The title of the post was quoted by Charles Ives, upon being given, but refusing, the Pulitzer prize. He stated much more than a statement. He released a quantum of information in this short statement, about the way we (as a human society) has progressed. Let me explain this in more details below.
The incentive to do a particular thing is considered the source of energy to do that act. Without incentive, there will be no act. If we never felt cold, we would never invent heating systems. If we never felt the need to rise above another, we would never invent the concept of lies as well as hard work. So we see that "incentive" is the pivotal point in the hub of activities.
I feel that this concept of incentive can be best understood in the words of Dr. Feynman who illustrated why he considered prizes as useless entities.
Just like people doing science (as explained in above video), there are two kinds of people: one who seek pleasure-of-doing stuff as their sole incentive and those who associate some reward outside the pleasure-of-doing stuff as their incentive.
Both of them are valid incentives and they make a hell lot of difference for us as a human society.
HOW?
Those of you who have read Ayn Rand's Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, would now appreciate that all she described ever, were the former kind of people and the kind of society they would make (Galts Gultch) and the ironic question "who is John Galt" simply emphasize the existence of these kind of people as a finite minority. Those kinds who have the whole world in their own existence and find meaningful existence within them-self. This doesn't mean an islander's life at a social level (as it is usually contested by those who fail to appreciate this viewpoint) but instead mean that the pleasure of doing the stuff is the sole purpose of doing it and no reward would ever match that kick of accomplishment. Infact, rewards become meaningless and this is why Charles Ives quotes that a less mature existence on an intellectual plane would prefer reward-based-incentives. Howard Roark's speech from Fountain head and John Galt's speech from Atlas shrugged emphasized the line of thought for these kind of men and the reprecurssion of deviations from that respectively.
John Galts speech divided in many parts to emphasize the relevance of text in present times :)
The difference between these two approaches makes the world as we know it now. After industrial revolution, reward based systems drove humanity towards earning more and more rewards for their acts (which made them superior) in terms of land, money power etc. At some points, money and power becomes the sole point of existence. This fact is beautifully depicted in a brilliant movie "American Psycho" (read my review here) where a group of businessman base their whole existence on the beauty of thier business cards, which others appreciate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIvd3zzu4Y).
In-fact the recent conflict around possibility of data sharing and corporate profit which owns the data is a result of this approach. The meager monetary payments to creators become valid means of owning the data and its use for a certain period of time (which can then be extended from time to time, as per convenience) become (or rather "are made") legal. Recently i interacted with one of the most original musicians from India: Indian Ocean band, and they told me that they have voluntarily put up songs of their latest album to download for free since they want the music to reach out to their intended audience and actually music companies hinder in this path more than they can facilitate it. This is true for not only entertainment industry but scientific industry too. GM killed electric car after the big lobby of oil corporations went against it and layed off the precious work of many engineers who made that marvel possible.
It is also important to understand at this point that the nomenclature which we ascribe to the ideas shows our approach towards the same. "Industrial world" means the world of material production (by any means) more than it means innovation and hard-work based progress. Morality is best derived from texts (religious or some leader's mouthpiece) rather than inventing and deriving it through reasoning. "Democracy" means more towards submission to the new kings (which are now elected rather than born) than the power to decide for yourself rationally. Submission in the name of fear(S) becomes order of the day. Wars and violent conflicts becomes the way to solve disputes and any serious attempts to solve problems in a rational manner (like UN) is sabotaged and abused to grab more power instead. These few actions are the result of the system we have chosen for ourself (voluntarily or involuntarily: those who refuse to give up this system choose it involuntarily)
Having criticized this approach, I must emphasize that I do not mean that incentives are useless. They are the fact of life and any system which asks for abolishing them will be un-natural for the human systems we know now. Instead, what i emphasized is that there exist two separate categories of humans : one whose incentive isn't materialistic (in terms of money, power, praise etc) but just the pleasure of doing the stuff and learning something new and at the same time there exist a majority of humanity which choose to work another way. Since majority dictates the way a human system drives towards future, so we have a reward based system dictating our ways to exist and hence exploitation becomes inevitable.
I do not know what future will bring us but changes are inevitable and i could somehow sense that we are recognizing the flaws of present system and we might shift our gears to a new one, which might be prize-less :)
The incentive to do a particular thing is considered the source of energy to do that act. Without incentive, there will be no act. If we never felt cold, we would never invent heating systems. If we never felt the need to rise above another, we would never invent the concept of lies as well as hard work. So we see that "incentive" is the pivotal point in the hub of activities.
