To this day, a lot of the progress in the West that got us to where we are today, happened thanks to people being partially self-less - doing their duty, sacrificing themselves etc. This is most visible in the government sector, where, without a horde of not-greatly paid government officials and clerks, the country would be a grim clusterfunk. Even more so, during the time of war. When analysing successful ancient cultures of the past (Rome, ancient Greece states etc.), the subject of doing one's duty for the state was a very prominent one. Of course, people were also selfish back then, but at least there was a strong force (duty) that countered it to some degree. The also received a ton of social status for being an good warrior or statesman.
And yet, the current world has made it possible for a lot of people to effective play a single player game - the emergent movements like FIRE are all about that. I wonder if it will cause the West to be more like Eastern Europe (esp. Russia, but UE members like Poland as well), where people are already more selfish due to not believing in the state, progress, doing good work or any other grand narrative, after being burned heavily by communism. I see how that impedes the development of my country (Poland) and I'd hate to see the same thing happen in the West.
TL:DR: Protestant-like work ethic got the West to where it is, but the recent trends are undermining it, threatening lack of further progress or even a gradual decline.
Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
IMO some of those people (teachers, soldiers, etc.) should be paid more realistic wages rather than doing the work out of patriotic duty. I don't mean this to be refuting your point, just that it is related.
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
I think the problem is that the system feeds itself on complexity. Should I appreciate the grunt work of a low-paid government official when the busywork itself was created by the government and he/she is not greatly paid because there are too much government officials (some of them paper-pushers that have internal blue screen when asked question that is not in the FAQ)?
Realistic is in the eye of the beholder and is kinda funny word in the environment (i.e. this forum) where people laugh when someone says he/she realistically needs 100k$/year to live... I don't mean that in the cynical way, just to show my point.
The question itself is really interesting, as the society currently gets spammed with advertisements that say "You deserve this", "You earned this", "Have a little break" etc., and even if they don't it's catering to the question of selflessness in a way that "Your family deserves this", "Think about your children (and buy this SUV)"...
This can also diverge into question about what is patriotism? Who was patriotic during Soviet regime in some countries etc... the ones who were in the government or in the underground? a tough one for sure.
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
I entirely agree. Culture plays a hughly important role in economic outcomes.
It's very clear that the historically protestant countries, (essentially northern Europe and Anglosphere offshoots) have overwhelming outperformed pretty much any other culture in terms of economic outcomes. Some Asian cultures have outperformed in some areas, but the collectivist nature of Asian culture means innovation gets stunted. This is not about bashing Catholicism or any other religion, indeed it's arguable that it's the relative areligiosity which benefited these nations rather than the brand of religion they happened to adopt. Intensely religious nations tend to stagnate, although it's a egg/chicken dilemma as people tend to become less religious when they enjoy more security.
There's a old joke that there are four types of countries in the world. Developed countries, undeveloped countries, Japan and Argentina. No one can work out why resourceless Japan with it's sucky geography is so rich, nor why resource rich Argentina with it's perfect geography is such a mess. There only notable variable here is cultural values, of which Argentina had the misfortune to inherit from feudal-esq Spain.
I think the bigger question though is how unsuccessful societies can improve and emulate the success of the western economies. This question has been discussed for the last few hundred years in response to western colonialism. China may successfully answered it. The Islamic world thus far seems to have largely failed to.
It's very clear that the historically protestant countries, (essentially northern Europe and Anglosphere offshoots) have overwhelming outperformed pretty much any other culture in terms of economic outcomes. Some Asian cultures have outperformed in some areas, but the collectivist nature of Asian culture means innovation gets stunted. This is not about bashing Catholicism or any other religion, indeed it's arguable that it's the relative areligiosity which benefited these nations rather than the brand of religion they happened to adopt. Intensely religious nations tend to stagnate, although it's a egg/chicken dilemma as people tend to become less religious when they enjoy more security.
There's a old joke that there are four types of countries in the world. Developed countries, undeveloped countries, Japan and Argentina. No one can work out why resourceless Japan with it's sucky geography is so rich, nor why resource rich Argentina with it's perfect geography is such a mess. There only notable variable here is cultural values, of which Argentina had the misfortune to inherit from feudal-esq Spain.
