"“Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” - Sigmund Freud.

Unless you are Paris Hilton and have someone managing your life for you, being famous and great and all that is a lot of work and a big risk. Not many people want to do this, because most people aren't ambitious enough to really care about getting in the big leagues. So long as they get their morning coffee they are okay.

Even the engineers and scientists and whatnot that you mentioned are not usually "great". They're told what to study, what to build, what to invent. For every engineering team that comes up with a new fantastic invention, there's thousands of others that make your mouse-pad and your teacup.

The utility we produce for the rest of the population is nil- perhaps our contribution through consumption (and the growth of GDP unwittingly), and some twisting of logic with the butterfly effect may be some counter arguments here (that all the small things contribute somehow to an outcome), but practically speaking, as we usually understand the term in common usage, not many people "contribute" in a way that increases the utility a great deal to the populous (of a country/world). — schopenhauer1

Maybe the common usage really isn't very good then.

If you have, for example, a brilliant scientist making great discoveries and providing heaps of utility that way, how is it twisting of logic to point out that they've probably been carried by a huge amount of "ordinary" people providing the necessary infrastructure and other essentials for the scientist to be able to make those discoveries in the first place? You can't genetically engineer cures for diseases or design better computer chips without a pretty modern society behind you, and that requires masses of ordinary people running the everyday aspects of it.

I think attribution of credit or blame is just one of those things that tend to be inherently so complicated that everyday language has to rely on extremely simplistic approximations, such as giving all the credit of a scientific discovery to the scientist, and not fairly distributing it down the whole causal chain. It'd be a mistake to confuse the simplistic way we choose who to credit or to blame with some kind of metaphysical truth about who is actually to credit or to blame.

It seems very much unlike that to me. Everyone that has ever said a kind word to a lonely person has made a valuable contribution. Major technological achievements in the main do little to nothing to alter the amount of happiness in the world. As soon as humans are a little way above subsistence, technological innovations and the associated increases in wealth seem to have almost no effect on happiness.

Much as I am in awe of giants like Newton and Einstein, I doubt that any of their discoveries had any material impact on the overall happiness of the world.

There might be more room to talk of artistic achievements bringing people happiness. But even there I think it is limited. One can get as much joy from listening to a song sung by a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs as from listening to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir perform the B Minor Mass.

It is in the little, personal things that great contributions are made, and such contributions happen all the time, by the unknown and unsung.

Most of us will not contribute profoundly to the benefit of all of humanity, yes that is true.
But for the 99% we do contribute profoundly to each other's lives.
And I can live with that, it is enough for me.

Most of us go to work, consume, have some hobbies, friends, and family to fill the time. The utility we produce for the rest of the population is nil — schopenhauer1

This assessment is very far off the mark.

When we go to work we 99% maintain and reproduce society. You may not see the point in doing that, but most people think it worthwhile. We raise food, keep the sewage disposal systems working, plow snow, bear and raise children, care for sick people, manage society (government services of all kinds), scrub toilets in university buildings where all those brilliant people piss and shit.

The 99% perform all of the functions which are required for society to exist at all, and enable the 1% to invent and improve technology, art, science, space travel, music, film, manga comic books, porn, etc.

Besides, the 1% are not spending 100% of their time being brilliant. Maybe they are only brilliant 5% - 10% of the time. On most days they are no more brilliant than you are.

We are our own ends, every one of us, from Einstein to the toilet cleaner. Our existences do not have to be justified in terms of productive value. I think it is good to be productive, but being productive doesn't alone justify anyone's existence.

While we pidder away on the piddly forums of distraction.. the Giants are in the forums of world-changing events that contribute to the welfare of the many. How they get there and we are stuck here is the interesting question. — schopenhauer1

The whole idea that some of us are the "Giants", those whose epic contribution has pushed human civilization to advance to such a level is a construct of the society itself. We just need rolemodels, heroes, stars, VIP's, etc. And many scientists are pushed to us as some wisemen (or women) and asked typically they don't have any clue about and give horrible answers as such. We just need this stupid narrative of these overachievers being some kind of guiding light for us ...and that others are moronic idiots who's life is meaningless: the people as they say. It's just the society itself wanting these "giants".

