More good than harm
Oct. 23rd, 2005 09:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Here's a notion I've been playing with: some 80% of people do more good than harm.
Entropy is constantly grinding away and people need a great deal of reliable maintenance. If some large majority of people weren't contributing to the human race, we wouldn't be here.
When I say "more good than harm", I mean something undramatic. By definition, the vast majority of people and actions aren't exceptional. What people do for themselves counts--if you think that doesn't matter, contemplate how much has to be done for someone who's incapacitated. Just turning yourself over in bed is doing a little bit for the great human enterprise.
Furthermore, most of that good isn't heroic. Getting yourself hurt much while helping out has to be unusual, or again, the human race doesn't make it.
I'm talking about net advantage--many and perhaps most of the people who are doing more good than harm aren't necessarily doing well in all areas of their lives. They might be really good with their families, but useless or mildly negative at work, or perhaps the other way around.
The reason I think all this is worth saying is that I see all too much punditry to the effect that a great many people are just awful. They waste resources, they're irresponsible, they're vicious, they don't pay enough attention to politics and when they do at least half of them are wrong, and they bring too many items into the express checkout line.
There's certainly plenty that could be better, but I think having some respect for what's already somewhat good is easier on the nerves, more based in truth than general condemnation, and less likely to have unintended consequences. It's even possible that epople are more apt to hear advice from someone who doesn't seem to hate them.
Addendum: It can still be more good than harm even if you get paid for doing it. Or even if you get paid well for doing it.
Entropy is constantly grinding away and people need a great deal of reliable maintenance. If some large majority of people weren't contributing to the human race, we wouldn't be here.
When I say "more good than harm", I mean something undramatic. By definition, the vast majority of people and actions aren't exceptional. What people do for themselves counts--if you think that doesn't matter, contemplate how much has to be done for someone who's incapacitated. Just turning yourself over in bed is doing a little bit for the great human enterprise.
Furthermore, most of that good isn't heroic. Getting yourself hurt much while helping out has to be unusual, or again, the human race doesn't make it.
I'm talking about net advantage--many and perhaps most of the people who are doing more good than harm aren't necessarily doing well in all areas of their lives. They might be really good with their families, but useless or mildly negative at work, or perhaps the other way around.
The reason I think all this is worth saying is that I see all too much punditry to the effect that a great many people are just awful. They waste resources, they're irresponsible, they're vicious, they don't pay enough attention to politics and when they do at least half of them are wrong, and they bring too many items into the express checkout line.
There's certainly plenty that could be better, but I think having some respect for what's already somewhat good is easier on the nerves, more based in truth than general condemnation, and less likely to have unintended consequences. It's even possible that epople are more apt to hear advice from someone who doesn't seem to hate them.
Addendum: It can still be more good than harm even if you get paid for doing it. Or even if you get paid well for doing it.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-24 03:55 am (UTC)I agree with you. Think about how much politeness you encounter on an average day. Even people ignoring you and letting you mind your own business while they mind theirs are doing something polite. Kind interaction would be greater still, but there's something to be said avoiding confrontation.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-24 04:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-24 06:16 am (UTC)Just curious, had you already seen this Live Journal post on how small favors matter (http://www.livejournal.com/users/janni/245442.html), or would this be a case of parallel thinking? I'd just read that other piece last night, thanks to its appearance in Patrick's Particles over at Making Light (http://www.nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/).
Crazy(and cheered by the commonplace kindnesses she's received)Soph
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-10-24 06:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:The idea that the masses are unreliable and bad....
Date: 2005-10-24 11:02 am (UTC)I've been trying to explain elsewhere if a person has a choice between being poor and uneducated and having a personal relationship with a meme that says the poor are blessed and every human being is uniquely valuable by the entity that made the universe, or being poor and uneducated and being told that the lives of the poor, along with most other people's, are meaningless biological surges, which meme is going to win?
I also think that Sturgeon's Law is crap, too, and more an excuse than something that's been true of all cultures all the time.
Re: The idea that the masses are unreliable and bad....
From:Re: The idea that the masses are unreliable and bad....
From:Re: The idea that the masses are unreliable and bad....
From:no subject
Date: 2005-10-24 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-25 10:35 pm (UTC)You posted this when I was reading a book that had a character say that the world has been going downhill these last 1000 years due to people valuing material things over spiritual (which I disagree with; in fact I'd argue the exact opposite), and now this morning I see this comic strip (http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/images/pearls2036630051025.gif) in the paper.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: