Are you limiting the discussion to positive outcomes? A friend on mine used to say if you can't be famous you might as well be infamous. I don't really buy in to that, but some people might need clarification.
Pioneering scientific discoveries and engineering new technologies are the only two lasting, positive impacts one can ever have in life. Anything else is either non-impactful or simply cultural changes, which are neutral to our species in the long run.
What we can do as a species and what we actually understand about the universe are the two fundamental aspects of humanity that have any significance just ten generations later. And of the two, learning something new about the universe and sharing it is far more significant of an impact. It will last longer because of the nature of science to build upon previous discoveries.
Although it's only been about 800 years, Genghis Khan might form a worthy counterexample to that assertion, judging by his disproportionate impact on the human genome.
I can't tell if you are suggesting Religion has been a positive or a negative. Which I think is the point where there are people making arguments in either direction, suggesting it's mostly a wash.
There's some interesting developments in that area, on the one side about leaving warnings at nuclear waste sites (which probably won't work, archeologists were warned about death and curses and such and still went into Tutanchamun's tomb. IIRC some died from a mold spore active in there), on the other about preserving knowledge for the ages (e.g. sapphire disks, 3d / holographic storage). I don't feel like there's a working solution yet, or at least not a high-tech one - chipping out a granite block and keeping it relatively shielded from the weather still seems like the safest bet.
> archeologists were warned about death and curses and such and still went into Tutanchamun's tomb. IIRC some died from a mold spore active in there
Correct. I saw a documentary last week about a 3000-year-old grave in Syria where they pumped in fresh air for a week or so before going in to get rid of the fungal spores in the air.
Ensuring the high supply of genetic material is the easy half of the battle. Ensuring the demand for your genetic material sounds substantially more difficult.
Chances are, you won't be remembered in 1000 years. And you'll be too dead to enjoy it if you are. Are you sure you have come to terms with that? Lots of people I meet here are obsessed with "making their dent in the universe" and I think some of it is driven by the fear of death.
That said, if you just want to better the lives of future generations, there are plenty of things you can do now. Give money to good causes. Get involved in politics. Plant a tree.
Do you need to be remembered to be significant? I consider them to be two different things.
For me the answer to both is to do what I can to have a positive impact on those around me. I consider my efforts as a scout leader to be the most likely thing I have done to affect our future, though I doubt I will be remembered much beyond the next generation.
You don't need to be remembered to be significant.
I'm trying to see if the OP knows the difference.
I think it's great your a scout leader. It will help shape the lives of children who will outlive you. And you're doing it out of a healthy desire to help others, and not a vain quest to secure your fame after your death.
Doing something that’s significant in 1000 years and being remembered are two different things.
A few thousand people trying to be Elon Musk, Edison, Ford, Carnegie, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates can definitely do work that will impact the world for generations to come.
If you want to live on long after you’re dead, create a university, or research institution
Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Howard Hughes Medical Institute...
> And you'll be too dead to enjoy it if you are. Are you sure you have come to terms with that?
Honestly, I don't think it's all that easy to rule out valuing the future beyond death, or to categorically reject notions of continuation of identity beyond death. That we are a coherent, super defined identity that has a definite beginning and a definite ending is in large part a convenient, and comfortable, myth we tell ourselves. In reality ourself from moments ago is a (slightly) different being, and you from many years ago, say from your childhood, is an almost completely different being, not only physically but a completely different mind. I don't think most people have come to terms with this either (which is understandable imo because those concepts are very tricky to interpret in a non-nihilistic way); while this truth give perspective as to why other forms of propagating your impact in the world and on other people that go beyond just your future self are perhaps justified. That the continuation of part of your identity in your work, teachings, children, friends, beyond your death can be "rational".
Ultimately I think (and so seems your position) one of the main motivations people should have is to simply have a good, happy, meaningful life themselves (where meaning isn't fame or grandeur). But, again "rationally" (in a classical economic-ish sense), there's definitely a big place for helping other people and building a legacy imo, as previously justified and based on ethical principles like the Categorical Imperative[1]. Of course if everyone were singularly concerned with helping others, no one would be reaping the fruits of labor, then what would be the point of help? That's why the one's main motivation should always be your own happiness, whatever that even means.
> Honestly, I don't think it's all that easy to rule out valuing the future beyond death
Never said it was easy. It can take years of reflection.
I'm suggesting the OP do that. Their life will be a lot more pleasant and fulfilling once they do that. Otherwise, they may spend their whole lives fruitlessly chasing after immortality.
You didn't address my other points, where I question if OP should rule that out.
