Given the largeness of the world and the public goods nature of the projects you mention, his own action will only marginally change the probability of a a better structure of society in general. That may still be worth it from a fully altruistic standpoint, but it has asymptotically 0 probability to improve his personal material welfare.
Isn’t that true for everything with global scale?
The typical moderately-above-average person, by definition, has a very slim chance of moving the needle, in a positive direction, to any noticeable degree.
Absolutely! That’s why we have free-rider problems/insufficient contribution to public goods, all over the world. The thing you can do in society’s best interest, is not typically in your own (material) best interest, unless you’re a perfect altruist.
Assuming actual bonafide geniuses are 1 in a thousand, that’s 8 million of them, most of the rest of the population ~8 billion still get through life seemingly fine.
They’re public minded enough to not tear down their own hometowns and neighbourhoods at least.
Yes most people are not exactly overflowing with virtue, and in fact will more likely than not compete in a race to the bottom if given the motivation, but how does that relate?
You had suggested the issues with free-riding/insufficient contributions to public goods, might not be so much of a problem. The linked post suggests otherwise, as it beautifully highlights some of the horrors that come from these issues. It’s point is, even if humans are not all bad as of themselves, within the larger societies, there tend to arise strong incentives, for the individual, to act in the disinterest of society.
It’s point is, even if humans are not all bad as of themselves, within the larger societies, there tend to arise strong incentives, for the individual, to act in the disinterest of society.
Yes, but how does that equate to it being a serious issue for someone like the OP, who is not a super-genius and can’t work a way out of it?
It’s like saying black holes are a serious issue to them because there’s the possibility of a rogue one swallowing up the Earth.
Which in one sense, is true, but seems to be entirely futile because to worry about it is just pounding sand.
Isn’t that true for everything with global scale?
The typical moderately-above-average person, by definition, has a very slim chance of moving the needle, in a positive direction, to any noticeable degree.
Absolutely! That’s why we have free-rider problems/insufficient contribution to public goods, all over the world. The thing you can do in society’s best interest, is not typically in your own (material) best interest, unless you’re a perfect altruist.
Assuming actual bonafide geniuses are 1 in a thousand, that’s 8 million of them, most of the rest of the population ~8 billion still get through life seemingly fine.
They’re public minded enough to not tear down their own hometowns and neighbourhoods at least.
So it doesn’t seem that serious of an issue?
Meditations On Moloc
Yes most people are not exactly overflowing with virtue, and in fact will more likely than not compete in a race to the bottom if given the motivation, but how does that relate?
You had suggested the issues with free-riding/insufficient contributions to public goods, might not be so much of a problem. The linked post suggests otherwise, as it beautifully highlights some of the horrors that come from these issues. It’s point is, even if humans are not all bad as of themselves, within the larger societies, there tend to arise strong incentives, for the individual, to act in the disinterest of society.
Yes, but how does that equate to it being a serious issue for someone like the OP, who is not a super-genius and can’t work a way out of it?
It’s like saying black holes are a serious issue to them because there’s the possibility of a rogue one swallowing up the Earth.
Which in one sense, is true, but seems to be entirely futile because to worry about it is just pounding sand.