3 ms·

> That and nukes. Yeah, good point. But I can absolutely envision - without much difficulty - a megatons-to-megawatts motion swiftly bringing an end to this p

by jMyles 5y ago

> That and nukes. Yeah, good point. But I can absolutely envision - without much difficulty - a megatons-to-megawatts motion swiftly bringing an end to this period in Earth's history. And more generally: maintenance of arsenals of weapons of mass destruction is _very_ costly. Economics of energy production and storage are perhaps a viable mechanism to add pressure in favor of disarmament. > (Why do we have 5 carrier battle groups? Why does Britain only have one? Why does Russia have a single carrier that's in rather poor repair?) We can also summarize questions of stagnant geopolitical asymmetry this way: How long will the internet abide states as nodes of economic and social standing? Trying to shoehorn a previous world order into an information age society seems like a colossal waste of time in service of nostalgia.

all2 5y ago
> nostalgia. Nostalgia does not guarantee me personal autonomy. Neither does it guarantee me a right to self defense. Nor does it guarantee a free practice of religion, free press, or a right of association. Ensuring the survival of a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution will guarantee those things. > How long will the internet abide states as nodes of economic and social standing? Take a look at China and their authoritarian take on "the internet". "The internet", that is the masses that make it up, do what they're told, consume what they are allowed to consume, demonize those they are told they should demonize. Goebbels would be jealous of the machine the modern world has developed.
- jMyles 5y ago
  > Nostalgia does not guarantee me personal autonomy. Neither does it guarantee me a right to self defense. Nor does it guarantee a free practice of religion, free press, or a right of association. > Ensuring the survival of a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution will guarantee those things. This is _precisely_ the uncultured nostalgia I'm suggesting is unworthy of our defenses. I absolutely support your right to bear arms in your defense. To be free in your religious exercise and associations and speech and press, and in the security of your effects against intrusion. But the US is not, as you say, a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution in any broad and universal sense. We have two million people living in cages. Five million more living under supervision of a system of slavery rebranded as carceral rehabilitation. Drugs and medicines and sacraments subject to capricious regulation at best, and often outright prohibition. Fiat currency. Arms which are practical as tools of self-defense unavailable to a quarter of the population. And I'm not sure that anybody other than (some) white men have _ever_ had these things securely in their civic possession. So the question is: _can_ a state be the bearer of insurance for these things? Especially now? Why can't we protect each other? Engage in commerce regulated (which is to say, made regular) by the internet alone? I have no idea what the benefits are of the continued existence of the US State, but the downsides are absolutely evident and very real on a daily basis. > Take a look at China and their authoritarian take on "the internet". I take your point, absolutely. But doesn't China and the Great Firewall also provide us with an example of failure of authoritarian tendencies as they apply to the internet? May 35th lives on largely as an internet meme. The official truth may dominate in circles where it can be violently maintained, but those shrink in the face of connectivity, no?
  - all2 5y ago
    You've hit the nail squarely in your comment. The US is hideously broken. Notice I said "a nation state that adheres to the US constitution". I am not unaware of the failures of the United States, its abuses of power, and the hideous humanity expressed by its elite class (pedophilia, child sacrifice, etc.). > _can_ a state be the bearer of insurance for these things? Yes, but it requires the governors of the state to be moral. The peoples of the US have completely failed in passing moral ideologies to their children and grand-children. This moral failure has led to every disintegration of orderly running in the bureaucracy of the US and its states. If the pieces (the people) are immoral, so is the machine. > And I'm not sure that anybody other than (some) white men have _ever_ had these things securely in their civic possession. We pretend the opportunity is still to be had. But taxes and inflation steal most of the commoner's earnings. Taxes and inflation see to it that wealth (not necessarily dollars) flows to the elite class. Regulations ensure no one can fight the loss of wealth.
RobRivera 5y ago
I think people may sometimes forget thag, so far as 95% of the population goes, the internet is still a communication and commerce channels, with endpoints in meatspace. some endpoints are in liberal democracy, some in totalitarian regime. to overthrow the latter you need revolution or nationstate interference. Policy change-politik-is a function of political will and political efficacy. the internet is just an information conduit, end of day
joconde 5y ago
> I can absolutely envision - without much difficulty - a megatons-to-megawatts motion swiftly bringing an end to this period in Earth's history. I can't figure out if you're talking about a nuclear war changing the world, or a nuclear disarmament process that somehow also leads to energy production.
- PontifexMinimus 5y ago
  I found the rest of jMyles' comment equally baffling. My advise to people is to talk as simply and clearly as you can.
- jMyles 5y ago
  > I can't figure out if you're talking about a nuclear war changing the world, or a nuclear disarmament process that somehow also leads to energy production. My apologies - the latter.
dotnet00 5y ago
I think you're forgetting that the only thing the internet does is make communication easy. The material realities of where we live, our cultures and belief systems determine how we split into groups like countries. So while the internet certainly enables us to be more connected as a species, it doesn't eliminate what makes having nations a valuable construct for human societies. As long as our physical environment matters, nations or similar constructs will be around.

