"Don't let your mind speak louder than your heart". In tech we value data and being right so much, we may be too often missing the important part of being a decent human being.
That's like saying calories can't be counted with 100% certainty, so we should eat integers instead.
> What has come to light is neither nihilism nor cynicism, as one might have expected, but a quite extraordinary confusion over elementary questions of morality — as if an instinct in such matters were truly the last thing to be taken for granted in our time.
-- Hannah Arendt, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil"
There's some interesting evidence suggesting there are 4 basic personality types with very different outlooks on life. If you're in a hurry, skip straight to the caption for figure 3.
Humans display a reduced set of consistent behavioral phenotypes in dyadic games
I would add: self accountability and willingness to work hard for self improvement.
Some stereotypical American who is nice to others, visits church, serves Thanks Giving food to homeless can be considered as decent human being by local community.
But at the same time, material damage on others lives from say driving V8 truck and blindly voting for local politician can be significant, but he is not interested in learning about this.
And self improvement and self accountability are not considered critical by most of sociaties.
So voting for the 'correct' local politician and driving an eco-friendly car are more important than being nice and helping others less fortunate? How very blue.
> So voting for the 'correct' local politician and driving an eco-friendly car are more important than being nice and helping others less fortunate?
if you do some calculations before jumping to your prejudgment, you may find that it is more important, and people are less fortunate because someone burns too much gasoline and votes for 'wrong' politicians.
But it was simplified example, privileged people utilize more complicated schemes.
Please, help me with this calculation, since I clearly lack the proper exchange rate -- how many gallons of excess gasoline or votes for the wrong 'local' (rather than national or state) politician equals being nice to people for a lifetime or helping those less fortunate?
I get that you're trying to say that voting for the wrong local politician might lead to more 'less fortunates' -- principled individuals could argue this one either way, for either side of the political divide, about who the 'wrong' politicians are -- but how exactly does burning excess gasoline, and at what exchange rate? Perhaps we are talking about the impact on future generations? Is there a discount rate on future lives over present? Have you perhaps gotten rid of your car long ago and just walk everywhere selflessly slashing tires while trying your best to barely convert oxygen to carbon dioxide?
At least I suppose the idea that being nice to the people around you is less important than voting for the right colors or driving the right cars or holding the right ideological opinions certainly does explain a whole lot about the current social climate. It is a shame people seem to have such a hard time with the idea of doing all of the above, and just seem to pick one or the other.
> wrong 'local' (rather than national or state) politician
I meant to say blindly voting for local politician going for state/national office just because he is local regardless of policies.
> but how exactly does burning excess gasoline, and at what exchange rate?
few hints how to build estimations:
- check how much money Western countries paid to autocratic regimes for oil/gas. Check estimates how many people were killed/jailed/displaced internally and as results of conflicts initiated by those regimes
- there are reports available about long term material damage from global warming. You can divide it by gasoline consumed for personal transportation by westerners and multiply by some calibration multipler to offset other factors (0.2 will be reasonable first estimation)
Now that you've given me a bunch of homework (rather than an exchange rate derived from that research), I can spend a bunch of my time to measure the human misery inflicted by driving at all (and how much extra is inflicted using a gas-inefficient vehicle). Of course, presumably several people will have died as a result of the electricity and gas used to manufacture and move the food that I will have required to spend the time used for that research [that you have presumably already done? For the moment, I'll trust your numbers and your intent, if you're willing to share them to save a few lives].
I do have the following estimate range for the value of a statistical life in typical Western democracies -- "In Western countries and other liberal democracies, estimates for the value of a statistical life typically range from US$1 million—US$10 million; for example, the United States FEMA estimated the value of a statistical life at US$7.5 million in 2020".
Should we be applying this value for lives in autocratic gas dictatorships, or should we be using a smaller number? Again, since you've clearly spent the time on this already, I'll defer to your calculations if you're willing to share them.
Now all we need is a measure of the value of human kindness and what the appropriate discount rate is for local kindness vs exported kindness and present lives vs future lives, along with a measure of the inelasticity of demand for gasoline, to take into account the actual impact of us not making a purchase [since a gallon unconsumed by someone here does not equate to a gallon left in the ground or unconsumed].
Additionally, do these autocratic regimes kill fewer or more people when they are earning less and thus have a more tenuous hold on power? Presumably if we all reduced our gas consumption entirely, we might even be able to induce a violent revolution to overthrow them. Those are usually pretty bloodless, and I haven't ever heard of revolutionaries becoming the new autocratic regime before. You wouldn't happen to have any pointers on how to calculate any of the above, or even better, calculations you've already done yourself, would you?
Finally, for bonus points, would you care to share the number of statistical lives that you ruin per year to support you and your family's own personal transportation and living habits so that I can have an idea of your revealed preference for following through on your expressed beliefs and your own actual personal exchange rate on the value of your life and happiness vs strangers across the globe?
[ I should probably add, at this point, that I don't drive anywhere at all, and I take mass transportation when I do travel, which is very infrequently ]
> a measure of the inelasticity of demand for gasoline, to take into account the actual impact of us not making a purchase [since a gallon unconsumed by someone here does not equate to a gallon left in the ground]
I challenge this. Demand is totally elastic, extraction has its cost, once demand falls, prices fall, many extraction projects become unprofitable.
> Should we be applying this value for lives in autocratic gas dictatorships, or should we be using a smaller number?
You don't need monetary value. You can just find that each galon costs XeY lives, and average American consumer consumes NeM lives with his gasolin burning annually.
So, again, you've done this research, right? Why don't you give me some numbers? Your lack of concern for the people I'll have to statistically kill to answer these questions you've posed is a bit concerning.
