[ajb]

You joke, but, leaving religion out of it, it's plausible that if the want long lived infrastructure that's maintained with integrity, it may be that tithing of some description is part of the solution. Currently the closest we have is patron, but most of those are still part of hustle culture rather than the supporters feeling a long term obligation.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I know that there’s a pretty overwhelming antithesis about religion, hereabouts (there’s a lot of valid reasons, but, in my experience, it tends to originate from personal animus), but some things that you get from organized religion, are a sense of community, a very long view, and fairly strict rules about personal integrity and behavior.

There’s a lot less of the cutthroat competition, than you’ll see in industry and academia, and many folks plant trees that they will never use for shade.

Personally, I’m not religious, but have many close friends that are, and I see this mindset in action.

I also worked for an old-fashioned Japanese company, which had many of the same features.

Even though many people see these as conservative (or weak) traits, they actually work well, for development of new things.

Big things take time, and teams.

Time is supplied by people taking the long view, and making long-term plans, and teams benefit from people not stabbing each other in the back, sublimating personal goals, in favor of those of the collective, and trusting each other, and their management.

[ajb]

I don't want to get into an argument about religion, so I will make a different point.

There are two ways to evaluate things. One is selection: look at the options available, decide which is best, and go all in on that one. The other is to understand things as deeply as possible, what the moving parts are,what makes them tick, what the unknown possibilities might be, etc.

We as individuals have to use selection a lot of the time. You can't do only the good parts of two jobs, or marry only the good parts of two spouses. But it's also profoundly negative to be obliged to only think in those terms: for example, when citizens are told that they have no choice other than to vote for the lesser evil, it lets politicians off the hook for only being slightly less corrupt, and reduces citizens to a passive role. Ironically, those who try to shut political discussion out of HN are doing the same thing: saying "just choose, do not think".

So, while I might be interested in instances where religious people have a longer term approach, it's not interesting to me as a "plus for religion". It's interesting if it leads to understanding and new ideas. Of course, as a non-believer I would like to separate any benefits from the need to be loyal to unprovable assertions. But that's actually secondary.

[Avicebron]

I think the question becomes "how does this behavior get rewarded?".

I agree with most of this, and also have experienced the positive outcomes of people thinking ahead and sublimating short term reward for long term gain (for the collective).

However it seems antithetical to put a reward function on it so there is this catch-22 about what makes the thing "good" also makes it difficult to achieve.

[throw0101a]

> I think the question becomes "how does this behavior get rewarded?".

Good behaviour is ideally its own reward: intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation—either (monetary) reward or punishment—is (AIUI) less effective.

Fulfillment through meaningful relationships and accomplishment has been considered the basis of happiness for quite a while:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia

Wealth, honour/fame/glory, power, pleasure are not bad in themselves, but generally can be considered as means to an end of and not really ends in themselves:

* https://philolibrary.crc.nd.edu/article/key-to-happiness/

* https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm

[skuzye]

The long term obligation for them is created by the very thing you wanted to leave out.

[ajb]

An uncorroborated claim of integrity is self-refuting.