Long Term vs. Short Term Gains: A Societal/Human Problem?

I've noticed there are quite a few really large issues that seem like they could be a result of faulty (or nonexistent) long-term planning/playing short-term gains but long-term losses. Climate change (lack of regulation, lack of a push towards sustainable energy sources), lack of adequate and affordable education, financial bubbles of all kinds. Perhaps even political gambits such as lowering tax rates on the rich (putting more tax burden on the poor or limiting their access to public services, so they can't spend and therefore straining the economy and limiting entrepreneurs ability to profit from their companies or pay high wages) or refusal to compromise (meaning nothing gets done, and the electorate will eventually chafe at NOTHING getting done when things do need to be addressed, or things get settled through force which should have been settled through compromise and you waste energy, resources, and political capital settling things with force).

Perhaps you can think of others. I'm quite sure this isn't a new phenomenon, but I have noticed it more and more (although that could just be me being unaware of earlier situations). Do you agree? And if so, what might we do?

I've seen the discussion of longer political term limits to give politicians more of a reason to care beyond a period of several years, and the idea that hereditary monarchies can afford to plan much farther ahead for this reason, but I'm not sure that's the answer, myself. It seems to me that the electorate should be holding politicians responsible for planning beyond their term, and if they aim for moderate short term gains that mean big long term losses then people should realize it and not elect them again. Maybe I'm expecting too much of human nature in that. But again, what can we do to encourage people to balance short and long term gains? Actively encourage youth participation in politics, perhaps, as young people have the most to gain from long-term planning?

Its a basic problem of human nature and biological design. We're wired for gratification, not for putting off gratification for longterm gratification.

edited 17th Jan '12 5:26:52 PM by Midgetsnowman

YES. People thinking short term when they should be thinking long term is if not the biggest reason to our problems, certainly one of them.

I suspect genetic engineering will be the first fix for that sort of thing.

It would be nice. Both scientific and artistic pursuits dont get much of anywhere with people who arent willing to work hard to get a payoff.

Yes, it is a human problem.

Humans are selfish by nature. We cannot be bothered to weigh short-term gains as less than long-term gains, and to weigh gains for ourselves as less than gains for a group at large. It's all "now, now, now, me, me, me."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_discounting Is what it's called I believe.

I wouldn't blame selfishness, really. But then I believe the only logical conclusion to selfishness is reciprocal altruism... I believe it's the short-sightedness of people that is really to blame.

Well I have a hypothesis that as we extend the lifetime of human beings combined with intelligence amplification procedures that we would create a class of humans that could potentially have longer-term thinking.

Interesting. The only question after that being if they would be shunned or even allowed to have power over others.

This is similar to a classic 'prisoner's dilemma' problem — genuine cooperation often can be better in the long term for society, but given the incentives for people to cheat for a selfish short-term advantage, it is very easy to end up in a situation where everyone is worse off.

I think there are a few fixes. Repeated interactions can help to curb selfish behavior — if you know you're going to be interacting with the same people over and over again, you might want to think twice before screwing them over and having them retaliate in turn. On a larger level (such as a national/international one), where repeated personal interactions cannot be guaranteed, effective institutions can help to change incentives to curb selfish behavior. For instance, if you live in a state where fraud is punished by jail time, and you have a reasonable chance of getting caught, you might think twice before trying to cheat your business partners, even if you are only dealing with them once.

Of course, that begs the question of how such institutions can be generated and maintained so that they do not become corrupted over time. I think this is one of THE problems in the social sciences, and I don't pretend to have an answer (although as a political science Ph.D. student, I am dealing with it in my dissertation), but I think informal norms (such as culture, belief systems, social pressures, etc.) play a key role.

Bokhura, that's a good point, I hadn't thought about it in terms of the Prisoner's Dilemma. And repeated, iterative games of that do change the strategy there. I'll have to give that some thought :)

[EDIT: And thinking back on your mention of social systems that encourage long-term thinking... I just recalled the Iroquois maxim about planning seven generations ahead. Hmmm...]

Thanks, everyone. I'm enjoying hearing all your thoughts on this...

edited 18th Jan '12 6:40:54 AM by TheGirlWithPointyEars