Although, with your belief in infinite demand elasticity for gasoline, I'm starting to lose a little faith in the correctness of your calculations, I'd still love to hear them. I won't even ask for the calculation itself -- just give me the exchange rate you've already calculated of gallons of gas per statistical life, please.
I'll also note that you don't seem to be very forthcoming about how many statistical murders you commit to maintain your way of life while you pontificate about the immorality of others' choices in this regard.
>> you don't know what is my way of life, so can't note anything about this.
"I'll also note that you don't seem to be very forthcoming"
Literally the only thing I noted was that you didn't seem to be very forthcoming about what that way of life was -- something you appear to have confirmed in the comment above.
Since you do not seem to be concerned with addressing any of the substantive points in our conversation, and seem more concerned about telling others how they should do hard work rather than sharing the fruits of your labor (if indeed you have done it at all, and aren't just grandstanding for internet points) -- let's leave this discussion at I won't be statistically murdering any innocents to get at answers that you don't think are important enough to share, and that I hope that in your personal life you still choose kindness over 'right-think' that is statistically unlikely to make a difference at the state or national level -- or, heck, choose both.
Either way, thanks for helping clarify your position -- even if it isn't exactly the one you thought you were elucidating ;)
Happy holidays, I hope your personal exchange rate allows for you delivering presents and possibly visiting far away family!
But “unselfish concern for the welfare of others” doesn’t necessarily make those other people better off or help them. As someone from a poor country, I’d trade a million gentle, well meaning western feelers for a single Lee Kuan Yew.
Selfless altruism is a red flag. Be suspicious of anyone who wants to apply a different standard to you than to themselves—even if they think they’re being altruistic about it. The golden rule is better: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
> "decent human being" is too vague and easily manipulated term,
I don't think so. I believe the most common conclusions about what defines a decent human being are good ones. That is, the qualities that come to mind most naturally and frequently are truly benevolent.
Because they are defaults, they outlast efforts to slant and curate understanding.
Hi, hello, I work here, google is down the street, as is microsoft. I can assure you they are not dust. All amazon has done is build more data centers, they havent taken some kind of hostile action towards the competition. The money was on the table, those companies didnt want to spend the time or take the risk, so amazon will gladly hoover it up.
Glad you have a job and stable employment! When I think of who Amazon has "ground into dust," it's not Microsoft and Google. It's Barnes & Noble, Borders, Waldenbooks, hundreds of thousands of small independent bookstores, small businesses that once worried about Walmart moving into the neighborhood now contending with the omnipresence of Amazon. Some of them adapt, yes. Some were going to close anyway, of course. But you can't deny that retail looks a lot different now than it did ten years ago, and most of that is because of Amazon.
Books are an interesting topic. The cost of publishing through amazon is far more accessible for authors, and the cost of the books themselves has decreased. I dont have enough time in my day to keep up with how many credits I receive from my audible subscription. Digital distribution has made both writing and reading more accessible, its the middle man that got cut out. That is in the nature of innovation, it frees the average person up from more menial tasks and allows them to create higher orders of value using a greater bredth of their creative inputs. That process can also be seen in the wide variety of goods offered on the amazon store, many of which are from those small businesses, the creative and productive factors remain without needing to take up physical real estate.
Im sorry for your brother, that sucks. Ill grant this, amazon being a large and well connected company allows them to secure exclusive and vast financing that provides their ability to engage in otherwise unprofitable (anticompetitive) strategies that shouldnt otherwise be possible.
Unfortunately that battle is with our banking system, and until its won you will continue to see the proliferation of companies engaging in this behavior. That said, amazon will eventually be the dinosaur that walmart has become, and its very obvious from a ground level prespective that we dont have the right foundation for the infinite scale we seem to desire; too many "leadership principles", too much reworking of company policy, too much switching us from database to database.
So Amazon is a more efficient business model. Why should I drive to your brother's store when I can just order it right to my door on Amazon? They have done nothing wrong here.
I guess, though if "more efficient business model" means giant corporation can buy and sell in such huge quantities that smaller competitors can't even buy products for same, let alone add small margin for rent and employees, that seems unhealthy. There's no efficiencies they can even attempt at that point.
(Let alone the Amazon shoppers who waste their time demoing and trying products in store, then act like they've caught some scammer if it's a few dollars more than online.)
If he actually changed Amazon's behavior so that it wasn't a horrible place to work for? If he donated an actual, significant portion of his wealth that required real sacrifice on his part?
Basically, if he did something that had a positive effect on the world that also had real consequences for him. Something that actually shows he _means_ it, actually _wants_ the world to be better even if it hurts himself.
If Bezos or Musk or Zuckerberg or Gates(1) did any of that, I'd be thinking differently.
(1) The Gates foundation has done a LOT. Bill Gates is still worth ~$135,000,000,000. A quick search says ending homelessness in the USA would take less than a quarter of that.
Yeah, interesting, good answer! I think that is the answer, and it actually does make sense to me. Often while gathering data I develop a better intuition for what I'm unable to gather data on, which definitely impacts my gut feel for things. The available data might point in one direction, intuition about the unavailable data might point the other way.
Completely disagree. The tech industry is much more tolerant of mistakes and failure than any other industry. And that is a huge advantage given that such things are inevitable.
These aren’t mutually exclusive though. The tech industry can over-index on data driven decision making while also being reasonable about accepting failures.
I think the heart vs mind is not really a good metaphor. Hate is something of the heart too. It’s not something of the (logical) mind. If everyone was very logical, I doubt Hitler would have gotten this big. He literally spoke to the heart of the people, with passion, not reason.