I feel that this concept of incentive can be best understood in the words of Dr. Feynman who illustrated why he considered prizes as useless entities.
Just like people doing science (as explained in above video), there are two kinds of people: one who seek pleasure-of-doing stuff as their sole incentive and those who associate some reward outside the pleasure-of-doing stuff as their incentive.
Both of them are valid incentives and they make a hell lot of difference for us as a human society.
HOW?
Those of you who have read Ayn Rand's Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, would now appreciate that all she described ever, were the former kind of people and the kind of society they would make (Galts Gultch) and the ironic question "who is John Galt" simply emphasize the existence of these kind of people as a finite minority. Those kinds who have the whole world in their own existence and find meaningful existence within them-self. This doesn't mean an islander's life at a social level (as it is usually contested by those who fail to appreciate this viewpoint) but instead mean that the pleasure of doing the stuff is the sole purpose of doing it and no reward would ever match that kick of accomplishment. Infact, rewards become meaningless and this is why Charles Ives quotes that a less mature existence on an intellectual plane would prefer reward-based-incentives. Howard Roark's speech from Fountain head and John Galt's speech from Atlas shrugged emphasized the line of thought for these kind of men and the reprecurssion of deviations from that respectively.
John Galts speech divided in many parts to emphasize the relevance of text in present times :)
The difference between these two approaches makes the world as we know it now. After industrial revolution, reward based systems drove humanity towards earning more and more rewards for their acts (which made them superior) in terms of land, money power etc. At some points, money and power becomes the sole point of existence. This fact is beautifully depicted in a brilliant movie "American Psycho" (read my review here) where a group of businessman base their whole existence on the beauty of thier business cards, which others appreciate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIvd3zzu4Y).
In-fact the recent conflict around possibility of data sharing and corporate profit which owns the data is a result of this approach. The meager monetary payments to creators become valid means of owning the data and its use for a certain period of time (which can then be extended from time to time, as per convenience) become (or rather "are made") legal. Recently i interacted with one of the most original musicians from India: Indian Ocean band, and they told me that they have voluntarily put up songs of their latest album to download for free since they want the music to reach out to their intended audience and actually music companies hinder in this path more than they can facilitate it. This is true for not only entertainment industry but scientific industry too. GM killed electric car after the big lobby of oil corporations went against it and layed off the precious work of many engineers who made that marvel possible.
It is also important to understand at this point that the nomenclature which we ascribe to the ideas shows our approach towards the same. "Industrial world" means the world of material production (by any means) more than it means innovation and hard-work based progress. Morality is best derived from texts (religious or some leader's mouthpiece) rather than inventing and deriving it through reasoning. "Democracy" means more towards submission to the new kings (which are now elected rather than born) than the power to decide for yourself rationally. Submission in the name of fear(S) becomes order of the day. Wars and violent conflicts becomes the way to solve disputes and any serious attempts to solve problems in a rational manner (like UN) is sabotaged and abused to grab more power instead. These few actions are the result of the system we have chosen for ourself (voluntarily or involuntarily: those who refuse to give up this system choose it involuntarily)
Having criticized this approach, I must emphasize that I do not mean that incentives are useless. They are the fact of life and any system which asks for abolishing them will be un-natural for the human systems we know now. Instead, what i emphasized is that there exist two separate categories of humans : one whose incentive isn't materialistic (in terms of money, power, praise etc) but just the pleasure of doing the stuff and learning something new and at the same time there exist a majority of humanity which choose to work another way. Since majority dictates the way a human system drives towards future, so we have a reward based system dictating our ways to exist and hence exploitation becomes inevitable.
I do not know what future will bring us but changes are inevitable and i could somehow sense that we are recognizing the flaws of present system and we might shift our gears to a new one, which might be prize-less :)
1 comment:
althought i am already familiar with this philosophy, so it wasnt thought provoking and all.
actuall all of us are aware of both the paths. the struggle and turmoils associated with one (the i work for my own satisfaction path), and the hollowness associated with the other (dont tell me those businessmen in american physho arent aware of the futility of their existence)
its just what we choose.
its perfectly ok.
as long as you know what you want, which path to choose
Post a Comment