> Family relations are an interesting example that
> (to some degree) undermines Justin's argument.
> According to any rational assessment of incentives
> and investment, raising children is an
> awful decision. They're a huge economic liability,
> they divert time and energy from other creative
> and potentially productive activities, they require
> constant psychological and social support. Perhaps
> in the past, people could say, "I raised them, and
> in my dotage they'll look after me"; however, I know
> few people who believe this today (I certainly don't
> expect it of my kids!). In sum, there are few or no
> tangible incentives for parents to raise kids.
>
> --And yet we do! Although it may sound like I'm
> complaining above, I consider being a parent a central
> and important status in my life. The point is that
> I'm not doing it for personal gain; incentive or lack
> of it is irrelevant to my commitment to being a
> parent. To be a little sappy, I'm doing it out of
> love and concern for others.
>
> Call me an optimist, but I think it's possible to
> extend this same pattern of interaction and expectation
> to other domains of social life. The example of the
> family clearly shows that people are capable of doing
> stuff without incentives; it's more or less a
> social engineering problem to instill in people the same
> spirit about other facets of social life that they
> take for granted in their family relations. (There's
> no bogeyman "human nature" getting in the way of
> cooperative interactions here;
Unfortunately, there is, and you can't wish it away. There have been many attempts to solve the social engineering problem you describe above. None have succeeded. We can't love countless numbers of people any more than a dog can serve a thousand masters. But fortunately we're capable of cooperating with people we don't much care about.
-- Luke