←back to thread

What to Do

(paulgraham.com)
274 points npalli | 6 comments | 29 Mar 25 12:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.578s | source | bottom
Show context
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[30 Mar 25 18:59 UTC] No.43526580[source]▶
> One should help people, and take care of the world. Those two are obvious.

From what I encounter, almost daily, I don't think everyone is on the same page, on that; especially amongst folks of means.

I have seen people without a pot to piss in, treat others -even complete strangers- with respect, love, caring, and patience, and folks with a lot of money, treat others most barbarously; especially when they consider those "others," to be folks that don't have the capability to hit back or stand up for themselves.

As to what I do, I've been working to provide free software development to organizations that help each other, for a long time. It's usually worked out, but it is definitely a labor of love. The rewards aren't especially concrete. I'll never get an award, never make any money at it, and many of the folks that I have helped, have been fairly curt in their response.

I do it anyway.

replies(10): >>43526766 #>>43526896 #>>43527013 #>>43527306 #>>43528083 #>>43528300 #>>43529701 #>>43530624 #>>43532239 #>>43532290 #
bko ◴[30 Mar 25 20:24 UTC] No.43527306[source]▶
I'm one of those people that doesn't think we should try to "take care of the world". I prefer the older, time tested answer of what to do:

> You should be wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just, uphold tradition, and serve the public interest

As noted in the essay, this idea of "taking care of the world" is relatively new. PG claims it's because only now we can take care of the world, but I think it's just a naive idea that doesn't stand the test of time. I'm sure its not novel idea, and many others had thought of it and tried to implement some version of it in their society. But because it hasn't become cannon in any group or culture, it's a bad idea in that it doesn't produce human flourishing. Whereas ideas around wisdom, bravery, honesty, etc have replicated throughout cultures and led to everything we cherish

The idea is that you cannot take care of the world if you can't take care of yourself. So at first you must be these things. Ironically the most empathetic people I have met that purport to care most about "the world" are often the most dysfunctional people - substance abuse, medications, no strong family ties, anxiety, neuroticism, etc. These aren't people we should try to emulate.

Only when you have your house in order can you attempt to help others. Start with the people immediately around you. People you know and love and that know and love you. If you've ever dealt with a family member with a serious problem, you'll see how difficult for you to help them. Now imagine helping a friend, then casual acquaintance, then stranger finally a stranger on the other side of the world.

We should have humility as to what kind of impact we can have on the world and look inward to those around us where we can have the most impact. Otherwise you might as well wipe out hundreds of thousands of people and spend trillions of dollars spreading democracy in the middle east.

replies(13): >>43527370 #>>43527864 #>>43528352 #>>43528642 #>>43528762 #>>43528834 #>>43529503 #>>43530092 #>>43531395 #>>43532303 #>>43532693 #>>43532706 #>>43539762 #
1. cmdli ◴[30 Mar 25 21:32 UTC] No.43527864[source]▶
Some of the people who have done the worst things in history have been well put together people. The man who is ruthless and puts himself before everything oftentimes ends up successful, wealthy, and with plenty of resources to take care of himself and the people he chooses. Does that make him a good person?

One of the most important, time-tested values is one of responsibility and honor. That means doing the right thing with the power that you do have, both by yourself and by others, even if it hurts you. We each are responsible for the environment (natural and man-made) that we inhabit, and to that extent it is our duty to help others and ourselves.

We have been given many, many resources at our disposal, and we bear the responsibility to use them well. Too often in our society we shirk that responsibility with the excuse "well, its not our problem".

replies(2): >>43528206 #>>43532359 #
2. bko ◴[30 Mar 25 22:14 UTC] No.43528206[source]▶
Some of the most horrific atrocities have been done by people trying to " take care of the world"

> We have been given many, many resources at our disposal, and we bear the responsibility to use them well.

You should use "I" rather than "we" and I would agree. I've been given the gift of life in my children and I do everything for them. Fortunately I have resources to spare and try to take care of my family and neighbors as well, and I suggest you do the same.

replies(2): >>43528500 #>>43528599 #
3. cmdli ◴[30 Mar 25 22:46 UTC] No.43528500[source]▶
I do, and I do so with the knowledge that this is a responsibility that has been placed on me, and others, by the gifts that have been given to me. I help others and contribute to society, as is my duty, and I expect others to do the same. I also expect the same responsibility, trustworthiness, and honor of those who have been given power.
4. strken ◴[30 Mar 25 22:56 UTC] No.43528599[source]▶
The best people I know do good in both local and global ways. It's not necessary to choose one or the other. I don't disagree with your examples, but I notice that they say nothing about donating money to World Vision or putting solar panels on your roof, for example. Replace these with causes you believe are good.

This might be unfair, but I'd summarise what you said as "living a charitable life, but only for people within 50km of your house", and I think it's fairly obvious that "living a charitable life, mostly for people within 50km of your house, but also you give $50 a month to an international charity and you try to generate a bit less carbon dioxide" is better for the world, better for you because you don't have to harden your heart, and wouldn't harm most people's ability to look after themselves.

I agree that it's possible to be too neurotic about this and do what Sam Bankman-Fried did. It's also possible to be a little better than average at caring for the world without much cost to yourself. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the latter.

5. DeathArrow ◴[31 Mar 25 07:57 UTC] No.43532359[source]▶
I will try to save someone if his life is in danger. I will try to help a stranger if I can and I by helping him does not produce harm to others.

But I am only motivated to help individuals. I don't plan to change societies, I don't plan to help social groups, invade countries, dictate some policies, doctrines, because that is what someone can mean "by taking care of the world".

I began to have a profound mistrust and dislike for activists, ideologues, social warriors, fighters for "a good cause" and revolutionaries. Their actions are usually finalized through loss of freedoms and blood baths.

replies(1): >>43548779 #
6. theGnuMe ◴[01 Apr 25 16:34 UTC] No.43548779[source]▶
Philosophers and economists fuel the warmonger.