Is it really counter-intuitive?
“Common sense” models of human behaviour seem to predict a bleak face of humanity: that of independent agents working for their own profit, disregarding the “greater good” (if such a thing exists!). But there seems to be a yawning gap between these descriptions and reality. True, on the small scale we see corruption, trickery and single minded profiteering. In this chaos, we somehow lose the sight of the big picture: that humans have created civilizations. That humans have clustered together for centuries and despite their petty squabbles, have built huge, magnificent cultures.
Perhaps the most co-operative part of human civilisation is the passing of information. The discoveries made in our time are passed on to our children. We build up on what is already known. Seeking knowledge is inherently a very selfish act in that, it fulfills the individual’s own need and may not depend on outside rewards. But its result usually has wide-spread dissemination. Despite the clamour for patents, intellectual property rights and other such things, it would probably be difficult to find a discoverer who jealously guards the idea unto death. The thought that ones contribution has reached another soul is still a deeper satisfaction to most. The wide support for free educational resources (even on the cutting edge of research) is proof of this. Also significant is the open source movement in software technology. Thousands of high quality programs are now available to anyone who wishes to use them, all with the explicit condition that one is free to do whatever one wishes with the code. It is considered etiquette of this culture to acknowledge the previous authors and is mostly done willingly. What is most counter-intuitive in this mode of development is that a person you don’t know might voluntarily spend hours to solve your problems without expecting anything.
Many other examples of such “help your neighbour” behaviour exist. And I am certain almost every individual is helpful to a certain small group of individuals who are near. The trouble occurs when drawing the line between “ours” and “theirs.” Certainly, it is stupid to spend your energy for “them” when they do nothing for you in turn.
Perhaps, the answer lies in the awareness that the small effort each one puts in keeps the machine of civilisation going. The question is what brings this awareness? Wealth? Education? I think we have all seen enough recent counter examples to both these. What stops you from not playing your “responsible” part? Essentially, nothing!
If human beings only stopped reffering to cruelty in nature as a way of making excuses for their own! The human forgets with what infinite innocence even the most terrifying event in nature takes place. … [Nature's] consciousness consists in its completeness; because it contains everything, nature contains cruelty as well. Man, however, will never be able to encompass everything. … He is thus instantly condemned by his choice because it turns him into an exception, into an isolated, one-dimensional being no longer connected to the whole.
— Rainer Maria Rilke
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
This entry was posted on October 2, 2007 at 4:19 pm and is filed under Comment.
Public Spiritedness – II
October 2, 2007Is it really counter-intuitive?
“Common sense” models of human behaviour seem to predict a bleak face of humanity: that of independent agents working for their own profit, disregarding the “greater good” (if such a thing exists!). But there seems to be a yawning gap between these descriptions and reality. True, on the small scale we see corruption, trickery and single minded profiteering. In this chaos, we somehow lose the sight of the big picture: that humans have created civilizations. That humans have clustered together for centuries and despite their petty squabbles, have built huge, magnificent cultures.
Perhaps the most co-operative part of human civilisation is the passing of information. The discoveries made in our time are passed on to our children. We build up on what is already known. Seeking knowledge is inherently a very selfish act in that, it fulfills the individual’s own need and may not depend on outside rewards. But its result usually has wide-spread dissemination. Despite the clamour for patents, intellectual property rights and other such things, it would probably be difficult to find a discoverer who jealously guards the idea unto death. The thought that ones contribution has reached another soul is still a deeper satisfaction to most. The wide support for free educational resources (even on the cutting edge of research) is proof of this. Also significant is the open source movement in software technology. Thousands of high quality programs are now available to anyone who wishes to use them, all with the explicit condition that one is free to do whatever one wishes with the code. It is considered etiquette of this culture to acknowledge the previous authors and is mostly done willingly. What is most counter-intuitive in this mode of development is that a person you don’t know might voluntarily spend hours to solve your problems without expecting anything.
Many other examples of such “help your neighbour” behaviour exist. And I am certain almost every individual is helpful to a certain small group of individuals who are near. The trouble occurs when drawing the line between “ours” and “theirs.” Certainly, it is stupid to spend your energy for “them” when they do nothing for you in turn.
Perhaps, the answer lies in the awareness that the small effort each one puts in keeps the machine of civilisation going. The question is what brings this awareness? Wealth? Education? I think we have all seen enough recent counter examples to both these. What stops you from not playing your “responsible” part? Essentially, nothing!
Like this:
This entry was posted on October 2, 2007 at 4:19 pm and is filed under Comment.