7 ms·

It was an interesting read anyways. The answer should be obvious... "The very fact that his book exists, he wrote, is the equivalent of tossing his cards face

It was an interesting read anyways. The answer should be obvious... "The very fact that his book exists, he wrote, is the equivalent of tossing his cards face down on the table: If society had in fact collapsed, there would be no books, self-published or not. “So let me just admit that I was wrong,” he wrote. “But ... not by much. And not totally.” "

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
That's such a silly way of measuring the answer. Books existed in the Middle Ages (e.g. Dark Ages, yes people will say we don't call it that anymore but still). Tech could have regressed our society in manifold ways and destroyed and rotted away many many institutions and there would still be books. They should have a measure by which to mark this bet's conclusion. Arguments can be made for both sides.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >Tech could have regressed our society in manifold ways and destroyed and rotted away many many institutions and there would still be books. There would not be a new book printed about this topic if society had regressed as you described.
  - p1necone 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure you could destroy a lot of the fabric of modern society and still have a publishing house and a printing company able to produce a few thousand copies of a book.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      Thousands of copies of a book is something quaint in our great grandfather's days. The distribution mechanisms are what make it eyeroll worthy. Really whenever you hear anyone talk about "the fabric of society" they are full of shit. Just like how theater, jazz, rock music, heavy metal, rap, interracial marriage, women voting, and gay marriage destroyed the fabric of society. Those ample precedents of being complete bullshit aside it is a stack of abstractions with no measures. It sounds like it means something but it doesn't - it is just mouth noises to manipulate your emotions.
- NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
  > They should have a measure by which to mark this bet's conclusion. Arguments can be made for both sides. They're not in the science game. They're in the selling content game. In that, all three (let's not forget the person writing the article) appear to have succeeded, gaining exposure (and payment for the article writer) thanks to the bet, regardless of rigor. One could perhaps forsee more books and articles forthcoming as a result of this bet?
- 8ytecoder 6y ago
  Orthagonal and nitpick. I couldn't parse the "e.g., Dark Ages" part until I realised what you may have meant is "i.e., Dark Ages". I read "e.g.," as "for example" and "i.e.," as "that is". (English is not my first language)
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    The "Dark Ages" usually refers to a subset of the Middle Ages, the earlier part, so "for example" worked for me and I only stopped and realized that ie was meant after reading your comment. This is one of those stupid things about English that make life for pupils harder for no reason. In most languages the abbreviation is straightforward and based on the actual language. (Also spelling bees don't exist in most other places). Entire classes of error possibilities are just made up for no good reason in English. (also, it's orthogonal, not orthagonal)
    - 8ytecoder 6y ago
      Ah. It makes sense now.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    As a native english speaker, "for example" and "that is" code as basically the same style of skip-over phrase: just there to lead into the important part. I'm curious what distinction you are reading into it. I'm sure that as a native learner I was more apt to just take mental shortcuts rather than resolve these ambiguities.
    - 8ytecoder 6y ago
      https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/ie-vs-eg-abbreviation-meaning-usage-difference https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/ie-vs-eg-abbre... I assumed "for example" follows a collection/set as opposed to "that is" which is a 1-1 mapping. Sibling comment clarified it for me on why "for example" makes sense in this context.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
phlakaton 6y ago
...And not enough to cough up the thousand bucks, the welcher. :-D
- gshubert17 6y ago
  I agree that Sale should have paid the bet and claimed that he was a bit "early" about when the destruction would come. In 1995 a person could have bought a US Treasury zero coupon bond for about $130 maturing in 25 years for . . . $1000. No other purchase would have been necessary to cover the bet. Relatively cheap insurance, I think.
  - grumple 6y ago
    Should have gone double or nothing. Another week might have sealed the deal with the Capitol insurrection on 1/6.
Nition 6y ago
The bet wasn't that society would collapse, but that it would be "not even close" to collapse, which is a much more difficult question to answer.
- hawkice 6y ago
  The stakes were so extreme that it _is_ pretty easy to answer. Sure, there have been economic cycles, but the bet was whether the dollar is _worthless_ -- we are so far from it the Fed still can't reliably meet their inflation targets. A rebellion of the rich against the monied? Surely you're joking. And while global warming marches on, the 'significant number of environmental collapses' haven't happened, and we know we aren't close because I'm not sure even one environment has collapsed (damage ain't the same as collapse, folks). It wasn't close. It isn't hard to tell that it wasn't close. Let's not give this doomsayer more credit than he's earned -- and he was completely wrong.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    If there will be any collapse it is still 50 years out. A war doesn't count. The world got better after WW2. Life finds a way.
    - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
      Ummm, did it though? Like metrics wise it did, but you're not counting the massive loss of life and the vast disenchantment in the world after (which is admittedly hard to measure). Millions of people were ethnically cleansed, that's not worth any kind of material progress. If you are trying to say we progressed materially in spite of ethnic cleansing, you don't understand that eliminating large swaths of the population will obviously result in material benefit to those who remain...

