I believe that most people would prefer such stable co-existence. If it were an easy choice.
But it is not. Often, personal choices conflict with society's interests, or contribute to degradation of the natural environment.
I believe that many HN users -more than average dude in the street- have power to influence these things. By picking sustainable options over non-sustainable ones. By striving for efficiency, rather than go for a wasteful but first-to-market approach. By working on environmental issues, rather than pure intellectual, or money-making pursuits. By pointing their peers to solutions with a smaller footprint. I believe that, in effect, many of you are the "movers & the shakers".
Of course, mouths have to be fed. And there's bills to pay. And skills may be hard to apply outside of a current job.
But how important is "making a better world than the one you were born in" to you, personally?
If you are an entrepreneur, is it the reason you started your business? Does it affect your choice of jobs? Or how you go about your work?
How heavy does "make a better world" weigh in your choices? Has this changed over time? If so, how? Was there some event, idea, or insight, that (in this context) had an outsized impact on you? Perhaps even life-changing?
While the solution was interesting, the background research revealed that not only was the river I was concerned about significantly less polluted than nearby ones, the source of the pollution was actually known- agricultural runoff from hundreds of farms. This would become a somewhat depressing theme- the problems were actually well understood, the solutions long available, but the actors with agency over the problem have chosen not to act. Through this lens, the sad revelation was that these issues which appeared to be technical were actually purely political.
It's kicked off a broader fascination with perverse incentives. I can recommend David Graeber's 'Bullshit Jobs' to speak to another aspect of this problem. In terms of the high-wire act of political influence around ecological decisions within major engineering projects, I'd suggest 'The making of an expert engineer'.
I do still think there's a significant amount for engineers to contribute. I'm often surprised to see and hear of solutions built by software engineers with little or no regard to operational cost, and I suspect the same is true of energy efficiency. Nowadays, I try to bias towards lightweight, shared cloud resources to deliver my projects. I think that Stripe's goal of shaving off some percentage points off the world of e-commerce to kickstart a market for atmospheric carbon removal is absolutely worth a go. And I'm still fascinated by engineering megaprojects for cleaner energy distribution, such as the Sun Cable.
So I'm 22 now and I decided to focus on leaving the country after graduating, will I have the same motivation/drive to change the world after leaving? or will I be too tired to try?
I stopped caring about 'making the world better' a decade or so ago when I realized this, and that any sacrifices I made to do so could be callously erased in seconds thanks to having the wrong opinions, changing public opinions/politics, the whims of investors and partners, etc.
I'm not a pessimist or anything – more of a NAP-loving hedonist at this point. I won't exploit anyone to pursue my own pleasures, but it is my singular focus. My theory is that if more people adopted that philosophy, probably the would would be incrementally better, and so I try and live by example, showing those around me the way to be a good man, a good father, diligent, but also happy and content with my own life and the pleasures therein.
Sorry if that seems like a downer, but the answer to your question is: It's not. What's important to me is that I make my world better.
https://80000hours.org/career-guide/
They're a career guidance nonprofit that went through Y Combinator in 2015 https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/80-000-hours-yc-s15-helps-t...
It has become part of who I am, an integral part of my family life. I can proudly add that my married children all have similar habits.
It has come at cost of salary, working hours, and other personal advancement, but is totally, 100% worth it. I love my life, and feel that every day I am changing the world and getting real stuff done.
I am sure that some of my proteges will totally improve the world's problems in ways that I cannot imagine.
(In addition, I work at a small place that tries to do what's right - no crusades, political donations or shaming, but internally; EG. We dropped GA when we felt they were being to invasive, no products that we feel are not good for the buyer. Little stuff, but it keeps the focus on being good.)
My "sphere of influence", and therefore my interest, is limited to the people and things I come across.
I may not be able to (nor care about) solve world hunger, but I can make sure my sister doesn't have to eat ramen and work three part-time jobs. I may not be able to solve the world's unending conflicts, but I can lend an ear to a friend who's undergoing some rough patch. I may not be able to solve climate change, but I can pick up the trash on the floor.
And, frankly, that's enough for me.
Of course, we could have a lot of discussion over what "better" means and if making X better is worth it at the cost of Y and so on, and I understand that the criteria, definitions, and interpretations could vary between people. For me, the focus should be on sustainability.
I can't have much impact on the overall direction of things as an individual, but I still try to do my part.
I used to think that being involved in research would help make a better world, but my research field is typically used to make programming languages or static analysis tools, and that doesn't look like it's making the world a better place.
I used to think that being involved in open-source would help make a better world, and I've worked on Firefox, on Matrix, on Rust, on dozens of smaller projects. While I don't regret it, it's hard to say whether the long-term impact of these projects on the world is positive or negative.
I believe that we can always make things worse, though. That's why I didn't join a web3 company despite salaries I was offered. And I believe that we have a responsibility working towards a smaller footprint.
For what it's worth, I wrote a piece about the topic a few days ago: https://yoric.github.io/post/coding-for-a-finite-world/ .
