Why does progress matter? Is progress for society worth pursuing, if it comes at the expense of happiness?
Kim Ung Yong attended university classes at 5, simply because he could, and went to work for NASA very early in his life. As potentially the smartest in the world, he held a unique position in society, as someone who could (literally) rocket humanity into a new stage of existence. Humanity does occasionally need people like that, who have the ability to create things that will solve humanity's pressing problems, like scarcity of resources.
However, does humanity have a right to demand such things from those who possess the ability? This was a central debate in Ender's Game. Ender, the (2nd) smartest in the world in that book, is sent to battle school, and essentially used up. He constantly feels lonely, alienated, miserable, and by the end of his time in school, all he longs for a simple life. He cannot even imagine the luxuries that other people take for granted: simple living, getting to choose what you want to do.
When I read this article about Kim Ung Yong, I was reminded of Ender's (fictional) experience. All Kim wanted was to live, with people his own age. From the time he was born, he had never experienced the luxury of having friends.
What does this have to do with Ray Dalio? Well, in a nutshell, Ray Dalio argues that doing what is in one's personal interest is usually in the best interest of society. But here is a clear counter-example.
It would probably be in society's best interest to use Kim. If Kim has the ability to come up with systems that could colonize Mars within the next few decades, or to mine near planets for resources to support Earth's rapidly exploding population, that would bring huge benefits for society. But what is in Kim's best interest? He clearly values his own personal happiness more than the advancement of society.
Is that a morally wrong choice on his part? I feel the gut answer that most people would give would be "no". Yet, his decision could have vast implications for society, by not utilizing his resources.
So doing what was in his best interest , perhaps, did not result in society's best interest.
But by Dalio's measure, success is defined as "nothing more than getting what you want -- and that is up to you to decide what that is for you." By that measure, Kim did end up quite successful.
What about me? I have concerned myself so far with the question of, "how can I do the most good for society?" However, if I go down that path, it is likely that, at some point, my own interests - namely, happiness - will be at odds with society's. Perhaps I am even working against myself right now. How can I choose?
I have learned to distrust extremes. Extreme dedication to self-satisfaction and extreme selflessness both seem like unfulfilling paths.
Let me examine this from a different angle - timeframes. Happiness seems to deal with present-mindedness, and dedication to society seems to be concerned more with the future. I have always felt that a concentration on the future, with regular doses of present minded completeness, and a sprinkling of past reminisces, ends up creating the maximum satisfaction.
Is that true? My spiritual teachings usually focus on being completely centered in the present. And the Tao te Ching instructs that improving the world is a fool's game. It is best to do your work and then step back.
I need to give up these foolish notions. Who am I? I am no great resource, that society must use, or I will expire.
Who is Kim Ung Yong for that matter? Is he not doing an essential function for society now?
Everything does find a place to belong. And with that, I will step back, and find where I belong.
No comments:
Post a Comment