Humans are the greatest existential risk to themselves and to the planet. The most pressing world problems mentioned by 80,000 hours would not exist if it weren’t for us. For humans to succeed in solving these problems in the next two centuries they will need to work together. Trust is paramount, if humans fear each other there will be resistance in working together. As soon as an induvial or culture/ethnic group or country does not trust their equal, fear begins to grow in them, and cooperation stands still.
China and U.S governments are scared of each other, worried that one will attack the other first (cyber, bio, nuclear, drone, media etc.). The high ranking humans (1000-10,000) in both governments have been surveilling their own people for decades now. China is upfront about it (via their street cameras and all internet activity etc.), U.S. is more secretive but just as effective (via their corporations (Google, FB, AT&T etc.), all Internet activity etc.).
Both U.S. & China not only fear each other, but they also fear their own populations. Most countries (not all) are like this, and this is sad to see, but it is also the time we live in and I think is the greatest existential problem we are facing (i.e. prevalent fear/ lack of trust).
THE OPPOSITE OF FEAR IS TRUST. Complete trust in the human being in front of you (e.g. Imagine a society in which you can leave your baby with a passer by on the street for 2 months knowing they will be safe). Trust must be built into our societal structures, for their to be cooperation and peace within countries and in between countries. It must be naturally cultivated in every induvial in every country daily (When we use our transit systems, walk into grocery stores, talk to our local baker, visit government offices etc.). So that as the decades pass, it becomes a social norm built into all cultures around the world.
How can we begin to cultivate trust amongst each other?
Increasing trust without trustworthiness seems like a recipe for being taken advantage of; increasing trustworthiness (e.g. by punishing low-level antisocial behaviour) seems like the relevant target.
Related, I’m a fan of the term “justified trust” here. A wrote a bit more here.
Increasing justified trust seems great, but increasing unjustified trust is hazardous. (My guess is that the OP is mainly referring to justified trust, but it seems good to clarify)
Yeah I think this is a distinction where everyone agrees when the distinction is raised but attempting to do policymaking without the distinction front of mind can lead to accidentally aiming for the wrong thing. Thanks for re-sharing the link!
Two factors to consider here are (1) ingroup circle and (2) shared values.
When someone is seen as part of the outgroup, that someone may not be granted inherent value. As a result, dealings with them may be viewed as strictly for business. Depending on moral framework, the only non-business consideration may be emotional empathy, which of course is not universal—especially not for members of the outgroup.
If someone’s values are believed to be fundamentally aligned with one’s own, then likely there will be more automatic trust. But if we look both within and between many modern societies, substantially and inherently incompatible value sets are readily found. Compare for example Christian fundamentalist versus progressivist views on abortion or LGBTQ+. Some societies, such as perhaps Japan, may have relatively more consistent values across society. This tends to lead to greater trust, or at least greater predictability. Naturally, however, there are potential problems if society becomes too monoculture, such as closed-mindedness and tyranny of the majority.
Trust is a natural effect of one’s assessment or perception of ingroup-outgroup status and sharing of values. Trying to modify the effect without understanding or addressing the cause is asking for trouble—and is likely futile. This type of predicament is often referred to as bypassing, in that it bypasses the cause, instead trying to force the desirable effect.
[Question] Can increasing Trust amongst humans be considered our greatest priority?
Humans are the greatest existential risk to themselves and to the planet. The most pressing world problems mentioned by 80,000 hours would not exist if it weren’t for us. For humans to succeed in solving these problems in the next two centuries they will need to work together. Trust is paramount, if humans fear each other there will be resistance in working together. As soon as an induvial or culture/ethnic group or country does not trust their equal, fear begins to grow in them, and cooperation stands still.
China and U.S governments are scared of each other, worried that one will attack the other first (cyber, bio, nuclear, drone, media etc.). The high ranking humans (1000-10,000) in both governments have been surveilling their own people for decades now. China is upfront about it (via their street cameras and all internet activity etc.), U.S. is more secretive but just as effective (via their corporations (Google, FB, AT&T etc.), all Internet activity etc.).
Both U.S. & China not only fear each other, but they also fear their own populations. Most countries (not all) are like this, and this is sad to see, but it is also the time we live in and I think is the greatest existential problem we are facing (i.e. prevalent fear/ lack of trust).
THE OPPOSITE OF FEAR IS TRUST. Complete trust in the human being in front of you (e.g. Imagine a society in which you can leave your baby with a passer by on the street for 2 months knowing they will be safe).
Trust must be built into our societal structures, for their to be cooperation and peace within countries and in between countries. It must be naturally cultivated in every induvial in every country daily (When we use our transit systems, walk into grocery stores, talk to our local baker, visit government offices etc.). So that as the decades pass, it becomes a social norm built into all cultures around the world.
How can we begin to cultivate trust amongst each other?
Increasing trust without trustworthiness seems like a recipe for being taken advantage of; increasing trustworthiness (e.g. by punishing low-level antisocial behaviour) seems like the relevant target.
Related, I’m a fan of the term “justified trust” here. A wrote a bit more here.
Increasing justified trust seems great, but increasing unjustified trust is hazardous. (My guess is that the OP is mainly referring to justified trust, but it seems good to clarify)
Yeah I think this is a distinction where everyone agrees when the distinction is raised but attempting to do policymaking without the distinction front of mind can lead to accidentally aiming for the wrong thing. Thanks for re-sharing the link!
Two factors to consider here are (1) ingroup circle and (2) shared values.
When someone is seen as part of the outgroup, that someone may not be granted inherent value. As a result, dealings with them may be viewed as strictly for business. Depending on moral framework, the only non-business consideration may be emotional empathy, which of course is not universal—especially not for members of the outgroup.
If someone’s values are believed to be fundamentally aligned with one’s own, then likely there will be more automatic trust. But if we look both within and between many modern societies, substantially and inherently incompatible value sets are readily found. Compare for example Christian fundamentalist versus progressivist views on abortion or LGBTQ+. Some societies, such as perhaps Japan, may have relatively more consistent values across society. This tends to lead to greater trust, or at least greater predictability. Naturally, however, there are potential problems if society becomes too monoculture, such as closed-mindedness and tyranny of the majority.
Trust is a natural effect of one’s assessment or perception of ingroup-outgroup status and sharing of values. Trying to modify the effect without understanding or addressing the cause is asking for trouble—and is likely futile. This type of predicament is often referred to as bypassing, in that it bypasses the cause, instead trying to force the desirable effect.