> Otherwise, they may spend their whole lives fruitlessly chasing after immortality.
What about spending their whole lives fruitlessly chasing egoistic hedonism?
Again you didn't present a convincing argument that it is totally fruitless. As I've said, it certainly shouldn't be one's singular goal. But I think there's a role it should play.
I didn't address your other points because I didn't disagree with them.
I think we're talking past each other. You assume my position is promoting hedonism. It's not. I believe should take time to do things to make lives better for future generations, and humanity as a whole. I find that a better way to live.
However, if your motivation for making a difference is not a concern for others, but a need to be immortal in some way, that's a sign that you have an unhealthy attitude towards death.
Given the context (We're on HN, where transhumanism is more common than in broader society)and given the way the OP phrased the question, I sensed they might be afraid of death, and not simply concerned with making an impact.
That is an extremely long time line, and the likelihood that anyone reading this will do something that significant, aside from genocide, I don’t think is going to be all that significant then.
That does make me wonder how many of the buildings we build today will still be around in 1000 years. How does steel and concrete compare to (frequently restored / repaired) brick and mortar (said abbey) or just brick (the artificial mountains that are the Pyramids)?
Almost none and it’s not (Only) because of the construction method.
Today buildings are cheap which means that there is no incentive to keep them around until they become historically significant.
That 1000 year old abbey on a hill somewhere likely used to be the only masonry building for 100s of miles for a good chunk of its history and by the time masonry buildings became cheap enough to be mass produced to be considered a commodity it has gained sufficient historical value to be preserved for it.
It’s also interesting to think about historic property laws.
Land ownership is relatively a new concept and in many places you still cannot wholly own the land.
In the past you often couldn’t tear down a building and build a new one as you would lose well essentially your squatting rights.
Today however land is just as much of a commodity as ahytbing else which adds another factor that can against the value of the building.
I've answered this question for myself. I work in support of environmental protection and sustainability. In a thousand years maybe we will still have a habitable Earth with diverse species and people living on it to appreciate our effort to make it endure.
Though I suggest even if you narrow your time horizon to the lives of your children you'll still find some worthy things to do with your life.
You kind of skipped over it, but I’ve solved this by transferring the gift I received, by having children of my own, and raising them in a warm loving environment, teaching them empathy and kindness. I posit this is a worthy thing in itself.
1000 years ago saw the use of gunpowder in combat [0], the Norman conquest of England [1], and the invention of paper money [2].
Assuming you're not going to start a war or a religion, what kind of weapon or financial innovation could you invent that will change the world in a millennium?
Most won't like this answer. I think people dislike the idea of a nobody impacting world history.
But, if I take "today" to mean literally one day, sadly I think assassinating a world leader is one of the few ways to significantly impact the world 1000 years from now. (An example [0]). It would have to precipitate a major event though (something like a world war).
Have children. (and hope for plenty of grandchildren, great grandchildren etc)
1,000 years is time for a lot of generations to pass. Sure, your particular DNA might only make up some small amount of someone walking around in 1,000 years, but that is an action you can take in your lifetime that will be significant. Bonus points if you educate them well and give them the resources to be as successful as possible.
Imparting your values on the next generation is the most durable thing an individual can do. The way I see it, it's a multiplier. I can only do so much in one lifetime, but I can raise my children to value the same things as me, and thereby guide the impact that they and their children will have on the world.
82 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadWhat we can do as a species and what we actually understand about the universe are the two fundamental aspects of humanity that have any significance just ten generations later. And of the two, learning something new about the universe and sharing it is far more significant of an impact. It will last longer because of the nature of science to build upon previous discoveries.
Correct. I saw a documentary last week about a 3000-year-old grave in Syria where they pumped in fresh air for a week or so before going in to get rid of the fungal spores in the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_pharaohs
That said, if you just want to better the lives of future generations, there are plenty of things you can do now. Give money to good causes. Get involved in politics. Plant a tree.
For me the answer to both is to do what I can to have a positive impact on those around me. I consider my efforts as a scout leader to be the most likely thing I have done to affect our future, though I doubt I will be remembered much beyond the next generation.
I think it's great your a scout leader. It will help shape the lives of children who will outlive you. And you're doing it out of a healthy desire to help others, and not a vain quest to secure your fame after your death.
A few thousand people trying to be Elon Musk, Edison, Ford, Carnegie, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates can definitely do work that will impact the world for generations to come.
If you want to live on long after you’re dead, create a university, or research institution
Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Howard Hughes Medical Institute...
Oxford University is almost 1000 years old.
Is giving money to causes today, the best strategy?
