Attention diverted to maintain the status quo

We live in a world that is far from perfect, but being somewhat of an idealist, I do believe we can do better. What I find unusual however is how many people look only to the pas as an indicator of possibility , as if the future can never be different.

Even while innovation in technology keeps increasing, when it comes to the processes of human nature , there seems to be the idea that we are what we are and that is all we can be. Evolution has proven this wrong of course as we have already developed immensely, so why do so many believe that the current way we govern is all there can be_ This is the same for economics also, as if all that has been created thus far is as far as it can possibly go.

This sounds rambly, that is okay by me. My point, if I have one, is that while things might feel like they are moving slowly at times, they are always moving. I hear people say things like, Bitcoin is already ten years old as if by now it should have replaced all global currencies. Things never move as fast as people want them to, like the time it takes to drive somewhere anticipated takes longer than it does to drive home from the same point. It is perception.

When we consider the world in which we live, we must consider it from what we know and that is a point that is a collection of the past. It is impossible to consider what the world is going to have in it tomorrow because there are so many things going on simultaneously that are outside of our awareness.

For example, in 1963 there were less than 50,000 patents granted in the world an din 2015 there were 325,000. That is almost 1000 new patents granted per day, how many of them do you know? While I am sure that many of them are nonsense, some of them have the potential to be industry disrupting and world changing tech or materials that can open up possibilities that were not open before. This is the thing with what people call impossible, it generally suffers an alignment problem.

If you look at it from a governance standpoint, something like communism which has been around for millennia as an idea, wasn't even really possible to attempt at scale until some 100 years ago as in order to distribute resources, various types of technologies were required.

This is the same for the simple ledger that blockchain is, as while it has been around for millennia also, to be able to scale it up to include millions and billions of recorded transactions, technologies are needed. Computers of course for the processing, but to be practical and able to include many participants, the internet is also needed. Decentralized governance is also impossible not long ago because the lack of ability to communicate and process the transactions in a trustless framework.

I put my faith in the future on the ability for human to innovate and create the tools that we require to make the world a better place. I do not think that recycling or reducing consumption is the answer for our environmental problems, nor do I think that any individual action will make the difference - the solutions have to be technological. However, to have those solutions developed there has to be the incentive to create and that generally means the economic value has to encourage development.

I feel that the largest lies that get told in the world today are designed to create a conversation between change and status quo, and due to human nature that doesn't like to take responsibility, status quo generally wins. Sure, you can argue about climate change causes, but at the end of the day we as a species can only survive in a narrow band of climate and if we can't work out a way to stay within the parameters, we are all screwed. Arguing about the cause does little other than slow down the process, something that those who benefit from the status quo want as it allows them to keep milking profits without having to act.

For example, if there was a breakthrough in energy production that allowed for clean and free electricity for all, would you deny using it because to do so would cost jobs? However, to get to that kind of breakthrough, lit isn't likely to come from an individual in their garage, it is probably going to be reached through the efforts of many. But if the many aren't incentivized economically to even look at working toward that breakthrough, but are incentivized to look away from it, what do you think people will do?

It is easy to understand at a personal level if you consider how much you spend on generative investments compared to, how much you spend on entertainment. This is something that I find interesting in regard to Steem for those who say they don't have the money to invest, even though I can pretty much generalize that they do spend more than their parent's did on entertaining themselves.

But, this is the way of the world these days, where we are willing to "invest" money into entertainment, but not into actual investments. We care more about feeling good than doing good, an economic decision that is going to have ramifications for us not too far down the track, if it isn't already. Change happens whether we like it or not or if we notice it happen or not. While people are focusing on the latest show or what is happening on Twitter to their political candidate or chosen enemy, change continually happens.

I have said before that people should consider what percentage of their income of the last year they have put into investments they believe will go up, and compare it to the percentage that a financial institution has put into something that they think will go down in value. A bank doesn't invest into what it considers will be a losing position - ever.

But, this is the thing with what we pay attention to, for while we are normal people who feel that we need to spend some time away having some fun and what not, the institutions are working single-minded toward whatever they are incentivized to accomplish, which is create profits at whatever cost, as long as they don't have to pay it. Time is an investment in itself and as humans, we waste a great deal of it while a corporation is incentivized to save it.

We all act on incentives but the further away the reward is, the less invested we become as or interest levels are largely driven by near-term results. The problem is that often our near-term results are actually what is keeping the status quo as while we might feel good as we consume the popular whatever of the day, what we are doing is shifting the value we hold to where it is already going - supporting the status quo.

We do this daily of course, all of us. Well, at least most of us. It is very hard to go all in on the future even though one might know that is what is needed because, we are also programmed to enjoy the fruits of consumption. Consuming feels good, like the chocolate, wine and cigarette - but too much is going to cause problems - not for the companies that provide the supply -for the individual.

No one is going to force us to eat better, exercise, or invest wisely - as it is not in their best interests to do so. If everyone ate healthily the food industry would collapse, if everyone looked after their body the pharmaceutical industries would collapse and, if everyone invested well - who wold fail?

It is because we as humans are imperfect, flawed, uncontrolled and random that there is uncertainty and volatility and that means, investment value. We are very predictable and for a very long time those who manipulate the world have known that the best way to control us is, to keep us entertained.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]