Newtons memorable quote "Standing on the shoulders of giants" should be understood as what it actually means. If some Newton would have died in a plague and all of his work would have perished or had not been even done, it's absolutely ridiculous to think that "Newtonian physics" wouldn't have come around. Surely not called as "Newtonian", but still. Perhaps the issues would have been tackled by a group of people, but it's extremely likely that his achievements would have been at least in the next 100 years, but likely earlier.

So who on Earth needs a Newton? A mediocre science director later in his life.

Therefore, what about the other 99%? Are we just here to consume the major contributions of others through their products/services/findings/innovations and to sing their praises? — schopenhauer1

You have it backwards, historically speaking. It's the toiling majority who provide the surplus necessary for the minority to pursue their interests.

So, this does not need to be limited to just the ones in the major histories and documentaries, but anyone who contributes to major innovations that are recognizably useful, admired, and appreciated by a large population of people. — schopenhauer1

Robert Koch arrived at the Germ Theory in 1875, give or take a year. Important? Yes. How long had it taken the germ theory to come about? 15 minutes? 15 weeks? 15 years? 15 decades? More like the last.

In 1546 Girolamo Fracastoro proposed that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable tiny particles or "spores" that could transmit infection by direct or indirect contact or even without contact over long distances.

Fracastoro was an atomist, and "rejected appeals to 'hidden causes' in scientific investigations. He was right, "particles" are responsible for disease, but he didn't have the scientific means to carry the idea forward. 150 years later, Van Leeuwenhoek (microscope) saw the germs, but he wasn't prepared to interpret what he saw.

Midway between Van Leeuwenhoek and Pasteur, Lister and Koch, a supervising doctor noticed that women delivered by midwives had a lot fewer infections than women delivered by the hospital doctors. He put 2 and 2 together and figured out that the difference was that the midwives didn't do autopsies, and the doctors did, often going back and forth directly between deliveries and autopsies. He instituted a hugely resented rule that doctors had to wash their hands before treating women patients. That lasted a while, and while it lasted women had a lot fewer infections in that hospital. But again, what exactly caused the infections wasn't clear.

In the mid 19th century everything did become clear, Koch's Postulates was the result, and from then on we could figure out which germs cause which diseases. Koch wasn't able to do a whole lot about the diseases germs caused, but we were suddenly much more able to reduce infections, and determine causes. Production of Penicillin started about 65 years later when a rotten melon in Peoria, Illinois produced the strain of fungus that could be fermented in a tank. That's 400 years between Fracastoro and an effective antibiotic in pill form.

There were maybe a dozen doctors who contributed various pieces of information that enabled Koch to put it all together. None of them would, alone, win the Nobel prize. None of them were "giants", but gradually the "social knowledge" accumulated. (People are often unaware of how slowly critical knowledge does accumulates.)

The Giants I refer to are not necessarily the famous ones with all the headlines. They could include anyone who contributed, whether they be other lesser known members of the team, previous contributors, colleagues or mentors. Even if you widen the concentric circles of those directly involved in the contributions, the 99.99 just becomes 99.9%. That leaves the others as just consumers and admirers. Read your bios, watch their docs, be as knowledable about them as you want. If they are lesser know, perhaps dig deeper to find the contributors.

I don't know, yes the majority is needed in a Butterfly Effect way, meaning without them you won't have the major contributors born in the first place and a society woundnt be there to contribute to. However I can imagine a counter factual world in which society was static with no real innovative changes. That is not actually the case though. Rather, a small percentage of contributors exponentially increase the utility and welfare of a population while the majority consume it. The problem is that most people just don't have the circumstances and other factors to be major contributors.

Excellent topic! One of the best I've seen lately on TPF in fact!

And it's an important problem because everyone would like to do great things, and yet most of those who would like to do great things always fail. And as we all know, it's not worth always trying if you always fail ;)

But in today's world we live, or are taught to live by having goals, and then doing everything to achieve them now (or as soon as possible). This of course presupposes that the goals we have could also be achieved now (or even in the future), and that such achievement depends on us. But this may not be the case. In fact, trying to achieve a certain goal now, may get us involved in a series of events which will keep us busy, and hence unable to actually pounce on the opportunity to actually achieve our goal when it shows up in the future.