I think the bigger question though is how unsuccessful societies can improve and emulate the success of the western economies. This question has been discussed for the last few hundred years in response to western colonialism. China may successfully answered it. The Islamic world thus far seems to have largely failed to.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15995
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
I'll try without just going something color something color.
The social structure of the modernist world was very much constructed on the basis of people competing for their own benefit in a free market. Adam Smith's invisible hand and the wealth of nations. The idea that people can be out for themselves as individuals revolutionized the previous concept of the three estates (those who pray, those who fight, and those who work) and how people believed they were born into serving an immutable role in the great chain of being.
Insofar people with certain talents (say fighting) were born into the wrong position in life (say praying), that's a lot of wasted "productivity". Leaders were chosen based on being the oldest son of some other leader and not ability. But of course it wasn't seen in those terms.
People pursuing their own interest is great as long as the world is big enough to avoid them interfering with each other. Once people begin to run out of resources or space, which is just another resource, to the point where they are competing against or interfering with other humans rather than nature, competition creates winners and losers. Since humans have a wide range of competitive ability, the range between winners and losers is also high.
If the group of economic losers becomes too big to ignore, which happened around the 18th and 19th century, some other solution is required, because you can't fix the problem with same thinking that caused the problem in the first place. Slapping those other systems, such as public sewerage, policing, fire departments, pension funds, welfare, public health, ... on top of the competitive market created what is usually referred to as "the modern world". These systems exist "courtesy" of the market. The market pays for the systems that make sure that losers don't lose too hard via taxation rather than the consequences of having too many losers in the environment, so to speak, such as public health problems, crime, pollution, out of control fires, ...
What Eastern Europe is doing now having recently "discovered" or rather been allowed to engage in "winner takes all"-competition as a consequence of previous [communist] state control being too high (much like the three estates' previous control being too high in the West) is basically relearning the lessons that the West learned in the period between roughly 1820 and 1920.
In conclusion, the modern world is basically built on a foundation of people being out for themselves and without that self-interest---if the benefits of self-interest was eliminated---there would not be enough wealth generation to maintain modern society as a going concern. On the other hand, the lack of considerations for others from people who are too much out for themselves eventually create an ever increasing emergent cost for themselves that is almost impossible for anyone to escape. And so a compromise is required to reduce this cost. Often they simply pay someone to clean up the mess via taxation. Another alternative is to behave in a way that is more considerate towards others, but this only works to the degree that others aren't freeloading off of those efforts. Eventually systems that are exogenous to the "free market" enter in the form of social contracts, volunteers, more regulations, and ultimately institutional bureaucracy, ... The more people in a given environment, the more of these "cost"-responses, you'll see, and the bigger and more complex they'll get because the alternative is that the original "everybody out for themselves (law of the jungle)" system destroys itself.
PS: You can see the same trajectory on this very forum as it has grown bigger.
PPS: Metamodernism (see e.g. the Hanzi books) is quite interested in alternatives to reducing the cost such as ego development (people becoming less self-centered) or [emotional] state development (people becoming less angry or depressed).
The social structure of the modernist world was very much constructed on the basis of people competing for their own benefit in a free market. Adam Smith's invisible hand and the wealth of nations. The idea that people can be out for themselves as individuals revolutionized the previous concept of the three estates (those who pray, those who fight, and those who work) and how people believed they were born into serving an immutable role in the great chain of being.
Insofar people with certain talents (say fighting) were born into the wrong position in life (say praying), that's a lot of wasted "productivity". Leaders were chosen based on being the oldest son of some other leader and not ability. But of course it wasn't seen in those terms.
People pursuing their own interest is great as long as the world is big enough to avoid them interfering with each other. Once people begin to run out of resources or space, which is just another resource, to the point where they are competing against or interfering with other humans rather than nature, competition creates winners and losers. Since humans have a wide range of competitive ability, the range between winners and losers is also high.
If the group of economic losers becomes too big to ignore, which happened around the 18th and 19th century, some other solution is required, because you can't fix the problem with same thinking that caused the problem in the first place. Slapping those other systems, such as public sewerage, policing, fire departments, pension funds, welfare, public health, ... on top of the competitive market created what is usually referred to as "the modern world". These systems exist "courtesy" of the market. The market pays for the systems that make sure that losers don't lose too hard via taxation rather than the consequences of having too many losers in the environment, so to speak, such as public health problems, crime, pollution, out of control fires, ...
