Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

In what way is NASA implying self-sacrifice? I think you might be shoe-horning some personal commentary here. I’ve met some who became civil servants explicitly because they weren’t motivated primarily by profit. But it was still maximizing some other feature that added ton their well-being. It wasn’t self sacrifice.

>I know it's gauche to suggest that people are motivated by money, but it's a fact that they are, even in affairs of the heart

We probably fundamentally disagree here. Again, I’m not saying people aren’t motivated by money. I’m saying they aren’t only motivated by money. The people I’ve met that think human interactions can be distilled to such a simple principle tend to struggle in their personal relationships in my experience.

The fact that you’re willing to type away on HN instead of trying to make more money tells me you know it’s a balancing act. Besides, I think people are more motivated by status (being the hierarchical primates that we are) and money is just a clumsy proxy for status. For example, status chasing men are more apt to date a beautiful but poor female than a rich homely one.




> In what way is NASA implying self-sacrifice?

That they are careful with other peoples' money.

> I’m saying they aren’t only motivated by money.

I never said only. I said it is a powerful motivator that motivates nearly all of us.

> status

is another path to getting money.

> status chasing men are more apt to date a beautiful but poor female than a rich homely one

What they'll do is marry the rich one and cheat on her with the beauties. Besides, having an elegant beauty on your arm gives a big boost to one's career. Just look at JFK and Jackie. There's no doubt Jackie was a big help. And there's no doubt JFK selected her with that help in mind.

You can believe what you like. But I (and many I know) have become a lot happier through recognizing how human nature actually is rather than believing in the fantasy. The unhappy people I know are the ones who still believe in the fantasy, and are constantly disappointed.


> status

is another path to getting money.

You have this inverted. Money is a path to status. Status is what really matters. For example, do you think a former less powerful than, say, a billionaire? Billionaire's use their money to get power, prestige, and status, but it doesn't always go as far as other means.

>I never said only.

You said universal. I'm saying it's common, but not universal. The problem with absolute statements is that it only takes one instance to disprove them.

Is Bezos marrying the richest woman he can find? I doubt it. Are you actively selling your organs for money? If not, maximizing money isn’t universal. It common, but still commonly constrained by other competing priorities. Some of which we hold more dear than money. To ignore that seems like it’s own oversimplified fantasy.


"Universal" has not the same meaning as "only". You're putting words in my mouth.


But it does mean “applies across the board.”

I don’t think it does. Maybe if you phrased it as “maximizing utility” but you constrained it to “maximizing money” as a universal truth. That’s demonstrably false.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: