http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/12/12/no-exit-3
You can be passionate about what you are doing and interested in making money as well, it isn't either or. Personally I have no shame admitting I would be delighted to make an obscene amount of money in a short period of time, because to me money means freedom. I could spend time with people I love and do things I find interesting and enjoyable, rather than living for the next paycheck and having money end up owning me and my life as is the case with so many people who pursue high stress, high paying long term careers to "provide for their family" and end up miserable and distant. Another reason is that, call me entitled and selfish, but I don't enjoy the idea of working for someone else, likely doing something I'm only marginally passionate about, and having them take majority of the value of my efforts while giving me a fixed salary, though for many people I'm sure the stability of this is perfectly acceptable.
However, I do agree probably nothing good will come of you if you are motivated purely by profit with 0 interest or passion in what you are doing. I select projects that I am personally interested in simply because I find it extremely difficult to work on things that I don't get excited about.
Also some things are said to be difficult, and that alone gives certain types of people motivation to solve them, since they feel a certain type of disconnect with their intuition of what is possible and what other people around them are telling them.
No human alive doesn't want power. That's the basic evolutionary fuel of our entire species. There's no other desire humans even have -- anything else is just a means to that end.
The truly powerful people in the world -- the ones whose names you don't know, because they don't particularly care for your knowing them -- they never lie to themselves, and they probably know exactly where their passions are. The less powerful people, the Jeff Bezos's and the Larry Ellisons, they probably learned over time.
The people who think they do what they do for any other reason are deluding themselves about the game that they're playing. There's only one game.
If you're going to be that reductionist, then you're still wrong. The basic evolutionary drive behind our species, and all others, is to reproduce and spread your genes. Everything else stems, however circuitously, from redirected or misdirected reproductive drive.
But either way, you're being silly. For example, I want to make enough money to support myself and afford a few luxuries now and then, and have as much free time as possible to spend with friends, books, and games. It's not technically incorrect to say that I want power (over my life and environment), but to say that my motivations are identical to those of a senator or a billionaire is ridiculous.
> The people who think they do what they do for any other reason are deluding themselves about the game that they're playing. There's only one game.
See, here's your problem, speaking of delusion. You've let the people playing the game of power trick you into thinking that their game is the only one in town.
Actually, it's you who's misdirected. Increasing inclusive fitness is the end, not the means, of an evolutionary adaptation. In humans, and in other social species like great apes, the evolutionary adaptation that exists in the species is the desire for power over the environment. A species is an adaptation-executor, not a fitness-maximizer.
>but to say that my motivations are identical to those of a senator or a billionaire is ridiculous.
It's a matter of ambition, and degree, isn't it? Plenty of people who are otherwise powerless take power through drugs. It's the same game. Some people win more objectively than others.
By the rules of your game, a driven executive who makes hundreds of millions of dollars but can't find real satisfaction is more "objectively winning" than a guy who's straddling the poverty line but has everything he needs and is very happy with his life. You don't even realize that the second guy isn't playing the same game. You're playing Monopoly, leaning over to the guy playing checkers across the way, and screeching that he's a loser because he doesn't have any hotels.
I've had a couple things that would demonstrate me having money like a super expensive watch, a brand new Audi, a big house, etc. They were great for getting fleeting "Wow, he's got money!" glances from folks. Then I realized their like for me was related to stuff, not me. It just all seemed very vacuous.
I'm sure your family and your relationships are very different and that all the love in your life is totally unconditional and moreover, totally uncorrelated with your ability to command resources. I hope you never fall upon hard times but if you did, I'm sure every relationship you have would survive it. Best of luck with your startup, it looks like a great idea and you're obviously good at executing. More resources look to be on your horizons.
However, the term love contains a very important meaning. We can't say that we really live properly as humans without understanding what love is.
That's why I'd like to ask you something. I hope you don't mind my question. When you say "love", what do you mean by that term? What do you indicate?
Demonstrably wrong.
Desire for power is certainly common among primates, but there are a number of basic drives. Drives people have it in different amounts. Further, there's no particular reason to think it was a huge evolutionary driver for us.
If you're really looking for the evolutionary driver that made us what we are, it might be a taste for cooked food. [1] You could also make a case for tool usage, or an arms race in language capability, a peacock's tail that happened to let us do far more than woo mates.