What Eastern Europe is doing now having recently "discovered" or rather been allowed to engage in "winner takes all"-competition as a consequence of previous [communist] state control being too high (much like the three estates' previous control being too high in the West) is basically relearning the lessons that the West learned in the period between roughly 1820 and 1920.
In conclusion, the modern world is basically built on a foundation of people being out for themselves and without that self-interest---if the benefits of self-interest was eliminated---there would not be enough wealth generation to maintain modern society as a going concern. On the other hand, the lack of considerations for others from people who are too much out for themselves eventually create an ever increasing emergent cost for themselves that is almost impossible for anyone to escape. And so a compromise is required to reduce this cost. Often they simply pay someone to clean up the mess via taxation. Another alternative is to behave in a way that is more considerate towards others, but this only works to the degree that others aren't freeloading off of those efforts. Eventually systems that are exogenous to the "free market" enter in the form of social contracts, volunteers, more regulations, and ultimately institutional bureaucracy, ... The more people in a given environment, the more of these "cost"-responses, you'll see, and the bigger and more complex they'll get because the alternative is that the original "everybody out for themselves (law of the jungle)" system destroys itself.
PS: You can see the same trajectory on this very forum as it has grown bigger.
PPS: Metamodernism (see e.g. the Hanzi books) is quite interested in alternatives to reducing the cost such as ego development (people becoming less self-centered) or [emotional] state development (people becoming less angry or depressed).
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
@zbigi
People will revolt against the state if they believe the state no longer works for them. Some of this revolt is obvious (protesting, vandalism, civil disobedience) and other forms of revolt are subtle (example - "quiet quitting" in the U.S. or tang ping in China). Any society will have a small subset of the population that does not agree with the way things currently are. To me, this is not actually irrational if someone is out for themselves (self-interest) or if they believe that their group is threatened (group-think) ... this is just being human. I think this is where ego development is interesting because its perhaps possible to break this chain but it will take some generations...
But things can change once a critical mass is reached. The pendulum of whatever current social structures in a given society will swing the other way. It is Aristotle who said that humans are a political animal...with that said, humans may also have a different interpretation of what "progress" is. Some believe that seeing Protestant-like work ethic as a dying value is progress because they may believe this is a junk value. Economic progress? Some believe that economic progress is a major reason for the collapse of our ecological systems. Even to the extent that some believe that collapse should be welcomed to speed up their version of "progress" (i.e. accelerationism).
People will revolt against the state if they believe the state no longer works for them. Some of this revolt is obvious (protesting, vandalism, civil disobedience) and other forms of revolt are subtle (example - "quiet quitting" in the U.S. or tang ping in China). Any society will have a small subset of the population that does not agree with the way things currently are. To me, this is not actually irrational if someone is out for themselves (self-interest) or if they believe that their group is threatened (group-think) ... this is just being human. I think this is where ego development is interesting because its perhaps possible to break this chain but it will take some generations...
But things can change once a critical mass is reached. The pendulum of whatever current social structures in a given society will swing the other way. It is Aristotle who said that humans are a political animal...with that said, humans may also have a different interpretation of what "progress" is. Some believe that seeing Protestant-like work ethic as a dying value is progress because they may believe this is a junk value. Economic progress? Some believe that economic progress is a major reason for the collapse of our ecological systems. Even to the extent that some believe that collapse should be welcomed to speed up their version of "progress" (i.e. accelerationism).
-
guitarplayer
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:43 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
Along the lines of @Lemur's first paragraph is Exit, Voice, and Loyalty by Albert O. Hirschman, a classic political economy work.
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
I hear the despair in your question and recognize it for how I sometimes feel when I watch too much news. All of our culture, but especially the news focuses on what is wrong with the world. In the face of all that I crave the sense that hope still exists somewhere in this world. After much trial and error I have learned that I can find it by contemplating all that is beautiful and right in the world. Focus on whatever of that sort you find yourself able to notice for while and hope glows brightly again within one's heart.
-
Humanofearth
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:32 am
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
The world’s big and life is short. If you’re this jaded where you are, have you considered traveling the 200+ sovereign jurisdictions to find one that’s a better match for you?
