3 ms·

You've answered your own question. It is going to be a war. War is a great mallet which destroys most of the power structures and shuffles the cards a bit. But

by jq-r 5y ago

You've answered your own question. It is going to be a war. War is a great mallet which destroys most of the power structures and shuffles the cards a bit. But the price to pay is atrociously high. After the war everyone will swear "Never again!", but their children's children have no idea what that means, and have no problem going to war all over again.

wilkommen 5y ago
Yeah I guess. I hope not. I wonder throughout history, has there ever been a "ruling class" which starts to see that unless they cede a significant amount of power, there will be a war, and they will lose it, and thus they proactively decide to cede a sufficient amount of said power? I guess that's more or less the dream scenario. Cause then things get a lot better without a war. But they wouldn't even let Bernie Sanders get elected president. So it seems like we're pretty far off from such a scenario.
- leafmeal 5y ago
  Britain's move to representative democracy from a monarchy is somewhat of an example, although one could argue that power is still concentrated.
- NotSammyHagar 5y ago
  Bernie lost because he got less votes and supports in the primary, twice. "Dem party leaders" were against him but the voters decided. My vote in the primary went to him, but it wasn't "secret them" who stopped him, it was voters. "Many party leaders" were against Trump but he won the first time bc he got more votes.
IAmWorried 5y ago
I think that the elites of the various countries have too much in common at this point to allow a war to happen. They would sooner team up and move to Elysium and abandon all the rest of us on earth than allow for global destruction. I think this is the future TBH, the wealthy will more and more take things into their own hands a la superyachts, NZ properties, fortified compounds, etc. The middle classes and below will face the unwelcome prospect of gradually decaying social institutions and economies until society eventually just breaks, and the wealthy wait it out then come in to sweep up the ashes, ushering in a new, far less populated golden age of humanity.
- wilkommen 5y ago
  This possible outcome has occurred to me before, but it's hard to imagine a breaking of society which doesn't include the hunting-down of at least some of the rich. I don't know how they could truly escape the downfall.
treespace8 5y ago
I feel that nuclear weapons have made modern global war impossible. Because the powerful would not be able to escape the effects of such a conflict. So for the first time we must now work out our differences without war. This can't be a bad thing.
- webinvest 5y ago
  Maybe that’s why the billionaires are trying to hide in space.
s7r 5y ago
When I read this piece, I feel like a lot of these behaviors come back to rent-seeking. Here's a perspective on ways we might be able to transcend rent-seeking, to different ways of work: https://rebrand.ly/end-of-rent https://rebrand.ly/end-of-rent Jel imate neki contakt? Nisam Hrvat, ali tu sam u tvoj zemlju — mozda mozemo se naci? Tu imas moj informacije: https://github.com/sbutler-gh https://github.com/sbutler-gh

by jq-r 5y ago

wilkommen 5y ago

Yeah I guess. I hope not. I wonder throughout history, has there ever been a "ruling class" which starts to see that unless they cede a significant amount of power, there will be a war, and they will lose it, and thus they proactively decide to cede a sufficient amount of said power? I guess that's more or less the dream scenario. Cause then things get a lot better without a war. But they wouldn't even let Bernie Sanders get elected president. So it seems like we're pretty far off from such a scenario.

leafmeal 5y ago
Britain's move to representative democracy from a monarchy is somewhat of an example, although one could argue that power is still concentrated.
NotSammyHagar 5y ago
Bernie lost because he got less votes and supports in the primary, twice. "Dem party leaders" were against him but the voters decided. My vote in the primary went to him, but it wasn't "secret them" who stopped him, it was voters. "Many party leaders" were against Trump but he won the first time bc he got more votes.

IAmWorried 5y ago

I think that the elites of the various countries have too much in common at this point to allow a war to happen. They would sooner team up and move to Elysium and abandon all the rest of us on earth than allow for global destruction. I think this is the future TBH, the wealthy will more and more take things into their own hands a la superyachts, NZ properties, fortified compounds, etc. The middle classes and below will face the unwelcome prospect of gradually decaying social institutions and economies until society eventually just breaks, and the wealthy wait it out then come in to sweep up the ashes, ushering in a new, far less populated golden age of humanity.

wilkommen 5y ago
This possible outcome has occurred to me before, but it's hard to imagine a breaking of society which doesn't include the hunting-down of at least some of the rich. I don't know how they could truly escape the downfall.

treespace8 5y ago

I feel that nuclear weapons have made modern global war impossible. Because the powerful would not be able to escape the effects of such a conflict. So for the first time we must now work out our differences without war. This can't be a bad thing.

webinvest 5y ago
Maybe that’s why the billionaires are trying to hide in space.

s7r 5y ago

When I read this piece, I feel like a lot of these behaviors come back to rent-seeking. Here's a perspective on ways we might be able to transcend rent-seeking, to different ways of work: https://rebrand.ly/end-of-rent https://rebrand.ly/end-of-rent Jel imate neki contakt? Nisam Hrvat, ali tu sam u tvoj zemlju — mozda mozemo se naci? Tu imas moj informacije: https://github.com/sbutler-gh https://github.com/sbutler-gh