Naturally

How I wish human nature was a bit different with more care for each other and more attention to the long-term consequences of our actions.
Dan Ariely. "Hybrid Work and Work Abuse Concerns" LinkedIn

Dan Ariely, of all people, should know better. Human nature tends to focus on the personal and the short-term because that's where the incentives are. In a social situation where most of the people one is interacting with are effectively strangers, the impulse to look after one's own interests, even if it costs everyone something, is adaptive. While everyone working together, and looking out for the best interests of the group may come with the greatest rewards, being a team player when other people are defecting comes with much greater risks. And in a situation where it's difficult or impossible to tell who may be free riding, there is no ability to punish such people... and they generally know it. This means that the incentives are on the side of individuals looking out for themselves.

Similarly, in a situation where people have differing time horizons, for whatever reason, getting everyone to privilege the long term over the short term is difficult. A person who knows, that for whatever reason, they're going to be leaving soon (whether that's for another job, retirement or what have you) is not going to be in a position to defer a reward or gratification. A bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush once it's understood that the bush won't be there indefinitely. So again, the individual looking out for their short-term interest is the best thing for them in that moment.

Accordingly, the thing to do isn't wishing. It's engineering. With some communications thrown in. When the clear incentives lie with taking care of one another and looking out for the long term, that's when people will do so. Modern American society tends to push people to place their short-term self-interest above other considerations because it feels both precarious and isolating to many people. Wanting to change "human nature" after hundreds of millennia of evolutionary pressure is pointless. But modern society hasn't been around anywhere nearly as long. The problem become s that change is hard, and comes with costs. When I was young, there was a lot of concern about the national debt. The general consensus was that something needed to be done. Why, 40 years later, hasn't it changed? Because the drive to make the lifestyle changes and part with the money needed to allow the government to run surpluses simply wasn't there. Even know, with tax rates much lower, and deficits much higher, than they were when I was a teenager, you can still find proponents of supply-side economics who are convinced that by lowering taxes even further, that the magic of the Laffer Curve will suddenly kick in and solve everything. And people buy into it because it offers a solution that (supposedly) doesn't cost anyone anything.

Creating a society where the tangible benefits accrue from biting the bullet now is going to take confidence that it's going to turn out as planned. Wishing people were different won't bring that about.