Maybe 1-2 billion people in the west, depending on how you count. Considering at least 3/4 of the world is not western, the modern world will very much be fine and the west can collapse then come back through the natural cycles of civilizations. Do you want to be there while this happens?
Also, I agree with turning off news if that’s something you’re watching.
Maybe 1-2 billion people in the west, depending on how you count. Considering at least 3/4 of the world is not western, the modern world will very much be fine and the west can collapse then come back through the natural cycles of civilizations. Do you want to be there while this happens?
Also, I agree with turning off news if that’s something you’re watching.
-
unemployable
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:36 am
- Location: Homeless
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
Adam Smith's whole point was that people being in it for themselves was a feature, not a bug, of capitalism.
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
@jacob @unemployable
Adam Smith also wrote that the free-market system will obviously only function if people are obeying to some moral system (most bad behaviours can't be kept in check with just laws and courts, you need morals too). Without it, every agent being out for themselves just create lots of chaos and misery. I wonder if we might be heading towards that. Of course, I might just have the case of "old man thinks people were better back in the day".
Adam Smith also wrote that the free-market system will obviously only function if people are obeying to some moral system (most bad behaviours can't be kept in check with just laws and courts, you need morals too). Without it, every agent being out for themselves just create lots of chaos and misery. I wonder if we might be heading towards that. Of course, I might just have the case of "old man thinks people were better back in the day".
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
I doubt whether your analysis of how the West got to be prosperous is correct. I'd say a lot of our prosperity is due to some ancestors being greedy and exploiting other ancestors (probably yours and mine were exploited ones) plus exploiting the resources of all continents.zbigi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 4:40 amTo this day, a lot of the progress in the West that got us to where we are today, happened thanks to people being partially self-less - doing their duty, sacrificing themselves etc.
(...)
TL:DR: Protestant-like work ethic got the West to where it is, but the recent trends are undermining it, threatening lack of further progress or even a gradual decline.
I also think there are currently more than enough people out there who are not only looking out for themselves, but also for others. Currently (luckily) no longer based on that protestant work ethic (which meant that you work hard now for your rewards up in heaven), but based on humanity and common sense.
-
basuragomi
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:13 pm
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
If the world is headed towards unchecked lawlessness because of self-interest, how did the system of laws and courts arise in the first place? Have individual freedoms continually increased and morals continually degraded relative to ancient times? If not, what caused decreased/restored morals/freedoms? Are you more or less selfish than a 2nd century slave in the Sicilian grain farms? How about a slaveholder?
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
I think FIRE is a more complex phenomenon than people give it credit for.
On the surface it might seem like a bunch of people who just want to selfishly stop working at 30.
However, dig deeper and you discover a world of family and community life, informal social connections, communitarianism, environmentalism, minimalism, DIY, entrepreneurship, learning and teaching, etc.
These all seem socially desirable desirable traits when compared to being a duty-bound corporate wage slave / consumer.
That said, it seems like governments are slowly waking up to the need for, as you put it, "social status for being a good warrior or statesman". Though in the present age, I'd say front-line workers, care workers, child rearing and household building are equally or more worthy of social status than statesmen.
Despite what you might read in news headlines, we live in wealthy and resilient economies relative to the past, and I don't think we need to many sticks when we have a good deal of carrots to work with, from tax breaks for workers to awarding higher social status to essential workers.
On the surface it might seem like a bunch of people who just want to selfishly stop working at 30.
However, dig deeper and you discover a world of family and community life, informal social connections, communitarianism, environmentalism, minimalism, DIY, entrepreneurship, learning and teaching, etc.
These all seem socially desirable desirable traits when compared to being a duty-bound corporate wage slave / consumer.
That said, it seems like governments are slowly waking up to the need for, as you put it, "social status for being a good warrior or statesman". Though in the present age, I'd say front-line workers, care workers, child rearing and household building are equally or more worthy of social status than statesmen.
Despite what you might read in news headlines, we live in wealthy and resilient economies relative to the past, and I don't think we need to many sticks when we have a good deal of carrots to work with, from tax breaks for workers to awarding higher social status to essential workers.
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
I don't get this. Isn't real socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism, I think communism has never existed in Eastern Europe) was answer for events which happened in Western Europe between 1820 and 1920) and even if we call them "communists", they wanted to introduce it in EE?What Eastern Europe is doing now having recently "discovered" or rather been allowed to engage in "winner takes all"-competition as a consequence of previous [communist] state control being too high (much like the three estates' previous control being too high in the West) is basically relearning the lessons that the West learned in the period between roughly 1820 and 1920.
