4 ms·
My intuition is that the emergence of classes is an inherent property of unperturbed social structures, amplified by the scale, regardless of the underlying pol
by stephc_int13 5y ago
My intuition is that the emergence of classes is an inherent property of unperturbed social structures, amplified by the scale, regardless of the underlying political system.
Perturbations are what shake the structure and prevent privilege to be passed and social structure from being reinforced at each generation.
Peace, order, and stability are only good up to a point.
Some chaos is needed to prevent societies to become too unequal.
Successful technological innovations tend to bring perturbation to the system, as do wars, ecological catastrophes, and pandemics.
- minikites 5y agoWhy does it need to be chaos instead of more methodical changes to society, such as much higher taxes on the very wealthy to be used by society for the benefit of all?
- at_a_remove 5y agoGiven a series of proposed changes, those with wealth will seek to "game" those changes to retain that wealth. Jump down the double-Irish rabbit hole for a bit and think of the motivations of the people involved, all of them.
- stephc_int13 5y agoBecause changes will likely be made by people who are close to the political power, they will easily work around the rules.
- minikites 5y agoSo we shouldn't even try to rein in the wealthy?
- stephc_int13 5y agoYes, but asking politely won't do much, unfortunately. I am not suggesting violence, as this will only be temporary. In my opinion, a golden age society would have so much perpetual change that it would be extremely difficult to pass privilege from a generation to the next.
- stephc_int13 5y agoAlso, the central inequality issue is not about money, but power, they are correlated, but power is the source.
- minikites 5y agoI agree, but equalizing money is a good first step. You can't really tax and redistribute power, unless I'm not thinking creatively enough.
- trutannus 5y agoSounds like you've come to the same conclusion as Pareto, specifically that the "elite" members of society can, and should, circulate to ensure stability. He also thought that when the upper strata of society becomes closed to membership that inequality and instability are the result. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_of_elite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_of_elite
- WaitWaitWha 5y agoOkay, let's go with your hypothesis regarding "inherent property of unperturbed social structures". It sounds plausible at a "high level". Is there upward mobility between the levels? How much resistance exists for upward mobility? Is there an impact through "the underlying political system" to this mobility? How much? If perturbation what helps to prevent sedimentation, you listed "wars, ecological catastrophes, and pandemics" which most of us consider negative, but also wrote "[s]uccessful technological innovations". What kind of innovations are you thinking here? Tubes to transistor, transistor to IC? horse to car, car to airplane? Do you have a quantitative definition of this successful innovation?
- stephc_int13 5y agoOr course, wars, volcanoes, drought and pandemics are considered negative, but if you look at the history, this kind of event is almost always followed by a period of redistribution, not by choice, but because the previous power structure was destroyed or weakened. When I think about technological innovation I think about agriculture, big ships, printing, electricity, engines, computers... I believe that technology is a more powerful driver of societal change than any political theories or religion.
- WaitWaitWha 5y agoWait, wait, are.. are you suggesting there should be sudden volcano in curtain places? ;)
- stephc_int13 5y agoAlso, I believe that there is no upward mobility without downward mobility. Again, I am not talking about money but power.
- stephc_int13 5y agoAs a side note, I think that VCs are not fueling innovations as much as protecting capital against it. Simple hedging strategy to compensate for the potential disruption.
- AbrahamParangi 5y agoI agree more generally. It is commonly understood that innovation causes disruption but I think it might be more correct to say that disruption causes innovation. Of course it still goes both ways and I think sustained technological revolutions are cases of fire causing its own wind.
- stephc_int13 5y agoLet's talk about two of the oldest and most transformative technologies ever invented: language and agriculture, were they cause or consequence of disruption?
- AbrahamParangi 5y agoHow would you know if they were the consequence?
- stephc_int13 5y agoThis is almost a philosophical question. My intuition is that creation and innovation is deeply embedded in the nature of our species. "Because we can"
- pmoriarty 5y ago"Some chaos is needed to prevent societies to become too unequal." Unfortunately, history has shown that radical change only leads to a shuffling around of wealth and power from one small set of pockets in to another small set of pockets (or sometimes just the same set of pockets under a new name). Opportunists and people who are good at accumulating wealth and power always manage to grab on to it, no matter what the circumstances are. You can shake things up all you want, but it just turns in to a struggle between such people to see who'll end up on top.
- stephc_int13 5y agoI agree, but temporary change is not chaos.