The Achievements page is an initial prototype that allows members to see the positive contributions they bring to the group.
The ultimate goal, which is far from being achieved, is to have a fair measure of the benefits provided by members. This is a dangerous and often exploited concept, which is why it requires thorough consideration, as discussed further in this text.
We are motivated to do good things for ourselves or for others. For instance, we often feel satisfied with our day if we have accomplished meaningful tasks (e.g., repairing an object or repainting a room). Conversely, one of the most hurtful remarks one can receive is, "You’re useless to us.".
Our attraction to people we perceive as strong (based on our own criteria, such as rebelliousness, knowledge, dominance, charm, wealth, intelligence, etc.) stems from the belief that associating with individuals who embody positive and beneficial qualities is advantageous for one’s close circle. This is why even the notion of a strong person is linked to being good. This brings us back to social utility: being a strong person means being able to prove one’s usefulness, at least to those very close to them, this is inherently validating.
We enjoy being attractive and valued by others. Therefore, a significant motivation is to demonstrate strength to others, which often translates into excelling in areas where our values equate strength with goodness.
Society must encourage what benefits the group and discourage what does not. To do so, it requires criteria for determining what is good. When these criteria are flawed—for example, in capitalist ideology, which equates goodness with financial success—society veers away from the common good.
Thus, the social and personal question remains the same: What are the good and bad actions for the group ?
This becomes evident in examples such as the hellish Chinese social credit system: when the criteria for social utility are unjust, it leads to a significant decline in individuals’ quality of life.
Another experiment illustrating the power of social goodness criteria was conducted by Jane Elliott.
The issue with this concept is that it is so deeply rooted in our motivations that once society adopts a criterion, most people adhere to it, avoiding change and instead seeking justification. Many will even rationalize these criteria—for example, spending exorbitant sums on a car capable of high speeds. In reality, the goal is simply to demonstrate one’s strength and thus earn respect and high regard.
Yet, this high-energy concept also has high potential: by redefining individual and collective goodness to align more closely with the common good, we can reduce the immense waste caused by the belief in money=consumption=happiness. We are limited in the medium term in certain resources (raw materials, etc.), which are currently being managed recklessly. Rational management could therefore lead to significant progress.
We have seen that Comind must confront and respond to this issue; it cannot be avoided. Awareness of its importance and danger is a first safeguard. Another safeguard is to avoid locking in any criteria and ensure that everything can be modified through a process of collective thought, see Stratum 0 for more details.