Sort:  

People all have different concepts of morals, all have a different set of abilities and short-term goals. The problem with a market is that it can pit these two groups against each other. One group might want to stop starvation, while the other might want to stop climate change.

Both could easily be achieved with our level of resources, but due to markets each member of society can only do a small amount. Investment is often the best way to increase this amount. The problem is the most profitible investments also tend to be the most destructive.

To be the most effective to save those starving I must invest in something very profitable, like big oil. To stop climate change I would have to investment in something that creates the horrible labor conditions that causes the starvation, like mining.

If I wanted to help both, I would make less profit and be unable to help what I care about most. That creates the situation where even if I don't do it, others will. So all I can do is put myself in the bad position and try to make the most of it.

The same situation applies to stuff like the curation rewards talked about on the post

Thanks for taking the time. I appreciate your perspective... I am often an "odd fish" because I don't approach problem solving like many people tend to.

I have always been a long-term thinker, and when I encounter something positive my first thought tends to be: "How can we turn this positive into 5-year, 10-year, 50-year benefit?"

It is an approach motivated by seeking safety... I will forego maximum profit NOW in exchange for moderate profit in perpetuity.

So getting back to Steemit and the curation rewards issue, my approach tends to be motivated by "Let's take the approach most likely to ensure there will still BE a Steemit to offer curation rewards, 10 years from now."

Thanks again for the explanation.

"maximum profit NOW in exchange for moderate profit in perpetuity."

then you will never be as powerful as those who seek it now. The only way to beat them is to destroy the system

That's a very good explanation of markets.

"One group might want to stop starvation, while the other might want to stop climate change."

"Both could easily be achieved with our level of resources..."

Newp.

Starvation - maybe. It isn't resources, but policy, as you point out, that causes starvation.

Stop climate change? Not in our lifetime, probably not until we can build a Dyson Sphere.

Maybe we can mitigate, or even fully eliminate, human contributions to climate - if we can even figure out what they are, which we sure as hell haven't yet.

E.g. What is the impact on climate of increase in detritovores in the deep ocean, resulting from definning sharks?

No one has any idea.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.16
JST 0.029
BTC 62706.80
ETH 2439.89
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.66