Say someone wants to start their own car manufacturing business, and revolutionise the auto industry. They'd be told, typically, ah, it's a very expensive business and very technical, isn't it better first to go work for another car manufacturer, gather knowledge about business, the clients and so forth? Then later on you can actually fulfil your goal. Most people would go get a job for a car manufacturer at this point. But I think this is just about the worst thing you can do. It would be better to get a job serving ina restaurant than in the field you're interested in. Instead start studying it by yourself, gather knowledge over many years. Create your own projects, build your own car from scratch, etc. From the inside, you can never see what's outside. From the inside, you can never change anything. I know a girl who worked for Elon Musk at Tesla as an engineer. Very smart and capable person. She was fired at one point after working for quite a long time there, and wanted to start on her own. All her connections, all her knowledge, and everything else couldn't help her. Why? Because people don't help you because they know you. Making connections is mostly useless. Having experience is also useless. In fact, connections and experience are quite likely to be unhelpful, rather than helpful. People who need help are never helped, and those who don't need help, everyone wants to help them. Because those who don't need help have a pie, and everyone wants a share of it. Those who need help, they want a pie, and no one wants to share their pie with them. She's still trying, but I doubt she'll be very successful. That's the pity - we're told that it all depends on us, that we can make it happen.

The Ancients knew this. They knew that the stars have to align.

Have you studied Chinese history? Chinese history is full of sages who live unremarkable lives, until suddenly they do something great. The idea of "sleeping dragon" which is popular in China refers exactly to this. They are sleeping dragons - they seemingly, from the perspective of others, waste their lives, doing nothing of note (such as reading, studying, menial jobs, no job (if they can afford) etc.), and yet they harbour great ambition. They realise one thing, that for their great ambition to be fulfilled, the stars have to align, and they have to be ready to pounce, but only once the stars are aligned, and the stars don't align very often. So until then, they are quiet, and they keep themselves away from society. They are like a sheathed sword - no one knows how sharp the blade is. But in this quiet time they sharpen the blade. Saying no is always much more important and relevant than saying yes. And these people are fine with the idea that they will never achieve their ambitions - because the stars may never align. They never depend on fulfilment of their goals to live a content, and otherwise meaningless life. In other words, they put it all on the line - either they will fulfil their ambition, or they will be nothing at all - no middle ground.

If you look at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, etc. you'll see the same thing playing itself. Jack Ma, the Chinese billionaire is a great example. English professor, failed almost at everything he did. Lived a completely unremarkable life. Until he founded Alibaba. Never wrote a line of code, and yet owns China's equivalent to Amazon. Think about it - someone who knew 0 of programming, founded the biggest internet company in China that billions of people use and are helped by. But to do something great, the circumstance has to align, and you have to be ready for it once it aligns. For example, we each have different strengths and weaknesses. Someone has strengths in the sense that he knows a lot of people, another has strengths in that he is very knowledgeable, and so forth. Your environment must align with your strengths and cover your weaknesses. For example, someone who knows a lot of people, but is quite dumb himself, such a person needs a wise man to come along and guide him. Someone who is highly knowledgeable, and yet lacks resources - he needs to wait for the moment the rich man suddenly befriends him accidentally. Things like going to where there are rich people in the hopes of befriending them - that never works. It has to be bestowed by fate for it to work. Someone who is introverted and doesn't like to mingle with people, but is very technically capable - that person needs to wait till he meets the person who isn't technically capable, but is extroverted and easily mingles with others and can sell his invention. But remember, from insignificance, to major world contributions, isn't further than a single step, once the stars have aligned.

And it's an important problem because everyone would like to do great things, and yet most of those who would like to do great things always fail. And as we all know, it's not worth always trying if you always fail ;) — Agustino

Thanks.

And these people are fine with the idea that they will never achieve their ambitions - because the stars may never align. They never depend on fulfilment of their goals to live a content, and otherwise meaningless life. In other words, they put it all on the line - either they will fulfil their ambition, or they will be nothing at all - no middle ground. — Agustino

Okay, but as you seem to note, this means that the 99.9% are always shut out from the real gears of technological, social, and aesthetic change or appreciation.