Would it be better to amass wealth in your own name, and then deploy it more strategically later in life?
This has the added advantage of the potential to self-fund an endeavor that might do good and increase your capacity to give down the line?
If you trust yourself not to fall into greed as you grow older, what’s the downside of this, besides missing out on some tax breaks?
I guess the real answer is why not both.
Was thinking of some of the examples of “little old lady makes largest donation to X after a life of saving”.
Honestly, I don't think it's all that easy to rule out valuing the future beyond death, or to categorically reject notions of continuation of identity beyond death. That we are a coherent, super defined identity that has a definite beginning and a definite ending is in large part a convenient, and comfortable, myth we tell ourselves. In reality ourself from moments ago is a (slightly) different being, and you from many years ago, say from your childhood, is an almost completely different being, not only physically but a completely different mind. I don't think most people have come to terms with this either (which is understandable imo because those concepts are very tricky to interpret in a non-nihilistic way); while this truth give perspective as to why other forms of propagating your impact in the world and on other people that go beyond just your future self are perhaps justified. That the continuation of part of your identity in your work, teachings, children, friends, beyond your death can be "rational".
Ultimately I think (and so seems your position) one of the main motivations people should have is to simply have a good, happy, meaningful life themselves (where meaning isn't fame or grandeur). But, again "rationally" (in a classical economic-ish sense), there's definitely a big place for helping other people and building a legacy imo, as previously justified and based on ethical principles like the Categorical Imperative[1]. Of course if everyone were singularly concerned with helping others, no one would be reaping the fruits of labor, then what would be the point of help? That's why the one's main motivation should always be your own happiness, whatever that even means.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
Never said it was easy. It can take years of reflection. I'm suggesting the OP do that. Their life will be a lot more pleasant and fulfilling once they do that. Otherwise, they may spend their whole lives fruitlessly chasing after immortality.
> Otherwise, they may spend their whole lives fruitlessly chasing after immortality.
What about spending their whole lives fruitlessly chasing egoistic hedonism?
Again you didn't present a convincing argument that it is totally fruitless. As I've said, it certainly shouldn't be one's singular goal. But I think there's a role it should play.
I think we're talking past each other. You assume my position is promoting hedonism. It's not. I believe should take time to do things to make lives better for future generations, and humanity as a whole. I find that a better way to live.
However, if your motivation for making a difference is not a concern for others, but a need to be immortal in some way, that's a sign that you have an unhealthy attitude towards death.
Given the context (We're on HN, where transhumanism is more common than in broader society)and given the way the OP phrased the question, I sensed they might be afraid of death, and not simply concerned with making an impact.
Today buildings are cheap which means that there is no incentive to keep them around until they become historically significant.
That 1000 year old abbey on a hill somewhere likely used to be the only masonry building for 100s of miles for a good chunk of its history and by the time masonry buildings became cheap enough to be mass produced to be considered a commodity it has gained sufficient historical value to be preserved for it.
It’s also interesting to think about historic property laws.
Land ownership is relatively a new concept and in many places you still cannot wholly own the land.
In the past you often couldn’t tear down a building and build a new one as you would lose well essentially your squatting rights.
Today however land is just as much of a commodity as ahytbing else which adds another factor that can against the value of the building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1096
Though I suggest even if you narrow your time horizon to the lives of your children you'll still find some worthy things to do with your life.
From my point of view, life is suffering and until you can justify passing that suffering down, having children is a purely selfish desire.
Art, new ways of thinking.
I think the _My Struggle_ series by Karl Ove Knaussgard will have changed the way people conceive of the written word over future generations.
In 1000 they will be a forest, providing everyone with fruit, shade and lowering the temperature by 4 degrees on average.
Assuming you're not going to start a war or a religion, what kind of weapon or financial innovation could you invent that will change the world in a millennium?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder#Gunpowder...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote#Early_Chinese_paper_m...
But, if I take "today" to mean literally one day, sadly I think assassinating a world leader is one of the few ways to significantly impact the world 1000 years from now. (An example [0]). It would have to precipitate a major event though (something like a world war).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrilo_Princip
1,000 years is time for a lot of generations to pass. Sure, your particular DNA might only make up some small amount of someone walking around in 1,000 years, but that is an action you can take in your lifetime that will be significant. Bonus points if you educate them well and give them the resources to be as successful as possible.
Imparting your values on the next generation is the most durable thing an individual can do. The way I see it, it's a multiplier. I can only do so much in one lifetime, but I can raise my children to value the same things as me, and thereby guide the impact that they and their children will have on the world.