This I Believe (1952)

(awakin.org)

57 points | by ctoth 4 hours ago

12 comments

  • aetherspawn 8 minutes ago
    I’m not sure I believe this anymore. Maybe around 2 years ago, I think.

    But the trajectory, of everything it seems, has completely changed. And I have no optimism left.

    The world would need to possibly take up arms against its leadership to recover from where it is right now. The problem is, I know the masses are pacifist and reasonable, and it’s the insane few that are either running everything or have all the money. That dreads me, because just as I wouldn’t take up arms, nobody else will either, so who will stop the descent?

    • manlymuppet 6 minutes ago
      How come?

      Vigilance in the belief of humanity's decent nature is a good thing, I think. Perhaps I could sway you to this side?

  • manlymuppet 8 minutes ago
    The point about politicians is the one I think today most needs. Our public systems don't work when we inherently distrust them. This isn't reason alone to trust, but a bias towards distrust is a pernicious thing for society.

    This might be terribly controversial, but I think that even today, even at the highest levels of power, evil is a rare exception, rather than the rule, and we oughta be aware of that.

  • johnohara 25 minutes ago
    In 2026, it is not wise to believe that almost all politicians are honest. It is better to be skeptical of their motivations and hope they are honest enough to do the right thing for the citizens they represent.
    • CobrastanJorji 15 minutes ago
      Mate, it wasn't wise to believe that in 1952 either. It's gotten worse, sure, especially at the top, but there are still thousands of "politicians" out there running local board meetings and trying to do their best to keep their communities going.
  • blfr 1 hour ago
    Excellent points on the intrinsic motivations and qualities absolutely dominating any control system.

    But also plenty of places are nothing like Heinlein's hometown so this is far from universal.

  • rf15 39 minutes ago
    Ah, Heinlein. There's not much energy up there, and the energy question is a big one. It's now 2026 and we are still at the point where we can only move a fraction to actual space of what we originally start off with down here. Our fuel is still not anywhere close to what we'd need in terms of energy density and throughput.
  • wyclif 10 minutes ago
    Heinlein's preferred title for this essay was "Our Noble, Essential Decency."
  • ballmerpoint 2 hours ago
    (1952).

    Heinlein was such an odd fellow. Extremely progressive on one hand and extremely regressive on the other, sometimes in the span of a single paragraph.

    • jankovicsandras 1 hour ago
      Yes. Philip K. Dick wrote this about Heinlein:

      "Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless him—one of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don't agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn't raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I'm a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick#cite_note-32

    • Leonard_of_Q 58 minutes ago
      Heinlein wasn't "regressive" but conservative. Your formulation indicates that it is you who might not be progressive but regressive since conservatism - same root as conservatorship - is a legitimate and, especially in good times, logical and effective strategy: keep that which works, change only that which needs changing and be careful not to change it too much or too fast lest you destroy that which worked. Heinlein wrote this in 1952 when the sky wasn't the limit anymore and people were reaching for the "stars" - well, low earth orbit anyway - so he had plenty of backing for his conservatism.
      • TuringTest 27 minutes ago
        > conservatism is a legitimate and, especially in good times, logical and effective strategy: keep that which works, change only that which needs changing and be careful not to change it too much

        Conservatism runs entirely on the ingroup-outgroup divide - "keep that which works for us", and be a force opposing changes sought by people for whom things are not going so well, for whom change is the logical strategy.

        Honest conservatives can see past the blind spot of the divide and don't try to present their strategy as a universal ethical good.

    • GMoromisato 2 hours ago
      It is also possible, maybe even likely, that we are the ones who are odd.
    • chr15m 1 hour ago
      Interesting that you choose "regressive" as the opposite of progressive. thinking emoji
    • ai_critic 32 minutes ago
      [dead]
  • fifilura 27 minutes ago
    I love it and I believe the same as him.

    In dark hours I remind myself that humanity must be at least 50.1% good and 49.9% bad. Otherwise we would never have come so far.

  • u1hcw9nx 25 minutes ago
    THIS IS EDITED by the whoever owns the site. Might be slop generated.

    Few paragraphs are taken out to smooth it out.

  • chr15m 1 hour ago
    Damn good.
  • GMoromisato 2 hours ago
    I believe countries and civilizations die when they stop believing this.
  • SBNakta 4 hours ago
    [flagged]