Okay, but as you seem to note, this means that the 99.9% are always shut out from the real gears of technological, social, and aesthetic change or appreciation. — schopenhauer1

Sure - the gods have not given everyone winning cards. Why should they? The challenge is how to play your cards well, not how to win :)

Thanks. — schopenhauer1

Haha it's a joke from a good movie I've seen :P

I think someone is dealing with feelings of inadequacy.

"Effort said to Destiny:

'Your achievements are not equal to mine.' 'Pray what do you achieve in the working of things,' replied Destiny, 'that you would compare yourself With me? 'Why,' said Effort, 'the length of man's life, his measure of success, his rank, and his wealth, are all things which I have the power to determine.' To this, Destiny made reply: 'P'êng Tsu's wisdom did not exceed that of Yao and Shun, yet he lived to the age of eight hundred. Yen Yüan's ability was not inferior to that of the average man, yet he died at the early age of thirty-two. The virtue of Confucius was not less than that of the feudal princes, yet he was reduced to sore straits between Ch'ên and Ts'ai.

The conduct of Chou, of the Yin dynasty, did not surpass that of the Three Men of Virtue, yet he occupied a kingly throne.

Wei Tzu, Chi Tzu and Pi Kan were all relatives of Chou Hsin, by whose orders the last-named was disembowelled.

Chi Cha would not accept the overlordship of Wu, while T'ien Hêng usurped sole power in Ch'i. Po I and Shu. Ch'i starved to death at Shou-yang, while Chi Shih waxed rich at Chan-ch'in. If these results were compassed by your efforts, how is it that you allotted long life to P'êng Tsu and an untimely death to Yen Yüan; that you awarded discomfiture to the sage and success to the impious, humiliation to the wise man and high honours to the fool, poverty to the good and wealth to the wicked? 'If, as you say,' rejoined Effort, 'I have really no control over events, is it not, then, owing to your management that things turn out as they do? Destiny replied: 'The very name "Destiny" shows that there can be no question of management in the case. When the way is straight, I push on; when it is crooked, I put up with it. Old age and early death, failure and success, high rank and humble station, riches and poverty--all these come naturally and of themselves. How can I know anything about them?

'Being what it is, without knowing why--that is the meaning of Destiny. What room is there for management here?"
-"Liezi", book 6, "Effort and Destiny".

"Huizi said to Zhuangzi, 'I have a large tree, which men call the Ailantus. Its trunk swells out to a large size, but is not fit for a carpenter to apply his line to it; its smaller branches are knotted and crooked, so that the disk and square cannot be used on them. Though planted on the wayside, a builder would not turn his head to look at it. Now your words, Sir, are great, but of no use - all unite in putting them away from them.' Zhuangzi replied, 'Have you never seen a wildcat or a weasel? There it lies, crouching and low, till the wanderer approaches; east and west it leaps about, avoiding neither what is high nor what is low, till it is caught in a trap, or dies in a net. Again there is the Yak, so large that it is like a cloud hanging in the sky. It is large indeed, but it cannot catch mice. You, Sir, have a large tree and are troubled because it is of no use - why do you not plant it in a tract where there is nothing else, or in a wide and barren wild? There you might saunter idly by its side, or in the enjoyment of untroubled ease sleep beneath it. Neither bill nor axe would shorten its existence; there would be nothing to injure it. What is there in its uselessness to cause you distress?'"
-"Zhuangzi", inner chapters, "Enjoyment in Untroubled Ease", 7.

"A pheasant of the marshes has to take ten steps to pick up a mouthful of food, and thirty steps to get a drink, but it does not seek to be nourished in a coop. Though its spirit would (there) enjoy a royal abundance, it does not think (such confinement) good.'"
-Ibid. "Nourishing the Lord of Life", 4.

"The mountain by its trees weakens itself. The grease which ministers to the fire fries itself. The cinnamon tree can be eaten, and therefore it is cut down. The varnish tree is useful, and therefore incisions are made in it. All men know the advantage of being useful, but no one knows the advantage of being useless."
-Ibid. "Man in the World, Associated with other Men", 9.

