问 HN：人生中最重要的事是什么？
1 分•作者: awesomehry•7 个月前
我认为我对“人生最重要的事是什么”这个问题有一个不错的答案。那就是为他人提供最大效用。这与为自己积累最大效用完全相反。你通过提供价值来为人们提供效用。每个人都有一个效用函数，衡量一定价值对他们的重要性。如果总效用是T，效用函数是U，价值是v，那么T = U(v)。效用和价值通常是正相关的（如果我拥有更多的金钱或朋友，我通常会更快乐）。
价值不仅仅是财务上的（这是一个常见的谬误），也可以是情感上的。拥有一个充满爱的家庭对你来说是非常高的效用，但你也在通过支持你的家人来为他们提供高效用。这可以解释为什么亿万富翁企业家可能对生活不满意，如果他们没有任何亲密的朋友或家人，因为他们在情感上非常贫乏（而不是富有）。如果人生最重要的事是最大化他人的效用，那么即使你独自富有，如果你没有为他人提供任何效用，也相当于零财富。没有人会因为特朗普把白宫弄得更豪华而感到高兴，当他们买不起食物的时候（而且他正在起诉，要求紧急停止发放食品券）。
重要的是要注意提供价值的两个方面。首先，人们通常具有对数效用函数。如果你把所有价值都提供给一个人，而对其他人没有提供任何价值，那效用并不高。实际上，这意味着你想最大化你为他人提供的效用总和。理论上，每年为十个穷人提供10万美元，比每年为一个穷人提供100万美元，产生的总效用要高得多。同样，为一个人提供极高的情感支持，而忽略其他人，产生的价值也低于为多个人提供高情感支持（例如配偶+孩子+家人+朋友）。
总的（所有类型加总）效用函数是对数的，但构成性的财务效用和情感效用函数也是对数的。这体现在经济学中内凹的偏好曲线中。有很多朋友的穷人比没有朋友的富人更看重金钱，而没有朋友的富人比有很多朋友的穷人更看重友谊。
此外，人们的效用函数会随着时间而变化。这就是为什么在你父母70岁时为他们提供经济保障比等到他们80岁时为他们提供巨额财富更有意义。更早为他们提供价值的效用更高；效用函数不是恒定的。
因此，同时发生了三个优化：
1. 我如何在我的整个生命周期中最大化我为他人提供的效用？
2. 我如何分配价值给不同的人，使得分配最大化每个人的效用总和，同时兼顾公平性？
3. 我如何跨时间分配价值，使得分配最大化每个人的效用总和，同时兼顾公平性？
这可以归结为“善良并帮助每个人，尤其是在他们需要的时候”，因为我们正在优化自我、关系和时间。这三件事本身对生活来说非常重要，所以这似乎是一个很好的初步检验，表明这个想法大致正确。
最后，重要的是要记住，这些是我21岁时的即兴想法。随着年龄的增长，我可能会变得成熟，对人生最重要的事有更细致或更准确的看法。此外，生活非常复杂，不可能完全将其提炼成简单的定理或想法。
我非常感谢听到其他人的想法。
查看原文
I think I have a decent answer to the question "what is the most important thing in life". It is to deliver the maximum amount of utility to other people. This is the direct opposite of accruing the maximum amount of utility for yourself. You provide utility to people by delivering value. Everyone has a utility function of how important a certain amount of value to them. If total utility is T and a utility function is U and value is v, then T = U(v). Utility and value are generally positively correlated (I am usually happier if I have more money or friends).<p>Value is not just financial (a common fallacy), but can also be emotional. Having a loving family is very high utility to you, but you are also providing high utility to your family members by supporting them. This could explain why billionaire entrepreneurs may be unhappy with life if they don't have any close friends or family, because they are very poor (not rich) emotionally. If the most important thing in life is to maximize utility for others, then being the sole rich person yourself is equivalent to zero wealth if you haven't delivered any utility to others. Nobody is happy about Trump making the White House fancier when they cannot afford food (and he is suing for an emergency stop on issuing food stamps).<p>It is important to note two aspects of delivering value. First, people generally have logarithmic utility functions. If you deliver all the value to a single person and zero value to others, that is not very high utility. Actually, this really means that you want to maximize the sum of utility you have provided other people. In theory, providing ten poor people $100,000 per year generates a much higher overall utility than providing one poor person $1,000,000 per year. Likewise, providing extremely high emotional support for one person and neglecting everyone else generates less value than providing high emotional support for multiple people (such as spouse+kids+family+friends).<p>The general (all types summed) utility function is logarithmic, but the constituent financial utility and emotional utility functions are also logarithmic. This is captured in the inwardly-bowed preference curve in economics. Poor people with lots of friends value money more than rich people with no friends, and the rich people with no friends value friendship more than poor people with lots of friends.<p>Also, people's utility functions change over time. This is why it makes sense that providing financial stability for your parents when they are 70 years old benefits them more than waiting until they are 80 years old to provide them immense wealth. The utility of providing them value earlier is higher; utility functions are not constant over time.<p>Therefore, there's three optimizations happening simultaneously:<p>1. How do I maximize the amount of utility I provide for others over the course of my entire lifetime?<p>2. How do I allocate value across people such that the allocations maximize the sum of everyone's utility, subject to fairness?<p>3. How do I allocate value across time such that the allocations maximize the sum of everyone's utility, subject to fairness?<p>This boils down to "be good and help everyone especially when they need it", since we are optimizing across self, relationships, and time. These three things by themselves are very important to life, so this seems to be a good smell check that this idea is ballpark correct.<p>Finally, it is important to remember that these are off-the-cuff thoughts by me at 21 years old. I will likely mature and have more nuanced or accurate thoughts about what is the most important thing in life when I get older. Also, life is very complex and it's impossible to completely distill it into simple theorems or ideas.<p>I'd really appreciate hearing other people's thoughts.