I once devised a test for people. It goes like this:
Ask them when they are clean and in a white-collar environment:
You can spend 5 mintues working hard and getting dirty to magically get some random human $1 million worth of stuff they want/need. Let's say you need to carry bags of dirt from one place to another. Beacuse this is magic, you will never know who got that stuff, but you will know that someone somewhere got it.
You can also spend 5 minutes carrying bags of drit the other way, and that will cause someone somewhere in the world to loose $1 million, or eveything they have if their net worth is lee than $1 million. Again, this does not affect inflation because magic.
Would you (A) work to help someone, (B) refuse to do anything because it does not help you or (C) work to hurt someone.
After they answer, ask What if you could work all day to help or hurt others. What would you do?
I've found an amazing number of peple would work all day to hurt many people. To me, this explains the businesses that create artificial scarcity.
In the end, I just want to see things going directionally the right direction, or at least sustaining. To me, tech has huge power, but it's trapped on the wrong side of an artificed & created interface rather than melding; few get a real peek at the soul of the machine or perch to dabble. I think we can and must do better. I think coexistence has had some interesting starts but has faded out of view, especially as the tech colossuses have grown to such titaneous size.
Trying to at least make it feel like humanity at large is in the loop with tech matters a lot to me. I want so much for a thriving hacker ethos to have some strong vital camps that seem like they can survive, go Forward in time. The future doesn't have to be this utopian system, it doesn't all have to be the good I believe in, but I believe this is the camp where dynamics & vitality & aliveness of our species future march has its core, and that spark needs to be cherished and kept alive.
There's a lot of worldly problems about. But having a communicative connectivity that is ours, that we can iterate on, that society can itself grow & bend: that's the newest biggest hope I see on the planet, and starting there seems like what we can do to let so many other great things be begot & accelerate.
It's in everything that I do. When I'm dead and all that's left of me is what I've done, I want that to be good. So everything I do, even down to taking a shit, I put thought into it's impact.
What's wrong with the world. What stagnates people? People who choose not to help clean after themselves, pick up their trash and/or recycle etc etc. I think we should follow consumerism that helps people be better counterparts for a better tomorrow.
Honestly FB meta has been in that direction of creating community, through technology. The government has been funding public programs. I think the easiest solution is just at its simplest- local activities, diversity, and just planting.
It’s even more enlightening for us CS folks.
When we talk about making the world better off, this is not the only area where it can be done. A lot of the replies here take it in this direction, but this is only one way among many
For me personally, I care more about things like digital privacy and anonymity than I do about the environment. Not that I don't care about the environment, just that the thing that initially made me study CS was reading Snowden's autobiography
I think that as long as governments (e.g. the UK) are trying to limit/ban encryption, I'm going to prioritize digital privacy over other things like the environment
“As time, energy, and potential for enjoyment and meaningful work allows.”
I can easily make my little bit of the world nice and it is done far more easily by stepping on others or just ignoring them.
If something were better for everyone without trade offs, it would have already been done (technological discover aside).
The first major issue I encountered was that helping others could easily cross a line into enabling others... and it's a subtle point. However, enabling almost never actually helps people or "the betterment of the world." ie: Sometimes helping is not in the form of providing support... which, to the untrained eye, often looks like maleficence.
The next major issue I found was that many common problems require cooperation to solve where people instead view the world as competitive. Driving a car is one such perfect example that many people can see with time/experience. Being competitive in a massively busy system just creates more congestion but there will always be the minority that cares only about the space immediately surrounding their car and their position in an infinite line of cars.
There was a phrase which was popular for a time, "think globally, act locally." I liked it and tried to internalize it. The problem with it is that I don't have a clear global view. At best, I have access to scientific papers which I can barely comprehend. At worst, I have highly political news sources. The information we all work from is what we all react to. At the end of the day, we are all pretty similar. It's why billionaires want to own sources of information.
Given that the world is as complex as it is, the best thing I can figure to do is make the world around me better. If people in general want a better world and they all do this, then we will have a better world. ie: The world isn't my responsibility; It's everyone's responsibility... and I'll own my part.
However I think this is flawed. I have since realized that the world is too complex to control. It is not up to us to save it because there is no clear path to doing so and there never will be. Thinking there is usually leads to wasted time and opportunity cost of other actually important things you could be doing. The biggest thing you are missing out on is doing work that you love. Yes, love really is the most important option when deciding on what to work on, as opposed to value creation, unique skillsets, supply and demand, etc.
Remember that the world is nothing more than the sum of our experiences, the people we know, what we do every day when we wake up. Your choices every day create it, so by acting well you really are improving the world, every day! Doing what you love is improving the world - even if its working on ads. You have no idea what kinds of influence your actions really have so just do good work for yourself and your loved ones. Everything else takes care of itself and if it didn't, you wouldn't be smart or capable enough to do something about that anyways.
It’s easy to want “a better world” when you’re in good conditions. When you’re in a war zone, you’ll lie, cheat, steal, pollute, backstab, and whatever else it takes, to survive.
And the problem is, even if that’s not you, it’s someone. And you’ll never convince everyone to do the right thing. And whoever is willing to cut corners will outcompete you.
The only way to make the world better is through the rare games that, even when people act in the most self-interested way possible, things still improve.
