everyone can muster that determination, ever. Among those who can, few can maintain that focus forever. But when called upon good men and women of conscience must answer.
I'd also observe that we don't always know how far our influence on the world travels. Doing the best you can everyday can feel like a thankless task, a Sisyphean struggle, but when you do it you set an example that braces up those around you who are also asking themselves if the good fight is worth fighting.
The highest good any of us can do, the actions that will echo the furthest, are those moments when we're given the choice to do the right thing that everyone else is afraid to do.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by ChrisMaple on Saturday January 12 2019, @05:27AM
That the BBC thinks these fads are long-term problems shows that the BBC is incapable of long-term thinking.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @05:54AM (10 children)
It is rational to leave concerns like this until more immediate problems are dealt with.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @01:18PM
Someone disagrees? I guarantee that species/cultures who put concerns about what happens in 1k years ahead of immediate survival will be outcompeted by those that dont.
(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.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @02:14PM
This is a mere oversimplification.
What about this: elites, whoever they are, know that subjects can be kept under control by depriving them of resources, most importantly time and money. Once you got the bottom layers to scramble for money and time, you own them.
But one can say it's just another POV on the same problem. NO it fucking isn't. Because the essay author implies it is the man on the street who has to tackle climate change and stuff. Not the guys getting lots of money and time for administering the state. Noo, after the man of the street pays taxes he also has to subscribe to some movement that tells him what are the problems and what are the solutions. Never mind that the powerful interests that corrupt the politician can corrupt the movement too.
Spare me the short terminism and the other isms (sovranism, populism, socialism, racism) which build useless abstractions to further DDoS the brain. If you have time to spare, name names and dump useful information instead. Who is gonna gain what from whom. All the rest we can work it out by ourself, thanks.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @02:57PM (1 child)
I misread that as "short term terrorism" and so was expecting something about the middle east et al.
I give it 1 horse out of 4. Disappointed. May read again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @03:33PM
If it made you feel lied to, you need to give it pinocchios, not horses.
Watch that meeting between trump and schumer where schumer totally burns trump by telling him the Washington post gave him four pinnochios. Then the red cult got back at the blue cult by telling one of their reporter guys in public that nobody even liked him.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Tuesday January 15 2019, @04:03PM
I concur with others saying that short-term-perspective (at least partly) a symptom rather than a root cause. Greed, selfishness, etc. are more basic. Shortsightedness (as in, stupidity or ignorance leading to failure to consider longer-term effects) is a different issue.
In order to think long term, one must believe and trust in some stability in the surrounding context. The child must believe that the adult will actually deliver the marshmallows rather than cheat and eat them himself; the adult must believe that the bank will actually return the money lent to it, and that the tax rates etc. on which the financial planning was based will remain somewhat consistent. If there is no trustworthy bank at which to save (or no trustworthy cash/currency!), people are acting *rationally* when they spend money on things in the present - or don't even bother accumulating much more than present comforts (that is, not bother working harder to make more money to save). And sometimes it's more expensive (on an ongoing basis) to live poorly; a homeless person or shantytown dweller cannot eat economically without place to cook, place to store ingredients and/or cooked food, etc.
If we don't trust that we'll make it past today, we don't think about the future.