<div class="text-justify">

We went out for hot wings with a friend tonight, and they were playing the hockey semi-finals, featuring one of the two local city teams. The place was full. By the start of the final period, "our team" was down 1-4, and it wasn't looking good. However, after getting one back to be two down, new life got breathed into the game, and in the last handful of minutes, three goals were scored to take it to 5-4, for a pretty decent comeback to go 2-0 up in the best of seven series.

> It is never over, until it is over.

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23wgojStFHhRq3qeEWh4rUXsXkQZEjUwrh8LUkyV5wgeLn42HgEzF1PaiB4d99XbR3eMR.png)

While I am not a huge fan of supporting teams that much, there is value in both playing sports and watching some sports from time to time, as they can be a good reminder for us to what it takes to be good at something. The amount and breadth of effort and practice required to be very good at something, as well as the ability to like tonight, not give up in the face of near certain defeat, are good lessons to learn.

I don't think there are very good role models in public society anymore, however there are still lessons that can be gleaned from multiple sources. While we have built a culture of celebrating celebrity, with "fame" weighting heavily in our evaluation of a personality. So much so, that around half of kids "want to be a YouTuber" when they grow up. 

> Is that the new Neil Armstrong? 

In the past, people based their admiration of role models in what someone did well outside of the ordinary, not what they did in their personal lives. The focus was on what made them special, not what made them normal. And, while it might be good at times to have "relatable" role models, I think that what we have done is lowered the bar to make celebrities people who don't have to do much special to be admired. And, as a result, it means that we don't have to do much either. 

I think this leads to a shrinking of the pool of positive outliers, those who go above and beyond, and push the boundary of skill and possibility. And as a result, the average person is not looking to be any better than average. There is nothing wrong with being average, but I believe there is something wrong with people who are content not to improve themselves, so they are more valuable for the world in which they live. We have taken away the need to improve to be the best version of ourselves, by lowering the bar so the best version is whoever we are right now. 

The saying is "children are our future" with the sense that this meant we had to invest into them, to support them to be their best, and improve the conditions so they can excel and make a positive difference in the world. But, the fact is, children are always our future, even if the conditions are terrible and we have raised them to be spoiled, entitled, demanding, and selfish. 

Each child and at larger group level, each generation is a chance to invest into the future, as they are the seeds that will grow to inhabit the world and make the decisions that will shape it for the next generation. From my perspective at least, I can't help but wonder if the seeds we have planted are those of weeds. They will grow, but they won't make the garden better, they won't bear edible fruit, they will just consume resources, strangling, suffocating crowding out anything that dares to be a positive force in the world. 

> Consumer class.

We have created a clear class system in the economy, that used to have more diversity. In the past, there used to be trade between people where one skill consumed the skills of others, and vice versa. Now, there are groups of people who pretty much only consume, but don't have any skills of value to trade with. For now, there are still jobs for enough, but with the rising AI, what can they offer?

All of these kids who want to be "social influencers", what are they going to bring to the table? They really don't have much of value, with it being a race to the bottom as they seek attention, not a race to the top. To be famous in the past, you had to be good at something. Now, you have to be the one who grab the most attention, like all these celebrities who are walking the red carpet near naked, then complaining about having their bodies looked at and being objectified. Do all you can for attention, and then play the victim to get more attention. 

> Role models. 

Fame and fortune used to be tied to being able to deliver value, but *what we value* has shifted so that very little of practical value need be delivered, and still fame and fortune is possible. No need to spend a couple decades honing skills, just make a sex tape. No need to work hard, just perform stupid pranks on strangers in the street. No need to be a good person, be popular for being bad. 

I am not fit for this world, because I just don't fit in. No matter how popular or wealthy someone becomes by doing nothing, I just don't see value in it. I don't see how it leads to a better world. I don't see how it inspires us, the normal people to try and improve and becomes the best versions of ourselves. 

> I hope I am wrong.

In the past, we looked up to exceptional people. Now, we have created a landscape where we want people to look up to who are like us, normal, flawed, broken - so that the person who we are inspired by, is the one who doesn't have to change, because they are perfect exactly the way they are - the person in the mirror. And I guess this is the outcome of driving individualism and disconnection from community. We are selfish and only care about how we feel, shamelessly making ourselves feel good, no matter how many people suffer. 

>We are always planting seeds the future.

What are we going to reap?

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


</div>