I think someone is dealing with feelings of inadequacy. — Jeremiah

This is just going with my theme that life is pretty much an instrumentality- we do to do to do. The grandiose inventor, eccentric genius, etc. is another myth that the media wants to promote as feel good pieces to make us think there is more than just going to work, hobbies, family, friends. Thus it provides hope that there is the 1% there doing these "great" things. The implication though is that the rest is just maintaining the system, not progressing it (whatever that means). As Bitter Crank points out, you need someone to clean the toilets so the "Giants" can progress humanity..

Also this brings up the idea that we do not need to progress humanity. What for? Why are we pumping more units of people out there? So Jeremiah can be on a philosophy forum and comment? So you can really "do" something? Why create the "do something" in the first place? Why do we need to create people so they can do something? So basic, but no one really has a good answer, without sounding like a smug, arrogant prick.

I love this Chinese wisdom! Thanks! (Y)

No problem. ;)

Also this brings up the idea that we do not need to progress humanity. What for? Why are we pumping more units of people out there? So Jeremiah can be on a philosophy forum and comment? So you can really "do" something? Why create the "do something" in the first place? Why do we need to create people so they can do something? So basic, but no one really has a good answer, without sounding like a smug, arrogant prick. — schopenhauer1

If you can't find meaning and purpose in your life unless you become some great historical figure then that is a problem with your ego.

If you can't find meaning and purpose in your life unless you become some great historical figure then that is a problem with your ego. — Jeremiah

Then you missed my point. It was actually that it does not matter that we make no great contributions. I'm simply taking that as out of the equation for most of us. We are just maintaining our cultural milieu and institutions all the while overcoming the obstacles of harm. We are surviving and finding ways to not be bored with other people and hobbies. Apparently more units of people need this too.

You are trying to define the value of life relative to its contrition to society.

Also this brings up the idea that we do not need to progress humanity. What for? Why are we pumping more units of people out there? So Jeremiah can be on a philosophy forum and comment? So you can really "do" something? Why create the "do something" in the first place? Why do we need to create people so they can do something? So basic, but no one really has a good answer, without sounding like a smug, arrogant prick. — schopenhauer1

Yes, Is everything futile?

You are trying to define the value of life relative to its contrition to society. — Jeremiah

No, what I said in the OP is that if you notice, most people don't contribute the great things that bring major utility to society- it's only a small number of people who "get" to do that and an even smaller number who are recognized for it in any significant way. The consensus on this forum was that this is not a problem. Then I agreed and said that if we are not providing major contributions, we are pretty much maintaining what is already there. We survive by learning and maintaining roles, get involved in relationships, hobbies and any other number of things to pass the time. We do this and repeat, creating this for others by procreating- assuming that future people should do this too. Keepn' it going.

No — schopenhauer1

Yes; you are just failing to see the connection.

Yes; you are just failing to see the connection. — Jeremiah

Please enlighten me on my blindspot.

I am more than sure that would be a waste of my time, as I don't think you really care what I have to say.

Why do we need to create people so they can do something? So basic, but no one really has a good answer, without sounding like a smug, arrogant prick. — schopenhauer1

I would agree with you that there is no "cosmic" or "absolute" reason for the show to go on and on and on. Many are tempted to answer in terms of local causes or explanations, since these are seemingly the essence of instrumental thinking. Your question reminds me of the question of why there is anything at all. I've never seen an answer to this question that I found convincing, since the answer tends to be part of the same "anything at all" that one is searching out a cause for.

But assuming that we can examine a question and detect its unanswerability, what does this tell us about the question? Some might call it a pseudo-question, implying that real questioning in instrumental. I'm not attached to "pseudo-question," but I have come around to seeing even these unanswerable questions as instruments. Their utility is precisely the impossibility of answering them. I'd say that the deliver a moral or lyrical "message." But perhaps you can clarify? Do you agree that the question cannot be answered? I understand you that way. But does this prevent us from postulated a local cause for your presentation of this question here? This "local cause" would perhaps just be tying your asking of the question to your history, beliefs, and lifestyle in terms of posited necessary relationships. Or that's how I see it. In the grandest sense of the word, I don't think your asking of the question can be explained anymore than the question can be answered --again, in the grandest sense of "answered."