Take capitalism, technology, bitcoin. Even a bad actor whose only goal is hookers and blow on their yacht, will unknowingly produce something of value through a business, making some technology, or enabling a decentralized currency.
Elon Musk once said that there are too many talented people in finance and law. I transitioned from finance to make battery management systems, low- and high-level firmware. It’s just another programming domain, and there is a ton of hardware-related pitfalls, but I think that if we can reach a high grid-scale battery solution using post-lithium batteries (no criticism of LFP), the biggest problem with renewables can be handled at scale. It’s a lot of fun to aim for the stars and make something useful that is still only on the brink of existence.
After all, nearly every atrocity committed by history's most notorious tyrants can be traced to them just wanting to make the world a better place.
The attempts to heal the world of it's perceived problems seems to have a very high correlation with genocidal levels of death.
Because what is a better world ? I have one opinion. You have another perhaps.
Personally I don't believe in people doing good for the world by firstly doing good to themselves. That's not feasible imo.
Secondly the world would by default be a much better place by pretty much all means if we were not 8b humans all wanting pretty much the same things. We are simply to many.
Because we are too many we are curing symptoms not root problems. By using the earth resources to a degree that is not sustainable and then create technology around that fact is in my view not sustainable. We could easily live off the planets resources if we were half the population.
No one is willing to really cut down on their footprint on the planet. And pretty much every human believe its their right to do whatever they find best for themselves. That is a path to destruction for all and that path seems more and more set in stone.
The world is fucked. Proper fucked. And we are not going to solve it. Simple because we don't really want to.
You're welcome
Over time I realized how little people really cared about any of it, how little mindspace it occupied relative to their day to day, or even relative to other big issues like the culture wars, the homeless, Ukraine, the Middle East, etc. And the climate situation just kept getting worse, even as wildfires got more frequent and intense for the western US.
And then COVID hit and that was a real turning point for me. I'd never have expected such stupidity, between the anti vax and the anti masks movements, with people signing up to die and kill each other for no real reason at all aside from some misguided personal vendetta against community norms, as though keeping someone alive was an attack on their personal liberty. It was a real eye opener for me in terms of large scale crowd and population behaviors, seeing selfishness increase even as the death toll skyrocketed. And that was against a common enemy, easily witnessed, with acute and deadly effects.
If we can't even deal with an urgent crisis like that, what chance do we have? Climate, invisible and operating on a time scale of decades, doesn't stand a chance.
I've learned to accept that our species is pretty fucked, lol, and my sole remaining prayer is that AI will one day grow powerful enough to benevolently rule over us (heh, probably not the sentence you expected to read). I wouldn't bet on humans having some sort of overnight moral awakening.
Maybe slowly over centuries we can refine our ethics, but by and large I've come to believe we are fundamentally limited by our ape biology and primitive brains. We evolved to survive and thrive in small groups in hostile environments, not a hyperconnected overcrowded world of 8 billion all fighting over finite land, resources, wealth, and even water and atmosphere.
These days I've largely given up on the idea that the world will be meaningfully better in my lifetime. I think it will get much, much worse, and capitalist dystopias will become the norm. I still try to contribute (recently decided to go back to school to get an environmental engineering degree), but that's really more of a bandaid at this point than any sort of real solution.
Despite the pessimism, I think I'm generally pretty happy! As long as I get to go out once in a while, participate in community, etc., here in the rich first world it's still easy enough to compartmentalize all of this. I feel bad for anyone who wants kids or lives in a poorer country though. I think it's gonna get quite ugly...
However, finding stable peace and improving the world in the ways that you describe is not so simple. Based on the way our current civilization is set up, we are subject to a so-far-insurmountable problem that continuously pulls us away from this ideal.
I would roughly summarize this problem as “the tragedy of the commons.” It is a unique category of coordination failure that undergirds many aspects of the world we might criticize right now, such as climate, disinformation, nuclear risk, and more. Scott Alexander[0] and Daniel Schmachtenberger[1] have written and spoken about this meta-level issue at length. I particularly like this quote from the Alexander piece:
> all these scenarios are in fact a race to the bottom. Once one agent learns how to become more competitive by sacrificing a common value, all its competitors must also sacrifice that value or be outcompeted and replaced by the less scrupulous. Therefore, the system is likely to end up with everyone once again equally competitive, but the sacrificed value is gone forever. From a god’s- eye-view, the competitors know they will all be worse off if they defect, but from within the system, given insufficient coordination it’s impossible to avoid.
To answer your question directly, I think it’s possible that this meta-problem might now be solvable because we have technologies that empower us to create net new incentives and coordination games[2].
I have a hypothesis that this is particularly relevant today because same coordination failure patterns are very likely to play out with AI alignment - and the tools are showing promise to be able to help with this.
I feel very lucky that this is what I get to spend all my time working on. Making the world a better place in this way is almost all I can think about. There’s a contingent of good people working on this problem in the context of the idea “DAOs.” If you feel called to try to address what might be the highest leverage problem of our time, definitely recommend you check it out.
[0]: https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch
[1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4kBoLVvoqVY
[2]: https://medium.com/@virgilgr/ethereum-is-game-changing-techn...