
Rethinking Our Vision of Success - bookofjoe
https://www.edge.org/conversation/robert_pollack-rethinking-our-vision-of-success
======
msghacq
For those who don't know, John Brockman, the founder of The Edge
([https://www.edge.org/memberbio/john_brockman](https://www.edge.org/memberbio/john_brockman))
was _deeply_ involved with Jeffery Epstein:

[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-
ep...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-
bezos-musk-billionaires-dinner)

[https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-
inte...](https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-
enabler)

~~~
mikelyons
it's unfortunate, but worth not shooting the messenger on this topic.

He's talking about our transition from orange to green on the Spiral Dynamics
model of psychological / spiritual evolution.

~~~
msghacq
That's probably best discussed on a platform that doesn't have ties to
Epstein. He was their largest source of funding for years:

[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-
ep...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-john-
brockman-edge-foundation)

------
harimau777
It seems to me that the problem with this is that accepting natural selection
will only be attractive for the people who are selected for not for the people
who are selected against.

That being the case, people will continue to compete to be the "winners" even
if that means that they must utilize non-sustainable strategies.

The only way I could see this working is if society somehow puts in place a
system to provide for the people that are "selected against". What would that
even look like? How would it be implemented?

------
swagasaurus-rex
"The biology says that we're all equally valuable and equally mortal"

Sure, I agree with him.

But there are people who wouldn't. Even a universal language wouldn't overcome
the communication barrier you would find with these kinds of people.

~~~
chimi
you've already constructed that barrier between you and them in your language
toward them and describing _them_ as though they aren't _you_ they are
different from you, according to you.

You are saying you agree that all people are equal, except for people who
think some people are _more_ equal than others.

It seems to me from the article that it's exactly the way you frame people
that is a detriment to us all working together to prevent us all from dying
horrible deaths in a venus like environment of our own creation.

We are self-destructing precisely because we separate ourselves by ideology,
geography, mythology, language.

We describe humans as a "cancer" on the planet, what is our chemotherapy? All
humans aren't cancer. The meek will inherit the earth, or so it is said. The
opposite of the meek are the corporations especially those like WeWork that
grow fast in their own selfish benefit without benefiting the body.

We need a way to _remove_ those cancerous humans without killing _all_ humans.

There are no laws that say, "You are not allowed to serve yourself at the
expense of the planet." Corporations used to be required to have a mandate of
public good.

Is our capitalistic drive _better_ for the planet? Is technology more harm
than it is good? Are Luddites _on_ to something?

It really isn't profitable to sacrifice yourself. We need to make it so that
doing _without_ is rewarded. We need to change our philosophy of good. The
supercar driver gets mates more than the pedestrian on the sidewalk.

Peacocking _works_. It's bred into us. We have to _overcome_ our biology. We
have to _intentionally_ evolve ourselves into a better species, a more
conscious, rationally _long_ term thinking society. Not one that is rewarded
on 90 days out, but one that is rewarded on 90 years out.

We almost need to eradicate DNA as the mechanism by which we propagate.

I don't know how we can fight against that. I suppose we are by not having
children. In a way, we are almost _too_ smart. I think at some point, IQ hurts
our chances to have offspring and I wonder why that is?

It seems if intelligence was a good thing, then you'd be more likely to mate
if you had more of it, but that's not what the statistics indicate.

You can be too smart for your own good. I think humans are too smart for their
own good. They are only smart enough to cause trouble -- existential trouble.

~~~
Judgmentality
> you've already constructed that barrier between you and them in your
> language toward them and describing them as though they aren't you they are
> different from you, according to you.

I didn't get that at all. He said there are other people who would disagree.
He didn't say they were inferior in any way.

The jump from someone acknowledging a group exists to assuming that person
feels superior is a logical leap I am struggling to see. You clearly have an
axe to grind (although after reading your comment I have no idea what your
point is) but it really seems like you're the one looking down on everyone
else.

~~~
chimi
I didn't say he said they were inferior, I said he said they were so different
that it's impossible to even _communicate_ with them. You assumed.

And no, I don't look down on _everyone_ else, but I certainly do look down on
_some_. People who play zero sum games -- or worse. People who _take_ from
others with deception. Con artists. Scammers. Lots of corporations.

I don't think we are all the same. I don't think we are all equal.

I think we make choices and some people choose to make the world a better
place and some people choose to make _their_ world a better place at the
_expense_ of the _world_.

Instead of fighting against people like that, we _reward_ them with national
leadership positions and corporate leadership positions. We throw money at
them, when we should throw _them_ in jail.

~~~
Judgmentality
I hope you take this as constructive criticism instead of an insult because I
honestly mean it as such:

It would be much easier to take you seriously if you didn't italicize so many
words. It just makes you sound angry and self-assured in your righteousness.

~~~
chimi
I don't take it as an insult. I _am_ angry, self-assured and righteous. You
made a statement of fact.

It's not _what_ you say, it's _how_ you say it. It's very difficult to get
across _tone_ in written speech. It's what italics are for.

If I say something to myself in my head as I am typing it or just before and
the word is emphasized when I say it to myself, then I use italics.

That's what they are _for_.

~~~
Judgmentality
No, I get that, and there are some subjects where I spend an unhealthy amount
of my personal time debating with people on the internet. I catch myself in
the same traps. I am careful to edit my comments before submitting them
though, because I realize how it might be read by someone else. My point is
your anger is apparent, and it takes away from your credibility.

Anyway, how you present yourself is clearly your decision. I was just trying
to add some perspective.

Cheers.

