Here’s my take:

1. We’re built for about 150 relationships max (Dunbar number), and yet we benefit from cooperation above that threshold. Rather than make it so we have to have a personal relationship with everyone who could possibly benefit us, we accepted a ramped down version of relationship we call “transactions”. This is a very weak replacement for a relationship, but it is a sort of “micro-relationship” in that for a brief moment two people who don’t know each other can kind of care about each other during an exchange. Through specialization, we can do something well that doesn’t just benefit the handful of friends and neighbors we have, but tens of thousands and possibly millions of people via transactions (e.g. a factory, starting an Amazon business, etc.)

2. There is a process called “commensuration” in the social sciences, where people start to make one thing commensurate with another, even in wildly different domains. For example, to understand the value of a forest and to convey its importance to decision makers we might say “this forest is worth $100 billion”. It’s kind of weird to do this (how do leaves and trees and anthills and beetles equal imaginary humoney?) But slowly, over time, we have made many things commensurate to dollars at various scales. (I don’t think this is a good thing, but it does have benefits). In short, more and more things that were part of an implicit economy of relationships (e.g. can the neighbor girl babysit tonight?) have entered the explicit domain of the monetary economy (e.g. sittercity).

.

IMO, in order to participate in the huge value generated by this monetary economy, people sometimes lose the forest for the trees (so to speak) and forget what really matters (e.g. excellence of character, deep relationships, new experiences, etc.) because it seems like we might be able to put off those things until “after” we square away this whole money thing first. But maybe “after” never comes–and the hollow life of a consumer capitalist drains the inner ecological diversity of a soulful life.

“We know better than you” has never been an effective way to change other peoples’ minds, in my experience.

I appreciate your question, but I think “we know” is problematic:

• who is “we”?
• how do we “know”?
• can some people know one thing while others know the opposite?

I’m not trolling, either, just asking questions from a philosophical point of view. I’ve changed my mind about several things I took very seriously and thought I was 100% right about. Could others be dealing with similar changing-mind-through-time processes? Could you?

Wolf in sheep’s clothing

From “Verissimus”, a comic about the Stoic philosopher and Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius: https://imgur.com/a/FlvGJGT (my apologies for the first two pages being out of order).

There is a section about the Greek philosopher, Epictetus’, teachings about anger. My favorite two are “Being unlike your enemies is the best form of revenge,” and “Goodwill is a virtue, the opposite of revenge, the desire to help rather than harm our fellow man. So replace your anger with its antidote: kindness.”

I read this as “buying clubs”. Like, buy clubs and hit stuff. My first take was “Ah, the violent revolutionary type.” :)