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

That's such a silly way of measuring the answer. Books existed in the Middle Ages (e.g. Dark Ages, yes people will say we don't call it that anymore but still). Tech could have regressed our society in manifold ways and destroyed and rotted away many many institutions and there would still be books. They should have a measure by which to mark this bet's conclusion. Arguments can be made for both sides.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Tech could have regressed our society in manifold ways and destroyed and rotted away many many institutions and there would still be books. There would not be a new book printed about this topic if society had regressed as you described.
- p1necone 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure you could destroy a lot of the fabric of modern society and still have a publishing house and a printing company able to produce a few thousand copies of a book.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    Thousands of copies of a book is something quaint in our great grandfather's days. The distribution mechanisms are what make it eyeroll worthy. Really whenever you hear anyone talk about "the fabric of society" they are full of shit. Just like how theater, jazz, rock music, heavy metal, rap, interracial marriage, women voting, and gay marriage destroyed the fabric of society. Those ample precedents of being complete bullshit aside it is a stack of abstractions with no measures. It sounds like it means something but it doesn't - it is just mouth noises to manipulate your emotions.
NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
> They should have a measure by which to mark this bet's conclusion. Arguments can be made for both sides. They're not in the science game. They're in the selling content game. In that, all three (let's not forget the person writing the article) appear to have succeeded, gaining exposure (and payment for the article writer) thanks to the bet, regardless of rigor. One could perhaps forsee more books and articles forthcoming as a result of this bet?
8ytecoder 6y ago
Orthagonal and nitpick. I couldn't parse the "e.g., Dark Ages" part until I realised what you may have meant is "i.e., Dark Ages". I read "e.g.," as "for example" and "i.e.," as "that is". (English is not my first language)
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  The "Dark Ages" usually refers to a subset of the Middle Ages, the earlier part, so "for example" worked for me and I only stopped and realized that ie was meant after reading your comment. This is one of those stupid things about English that make life for pupils harder for no reason. In most languages the abbreviation is straightforward and based on the actual language. (Also spelling bees don't exist in most other places). Entire classes of error possibilities are just made up for no good reason in English. (also, it's orthogonal, not orthagonal)
  - 8ytecoder 6y ago
    Ah. It makes sense now.
- Talanes 6y ago
  As a native english speaker, "for example" and "that is" code as basically the same style of skip-over phrase: just there to lead into the important part. I'm curious what distinction you are reading into it. I'm sure that as a native learner I was more apt to just take mental shortcuts rather than resolve these ambiguities.
  - 8ytecoder 6y ago
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/ie-vs-eg-abbreviation-meaning-usage-difference https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/ie-vs-eg-abbre... I assumed "for example" follows a collection/set as opposed to "that is" which is a 1-1 mapping. Sibling comment clarified it for me on why "for example" makes sense in this context.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago

phlakaton 6y ago

...And not enough to cough up the thousand bucks, the welcher. :-D

gshubert17 6y ago
I agree that Sale should have paid the bet and claimed that he was a bit "early" about when the destruction would come. In 1995 a person could have bought a US Treasury zero coupon bond for about $130 maturing in 25 years for . . . $1000. No other purchase would have been necessary to cover the bet. Relatively cheap insurance, I think.
- grumple 6y ago
  Should have gone double or nothing. Another week might have sealed the deal with the Capitol insurrection on 1/6.

Nition 6y ago

The bet wasn't that society would collapse, but that it would be "not even close" to collapse, which is a much more difficult question to answer.

hawkice 6y ago
The stakes were so extreme that it _is_ pretty easy to answer. Sure, there have been economic cycles, but the bet was whether the dollar is _worthless_ -- we are so far from it the Fed still can't reliably meet their inflation targets. A rebellion of the rich against the monied? Surely you're joking. And while global warming marches on, the 'significant number of environmental collapses' haven't happened, and we know we aren't close because I'm not sure even one environment has collapsed (damage ain't the same as collapse, folks). It wasn't close. It isn't hard to tell that it wasn't close. Let's not give this doomsayer more credit than he's earned -- and he was completely wrong.
- imtringued 6y ago
  If there will be any collapse it is still 50 years out. A war doesn't count. The world got better after WW2. Life finds a way.
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    Ummm, did it though? Like metrics wise it did, but you're not counting the massive loss of life and the vast disenchantment in the world after (which is admittedly hard to measure). Millions of people were ethnically cleansed, that's not worth any kind of material progress. If you are trying to say we progressed materially in spite of ethnic cleansing, you don't understand that eliminating large swaths of the population will obviously result in material benefit to those who remain...