Is the solution to a poisonous society to chnage the psyche and values so that all the heros are people live a giving life ?

These were definetly the best of times, but if the problems of the present are overcome then are the best of times still possible in the future - yes. Will that happen ? Well in his book Sapiens Yual Noah Harari talks about a hunter gatherer having a shorter but more stress free life and how every time we developed civilisation to the next level of integration we give up some of our happiness. While I dispute that being killed by everything and anything more often is a small price to pain for a stress free life (I think its quite a big deal), I wonder where AI and automation takes us. Thomas Hardy's accounts of rural life in Dorset only 125? years ago seems grim and barbaric even, so rose tinted glasses come to mind, but in an AI driven future where resource conservation and eco concerns dominate can we go back to a life where the commute is no longer necessary. social media gives us human contact from our own home, and exercise is something we do by choice ? I think we already got there. Without overcrowding and the peer pressure for materialism, isn't someone who steps off the treadmill going to get the best of all lives right now - and better tomorrow and tomorrow ? Is it that society has to drop the need for competition and self advancement and adopt a new norm of self improvement and mutual support. The world still has many problems to solve but do most of those go away if everyone starts to value a "normal life" more and greed, ego, and competition become things of the past ? Is it our own competitive nature that makes society poisonous ? Now we can do so much more and are leaning more quickly than ever how to do even more isn’t it time to say to the population of the world, live in your own space, and do away with the whole concept that the goal in life is to be n Elon Musk (and who wants to) by chasing the rules so personnel success is capped at a certain level and the thing that brings fame is good deeds and no one is allowed to keep a fortune above a certain level but are instead bound by society to put it to good works. I'm not saying you cant have richer and poor, Im saying the rich have more of a duty to spend their fortune helping others because they can and therefore should and there reward should be acknowledgement and their punishment should be exposure ? So when the Forbes rich list comes out - the people at the top of it are vilified and criticised for not doing good deeds instead of being deified ? Is this not exactly what the man form Galilee said in his beatitudes ?

Captain · 61-69, M

First step to a beter life. Change the psyche that rich and famous are good things. People who give and are successful but give and are humble should be our role models so its time society did attack the super rich who do no give away most of their fortunes selflessly and praise those who do, and who sit back and enjoy their positons and don't keep givng. I justify this by the words of the beatitudes and a consideration about how the small amount of money held by the super rich is damaging society because it is shaping ambtiton to competiton rather than cooperation and hoarding rather than giving. In effect the Forbes rich list should be a list of hoarders and givers in which the givers are acclaimed and the hoarders are vilified. LKeadership comes form the top down and the top in modern society are the richest.