Or won't we speak about historical and societal waves like?:
1) small group of people get rich and we have situation of "I can buy cheap products, but I don't have job" for average Joe
2) hoi poi gets angry and try to limit activity of smart people
3) average Joe isn't happy with "We all are equal, but this means shit for everyone"
4) hoi poi gets motivated "You are responsible for your success!", gets screwwed, we back to point number 1
Rinse and repeat.
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
I don't think so. Poland in 1944 (i.e. at the moment of being taken over by Soviets and steered towards communism) was largely a pre-industrial country. Majority of people were living in villages and were largely self-sufficient (i.e. only weakly integrated to the market). The Soviet communism didn't really capitalize on anger against the capitalist, factory-owning class, as it was originally conceptualized by Marx, but rather on centuries-long resentment towards the large land-holders (in pre-industrial societies, land is the primary means of production).Stahlmann wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:29 amI don't get this. Isn't real socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism, I think communism has never existed in Eastern Europe) was answer for events which happened in Western Europe between 1820 and 1920) and even if we call them "communists", they wanted to introduce it in EE?
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
A Protestant work ethic, and not the flash and glamour of Prosperity Christianity, is what Africa needs...
More than any other sect, Prosperity Christianity represents the adage of Karl Marx that ‘religion… is the opium of the people’. Showmanship, opulence, and miracles are crucial characteristics...
We need to adopt secular instruments as mechanisms of economic development and not religious ones. We need to create a strong state that can actively direct the development of society. China is an excellent example of how a strong government can develop a nation and decrease poverty, unemployment, and inequality without leaning on religiosity...
These principles of hard work, pride in work, frugality, and organisational capacity are found in many cultures in Asia and Africa and must be embedded in all superstructures of our society such as in our politics, culture, media, and education./quote]
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinion ... ica-needs/
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
I must be missing something here. I feel that 99.99% of people are acting in their own selfish interests. Just because you work in the DMV processing papers, at a middle school as a teacher or as clergy doesn’t automatically define your intentions as unselfish.
I have seen some awfully self serving physicians, politicians, clergymen and professors. We don’t have to dig deep in media to see a public servant acting in a self serving way. It’s often mixed in with a dash of cowardice, laziness or myopia.
Vatican politics, academic politics, Washington politics. These guys aren’t doing all this to help you.
Even a lowly serf is being selfish by supporting an unfair feudal system in order to survive.
Perhaps this is just the world I see through my autistic lens. I see selfishness as the norm. It’s a part of life.
I have seen some awfully self serving physicians, politicians, clergymen and professors. We don’t have to dig deep in media to see a public servant acting in a self serving way. It’s often mixed in with a dash of cowardice, laziness or myopia.
Vatican politics, academic politics, Washington politics. These guys aren’t doing all this to help you.
Even a lowly serf is being selfish by supporting an unfair feudal system in order to survive.
Perhaps this is just the world I see through my autistic lens. I see selfishness as the norm. It’s a part of life.
Re: Can modern world even function when most people are only out there for themselves?
At times of war, you can voluntarily enlist or, when you're drafted, you can dodge the draft. If everyone dodged the draft, obviously the US would no longer exist. Since it still does, it's evidence that a lot of people can be non-selfish, at least in times of war. Of course, any sane society rewards sacrifice or herosim and discourages selfish behavors such as dodging the draft, so people are somewhat incentivised to make the right call. But I don't believe it's strictly about incentives ("We'll get medals!" [1]), and many people are genuinely willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of something greater, or opposing a great evil. It's very apparent in the Ukraine conflict.
As for the peacetime altruism, there was a tradition in XIX century Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe of Intelligentsia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia). They were basically descendants of noble families who felt that their immense priviledges need to be repaid with service to country and its society. Without their sacrifices, the region would look very differently.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMxjLvtwILg
As for the peacetime altruism, there was a tradition in XIX century Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe of Intelligentsia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia). They were basically descendants of noble families who felt that their immense priviledges need to be repaid with service to country and its society. Without their sacrifices, the region would look very differently.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMxjLvtwILg