> Working together; believing in, having compassion for, and doing good for others are all outré, often depicted as humanly impossible and ridiculed.
We all have better angels and worse; there's nothing special about the our worse ones that means they are somehow more fundamental or necessary.
We actually can do much better - not perfectly, of course, that is a strawperson; but we can do much better.
You sound really confident so I'm assuming there is some substance here.
Based on our reality: We were born into a world built by it, free and prosperous and safe far beyond any of our ancestors. Generations before us actually built that (and what are we building for the next?). Look what King and Einstein and Keynes (and Friedman) and Steinum and all those people built - none profiting much from it.
Do you really doubt that humans have better angels and worse - inside every one of us, and that we have a choice? It's hardly a novel idea, though I can see that it's outre, it's disruptive and outside the pale, in this (uber-reactionary?) moment. Otherwise, who would want to deny that reality?
From what I understand of modern biology even newborn babies are not entirely blank slates, there's some amount of genetic and epigenetic influence so that many 'choices' are not really up to the individual to decide.
And certainly by adulthood, which is the vast majority of passing HN readers, many many permanent life altering choices have occurred.
For a real world example, the children and grandchildren of those who suffered severe starvation in the Netherlands during WW2 have noticeably worse characteristics on average, in terms of a shorter lifespan, less healthy, etc.., compared to families that didn't undergo that. Even their personalities and behaviours, on average, were affected.
I think you are taking the influences we all have - emotional, physical, environmental, etc. - to an extreme. It's not blank slate or automaton. People still make lots of choices, even if there are drives and other influences one way or the other. You don't have to do bad things, and you can choose to deal with your natural drives, emotions, etc. in many ways.
The Dutch example suggests the opposite, that to noticeably move the needle for large groups of people like that, in a positive direction, would take many lifetimes to occur.
Even to get them back to the population average would likely take at least a half dozen generations.
Life is too short for such diversions, and those things have cause far, far to much harm to too many people, in ways we know very well. In fact, I might assert that nothing has caused more harm to humanity: stop acting on racial/ethnic/nationalistic biases, and we'd have a far more peaceful, free, prosperous world.
Lots of people have that bias, everyone to some degree. Everyone has anger too, but we don't all punch or neighbors or believe we are self-righteous. You could change how you deal with your biases right now - you don't need generations, and don't accept that excuse for yourself. We have a choice; we can do so much more - right now.
Or is there confusion about the term 'Dutch'?
This is another term to refer to the Netherlands.
Considering this is the third deflection in a row, I'm going to have to insist on solid proof of this 'overwhelming evidence' going forwards, instead of hand-waving and easily seen through innuendos.
Those men knew exactly what they wanted and spent every waking moment working towards it. Money.
SV earnestness has always been a con.
Again, people love to say it, like it sounds smart. Humans are earnest and deceitful, to varying degrees at varying times. We do acheive earnest goods; we have human rights, for example, democracy, and lots of peace (but not enough). We have a choice, free will, the moral choice of thousands of years of (much) religion and philosophy.
How about starting with Larry Ellison?
I don't recall "believing" in an employer since maybe my early 30's.
Plug in your own appropriate interpretation of the Liberal/Conservative labels.
> I don't recall "believing" in an employer since maybe my early 30's.
Not even a small one? Where everyone knows everyone?
There have been teams, especially small ones, where I trusted everyone on the team to act like a true friend, and to strive to do good things for the company.
I don't recall ever working for an organization where I 100% cared about their goals, or believed 100% in the righteousness of their goals, or where I was 100% sure they'd succeed.
I may have some level of loyalty to those around me but even that comes with a healthy bit of cynicism.
If those people care about those things (and aren't in a system that pressurises them not to or selects for people who do) then the "company" will also care about those things.
The solution to avoid this Kafkaesque trap multitudes are willing to saddle around their necks is worker-owned co-ops.