And even if power were a major drive, it doesn't really tell us much about what we should do. People are naturally violent, but we mostly set that aside. What's natural tells us nothing about what's right.
Of course you won't believe me, because you write like a fundamentalist. You can't tell a Freudian that it isn't about sex or a Baptist that it isn't all about God. Fundamentalism always makes me a little sad because it's so stunting.
It'd as if somebody put on a pair of blue-tinted glasses and ran around insisting that since they only see blue things, blue is the only real color and everybody else is just fooling themselves. They can't quite get that "everything they see" isn't only about everything; its also about how they see.
Could you be pulling our legs? When you call him arrogant and then explain how only you understand the deep, hidden truths of the world, it's kooky enough that I wonder if you're just trolling.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/dp/14...
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bV9yeFV6_ckC&oi=f...
>People are naturally violent, but we mostly set that aside
This is the most demonstrably wrong thing. Try killing a man and say that you are naturally violent. Humans are social animals and to commit violence against one another is very difficult for us. The people who do not have this trait we call sociopaths. The people who harm others for a living do so at the cost of massive psychological trauma, probably unhealable, and the best and most effective killers have to be taught how to kill for years and years by people who have made it their job to teach how to kill, based on years of research and development of new ways to break people down and build them into war machines.
The most common response to seeing death is to vomit, and you say people are naturally violent? What do you know of violence?
>Could you be pulling our legs? When you call him arrogant and then explain how only you understand the deep, hidden truths of the world, it's kooky enough that I wonder if you're just trolling.
I think it's condescending and ironically, a status-grab to say something like "I pity people who directly pursue the thing I acquire by doing other things. I am better than they are, because I pursue these other, distinct things, that wholly coincidentally lead to the thing these other people pursue. How pitiful they are."
It's a long, long trip from "linked to social living" (which, duh) to "power is the basic evolutionary fuel". If power were really the big thing, we'd have a social structure and mating relationships more like elephant seals than parrots.
> Try killing a man and say that you are naturally violent.
Yes, that's my point. Your whole approach is a fallacious appeal to nature. You justify your obsession with power by saying that evolutionarily it's all about power. But what is natural tells us nothing about what it right.
Of course we are naturally violent, just like the rest of the great apes. Every toddler quickly decides that violence is a great problem-solver. We put a lot of effort into training them out of it and still don't do very well. Every human society has a history of violence. Every legal code deals with violence. And we do that because violence is natural but wrong.
As to the last bit, that looks like willful misinterpretation. His whole point is that he's not in it for the rewards, that those are mostly luck. As a fundamentalist, you can't of course credit his explanation, so to you it looks disingenuous. Because you only admit of one possible motivation, you take your interpretation as more proof of your obsession. It's the same routine that biblical fundies do. Something good happens? God be praised! Something bad happens? God is making us stronger through trial. Atheists? Well obviously they say those things because they hate God, so clearly they really do believe in God.
For them, it all comes back to God. For you, it all comes back to power. I hope you eventually get over it. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Mate competition is a powerful force in human evolution. Evidence: males are 20% larger than females, and the ancient male breeding population is about half the size of the total male population (these are utterly uncontroversial facts, and if you ask any biologist about them without mentioning the species they will say, "Mate competition, moderate polygamy.")
"Power" is the power to mate with the highest status member of the opposite sex available. You'll note this is a gender-free definition.
To deny this is to deny evolution, as it applies to humans. As you correctly point out, what is in our evolutionary history is not what is "right", but unless we are willing to surface that history and examine it in the cold light of day we're like to make a large number of very bad decisions.
So the OP is correct: "No human alive doesn't want power". It does not follow from this "Seeking power by any means available is right." Nor does it mean "Formal hierarchy is the best form of social organization." Sometimes "power" means "the power to boink the lady of the manor". Or as Aristotle might have put it: "Power is said in many ways."
But compared to all other influences on human behaviour, mate competition is pretty important. We forget that at our peril, because it might lead us to weaken social institutions--like monogamy--that tend to undermine mate competition's role as a social organizing principle.
Also, I think the monogamy thing is kooky. Your model there implies that men will be deciding the whole who-mates-with-whom question, with women as property. That is how it works for elephant seals, but it's not the only way. Instead of trying to construct a mandatory monogamy, we could let women also participate in the decision-making process. Novel, I know, but we've been moving in that direction for a century or two and it seems like we're making progress.
