←back to thread

What to Do

(paulgraham.com)
274 points npalli | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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. DeathArrow ◴[] No.43532303[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

I completely agree.

Being "wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just, uphold tradition, and serve the public interest" is something related to you, something that you can change about you, something that you can choose to be without producing harm.

"Taking care of the world" is not about you and your actions anymore. It's about the others. It's the path of resentful ideologues, revolutionaries and murderers.

Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Kim Ir-Sen, Pol Pot tried to "take care of the world."

Should they tried to "be wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just, uphold tradition, and serve the public interest" and leave the world be, the world would have been in a much better place.

replies(1): >>43544129 #
2. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[] No.43544129[source]
>>> You should be wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just, uphold tradition, and serve the public interest

Under most circumstances, in most societies, I wouldn’t expect a subscriber of this value system to eliminate slavery.

Edit: I’ll clarify in advance. Our ideas of wisdom, bravery, honesty, temperacy, justice and tradition most clearly, and the public interest are all defined and shaped by our society. We’re quite sensitive to temperance towards alcohol, but not so much towards sugar in our (American) society. It’s brave to fight in a war for your country, until you realize you’re aggressing upon another for resources your people don’t need, at which point the brave thing to do is to refuse to fight and protest the war, but what about the vast majority of soldiers kept from that realization to ensure that they remain good fighters? Bravery becomes a carrot and a stick with which society controls the individual rather than an ethic by which the individual has a virtuous impact upon society. To counter this process I would, to start, suggest an ethic that includes a strong skepticism towards the status quo rather than an interest in upholding tradition.