People say society runs on goodwill.
What happens when that goodwill disappears?
I was thinking about this after reading a post I saw on X.
The gist was that society is still barely holding together because serious and honest people keep working and living without giving up, even while being told they are the ones losing out.
Stopping at traffic lights.
Submitting paperwork correctly.
Not cutting corners where no one is watching.
Finding a shortcut that would benefit only yourself, and still choosing not to use it.
I think society somehow maintains its shape through the accumulation of small acts like these.
It is not so much that laws and institutions keep society intact. Rather, people we call honest keep filling in the gaps that laws and institutions alone cannot cover.
But that honesty must have a limit.
The Metaphor of a 51% Attack
In contexts such as Bitcoin, there is a term called a “51% attack.”
Roughly speaking, it refers to a state where a malicious actor controls a majority of the computing power across the network, allowing them to influence transaction approvals and the ordering of blocks.
It does not mean they can do anything they want, but it creates the possibility of attempting double spending or obstructing specific transactions.
What matters is that this does not destroy the system from the outside. It uses the system’s assumptions from within.
Distributed systems assume that the majority will behave honestly to some extent.
When that assumption collapses, the rules themselves may remain, but trust in those rules begins to break.
Reality may be similar.
Many institutions are not built on the assumption that humans will always follow the rules.
That is why there are penalties, audits, contracts, and records.
At the same time, however, they are probably not built on the assumption that everyone involved is fully malicious.
If everyone constantly searched for loopholes and tried to maximize only their own gain, institutions would quickly become heavier and stop functioning.
In that sense, society also depends on a certain amount of “honest computing power.”
A 51% Attack on Society
I do not think a 51% attack on society happens the moment malicious people exceed 51% of the population.
Even a much smaller number of people may have enough influence if they are positioned at key points in the system.
Places where decisions are made, where capital gathers, where information circulates, and where evaluations are decided.
When exploiting gaps in the rules becomes normal in those places, the assumptions behind society as a whole gradually begin to break.
“It is not prohibited, so it is fine.”
“It is safe according to the rules.”
“Only the people who notice it benefit.”
“This is a hack.”
These phrases can be very convenient.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with making improvements within the scope of the rules.
Finding flaws in a system has value.
Improving inefficient mechanisms is important.
I am also the kind of person who likes looking for defects or things that might be abused.
But I still feel uneasy when acts that consume other people’s goodwill or the margins left by institutions for profit are called “clever hacks.”
If “clever hacks” continue, some people will start wondering whether there is any point in doing things honestly.
Many people may already feel that way.
Society does not begin to break when malicious people become the majority.
Perhaps it begins to break when honest people grow tired of staying honest.
Is That Really a Hack?
I like the word “hack.”
Understanding how something works, using it from a different angle, and finding a better way.
I think hacks in that sense are creative, enjoyable, and wonderful.
But lately, I feel that the scope of the word “hack” has expanded too far.
Exploiting loopholes.
Free-riding on other people’s goodwill.
Taking advantage of trust that has not been written down explicitly.
Abusing behavior the system did not anticipate.
If even those things are called “hacks,” the harm involved becomes blurred.
Actions that are closer to cracking or exploitation can start to look somewhat intellectual and smart.
Words matter.
By calling something a “hack,” an act that is really just shifting a burden onto someone else can appear to be a creative improvement.
By calling someone “resourceful,” behavior that merely free-rides on assumptions other people are respecting can appear to be a kind of ability.
As that replacement accumulates, the value of being serious and honest is worn down.
At What Percentage Does It Break?
At what percentage of the population does society begin to break when people try to profit by exploiting gaps in the rules or by cheating?
The number 51% is easy to understand.
But in society, I do not think a majority is necessary.
For example, a very small number of people might gain a great deal by using institutional loopholes.
The burden is then spread thinly across many honest people.
Each individual burden is small, so it does not immediately become a visible problem.
But when that repeats again and again, the atmosphere changes.
“Honest people lose anyway.”
“The people who follow the rules are the fools.”
“Everyone is doing it.”
“There is no point in being the only one who follows the rules.”
Once things reach that point, it is already quite dangerous.
Even if the institutions themselves do not collapse, the will to support them does. The rules remain, but the motivation to follow them is eroded.
The threshold of society may not be determined by the percentage of malicious people, but by how long honest people can keep from giving up.
How Can It Be Prevented?
Then what should be done?
It is not good enough to end with “each person should live seriously and honestly.”
That is just moralizing, and it has little effect.
It would only place an even greater burden on people who are already serious and honest.
What is needed, I think, is design that does not depend too heavily on goodwill.
Do not leave structures where cheating is more profitable than acting honestly.
Correct situations where only the people who find loopholes gain benefits.
Increase verifiability.
Make auditing possible.
Make sure honest people do not keep losing.
At the same time, there is also a question of attitude and culture.
Do not naively praise people who exploit loopholes as “smart.”
Do not call acts that use other people’s goodwill “hacks.”
Look at whose burden lies behind the profit gained by exploiting the gaps in a system.
In the world of technology, we need to distinguish hacks from cracking.
The same should be true in society.
Creative deviation based on understanding a system and making it better is a good thing.
But understanding a system and using that understanding to push damage onto other people or the community is something else.
When that distinction becomes vague, language ends up hiding harm.
Goodwill as Computing Power
Society is sustained by the goodwill of serious and honest people.
Someone checks a little more carefully.
Someone leaves records even when it is troublesome.
Someone does not cut corners in places no one can see.
Someone follows the rules even when it costs them.
Those countless choices become society’s “honest computing power.”
To prevent a 51% attack, we do not need to reduce malicious people to zero.
What matters more is making sure honest people do not have to give up on staying honest.
Not continuing to consume goodwill as if it were fuel.
Not decorating mere exploitation with the word “hack.”
Society does not break only when bad people suddenly increase.
It also breaks when serious and honest people quietly disappear.
That is why we should not consume seriousness and honesty as individual virtues. We should treat them as sustainable resources.