<p><strong>Short answer</strong><br>
Yes  </p>

<p><strong>Background</strong><br>
Consider the following organizations solely acting for preservation:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.worldwildlife.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">WWF</a> for example attempts to conserve Wildlife and <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/our_work/oceans/solutions/protection/protected_areas/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Marine Parks</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.unesco.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">UNESCO</a> protects cultural properties</li>
</ul>

<p>One way they do this is by outreach to local communities and educate them on the value of stretches of land. For example see </p>

<ul>
<li>How the <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/mexican_fish_poachers_push_endangered_porpoise_to_brink_vaquita_gulf_of_california" rel="nofollow noreferrer">local (poor) community fishermen</a> are approached to save the vaquita (<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-last-ditch-attempt-to-save-the-world-rsquo-s-most-endangered-porpoise/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nicholls, 2017</a>)  (in an admittedly futile attempt, as there are about 14 left)</li>
<li><a href="https://epicureandculture.com/sustainable-farming-in-the-amazon-rainforest/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sustainable coffee and cacao production</a> by local farmers in the sensitive Amazone Bassin</li>
</ul>

<p>So yes, I don't know if this is what you're after, but of course communities can be put to work for the greater cause. </p>

<p><sub>Further, as others have pointed out, this is borderline ontopic here imo, but it is an interesting and hot issue nonetheless.</sub>  </p>

<p><sub><strong>Reference</strong><br>
<strong>-</strong>  <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-last-ditch-attempt-to-save-the-world-rsquo-s-most-endangered-porpoise/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nicholls, <em>Sci Am</em>, April 2017)</a></sub></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-07T06:20:25.967Z
I think this answer is good, as long as enforcing WWF and UNESCO policies is a form of sacrificing economical imediate benefit for environment sustainability.
VAndrei
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-05T07:51:05.427Z
2018-07-05T08:06:07.767Z
2018-07-05T08:06:07.767Z
AliceD
<p>I was thinking on how environment conservation efforts might be enhanced or enforced and I was reflecting that people have to develop a colective conscience that would allow them to spend extra time and work for the good of the community and for the future generations, and not necessarily for an immediate benefit.</p>

<p>The question I keep asking myself is whether people are actually capable of this mindset. Are there any documented cases in history where a society has altruistically created or conserved something exclusively for the benefit of next generations?</p>

<p>An good example of such behavior would be the following: the inhabitants of a region discover a deposit of gold and instead of going full force with the extraction, they rationalize thinking that the gold might benefit their children.</p>

<p>I regard building cities as a method for the aim of satisfying day to day needs and art as a mean to not be forgotten.</p>

<p>Can this type of altruistic behavior propagate even in a society that doesn’t meet the best quality of life standards and where most members are not highly educated?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-04T06:41:14.513Z
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I don't quite see how it's a suitable question for this site. More like for history.SE.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-04T11:28:45.270Z
[This](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yp3ebw/humans-have-been-causing-environmental-disasters-for-7000-years) is pretty good if popsci background read.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-04T11:34:25.847Z
And closer to our times: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/ken-burns-dust-bowl-the-greatest-man-made-eco-disaster-in-us-history/265249/
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-04T11:42:57.400Z
And if you're thinking at global scale, there's unfortunately not enough data. The only thing that might qualify is (avoiding( the nuclear armageddon, but that unfortunately meant *not* doing something stupid as opposed to just going on about one's business (with head in the sand)... which is unfortunately what could cause global warming to spiral out of control.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-04T11:48:03.397Z
There's actually an field of study called [environmentale psychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_psychology), but I doubt it will provide you with answer you seek. Also, there's not tag here for it...
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-04T22:22:29.760Z
@Fizz in all this seems like an answer to me.
AliceD
<social-psychology><motivation>
Are societies capable of sacrificing time and energy exclusively for the benefit of future generations?
VAndrei
# Are societies capable of sacrificing time and energy exclusively for the benefit of future generations?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-07-04)

I was thinking on how environment conservation efforts might be enhanced or enforced and I was reflecting that people have to develop a colective conscience that would allow them to spend extra time and work for the good of the community and for the future generations, and not necessarily for an immediate benefit.

The question I keep asking myself is whether people are actually capable of this mindset. Are there any documented cases in history where a society has altruistically created or conserved something exclusively for the benefit of next generations?

An good example of such behavior would be the following: the inhabitants of a region discover a deposit of gold and instead of going full force with the extraction, they rationalize thinking that the gold might benefit their children.

I regard building cities as a method for the aim of satisfying day to day needs and art as a mean to not be forgotten.

Can this type of altruistic behavior propagate even in a society that doesn’t meet the best quality of life standards and where most members are not highly educated?

**Tags:** social-psychology, motivation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I don't quite see how it's a suitable question for this site. More like for history.SE.  
> **username_1**: [This](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yp3ebw/humans-have-been-causing-environmental-disasters-for-7000-years) is pretty good if popsci background read.  
> **username_1**: And closer to our times: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/ken-burns-dust-bowl-the-greatest-man-made-eco-disaster-in-us-history/265249/  
> **username_1**: And if you're thinking at global scale, there's unfortunately not enough data. The only thing that might qualify is (avoiding( the nuclear armageddon, but that unfortunately meant *not* doing something stupid as opposed to just going on about one's business (with head in the sand)... which is unfortunately what could cause global warming to spiral out of control.  
> **username_1**: There's actually an field of study called [environmentale psychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_psychology), but I doubt it will provide you with answer you seek. Also, there's not tag here for it...  
> **username_2**: @Fizz in all this seems like an answer to me.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-07-05. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

**Short answer**  
Yes

**Background**  
Consider the following organizations solely acting for preservation:

* [WWF](https://www.worldwildlife.org/) for example attempts to conserve Wildlife and [Marine Parks](http://wwf.panda.org/our_work/oceans/solutions/protection/protected_areas/)
* [UNESCO](https://en.unesco.org/) protects cultural properties

One way they do this is by outreach to local communities and educate them on the value of stretches of land. For example see

* How the [local (poor) community fishermen](https://e360.yale.edu/features/mexican_fish_poachers_push_endangered_porpoise_to_brink_vaquita_gulf_of_california) are approached to save the vaquita ([Nicholls, 2017](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-last-ditch-attempt-to-save-the-world-rsquo-s-most-endangered-porpoise/)) (in an admittedly futile attempt, as there are about 14 left)
* [Sustainable coffee and cacao production](https://epicureandculture.com/sustainable-farming-in-the-amazon-rainforest/) by local farmers in the sensitive Amazone Bassin

So yes, I don't know if this is what you're after, but of course communities can be put to work for the greater cause.

Further, as others have pointed out, this is borderline ontopic here imo, but it is an interesting and hot issue nonetheless.

**Reference**  
**-** [Nicholls, *Sci Am*, April 2017)](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-last-ditch-attempt-to-save-the-world-rsquo-s-most-endangered-porpoise/)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I think this answer is good, as long as enforcing WWF and UNESCO policies is a form of sacrificing economical imediate benefit for environment sustainability.  

---