by jMyles 5y ago

all2 5y ago

> nostalgia. Nostalgia does not guarantee me personal autonomy. Neither does it guarantee me a right to self defense. Nor does it guarantee a free practice of religion, free press, or a right of association. Ensuring the survival of a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution will guarantee those things. > How long will the internet abide states as nodes of economic and social standing? Take a look at China and their authoritarian take on "the internet". "The internet", that is the masses that make it up, do what they're told, consume what they are allowed to consume, demonize those they are told they should demonize. Goebbels would be jealous of the machine the modern world has developed.

jMyles 5y ago
> Nostalgia does not guarantee me personal autonomy. Neither does it guarantee me a right to self defense. Nor does it guarantee a free practice of religion, free press, or a right of association. > Ensuring the survival of a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution will guarantee those things. This is _precisely_ the uncultured nostalgia I'm suggesting is unworthy of our defenses. I absolutely support your right to bear arms in your defense. To be free in your religious exercise and associations and speech and press, and in the security of your effects against intrusion. But the US is not, as you say, a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution in any broad and universal sense. We have two million people living in cages. Five million more living under supervision of a system of slavery rebranded as carceral rehabilitation. Drugs and medicines and sacraments subject to capricious regulation at best, and often outright prohibition. Fiat currency. Arms which are practical as tools of self-defense unavailable to a quarter of the population. And I'm not sure that anybody other than (some) white men have _ever_ had these things securely in their civic possession. So the question is: _can_ a state be the bearer of insurance for these things? Especially now? Why can't we protect each other? Engage in commerce regulated (which is to say, made regular) by the internet alone? I have no idea what the benefits are of the continued existence of the US State, but the downsides are absolutely evident and very real on a daily basis. > Take a look at China and their authoritarian take on "the internet". I take your point, absolutely. But doesn't China and the Great Firewall also provide us with an example of failure of authoritarian tendencies as they apply to the internet? May 35th lives on largely as an internet meme. The official truth may dominate in circles where it can be violently maintained, but those shrink in the face of connectivity, no?
- all2 5y ago
  You've hit the nail squarely in your comment. The US is hideously broken. Notice I said "a nation state that adheres to the US constitution". I am not unaware of the failures of the United States, its abuses of power, and the hideous humanity expressed by its elite class (pedophilia, child sacrifice, etc.). > _can_ a state be the bearer of insurance for these things? Yes, but it requires the governors of the state to be moral. The peoples of the US have completely failed in passing moral ideologies to their children and grand-children. This moral failure has led to every disintegration of orderly running in the bureaucracy of the US and its states. If the pieces (the people) are immoral, so is the machine. > And I'm not sure that anybody other than (some) white men have _ever_ had these things securely in their civic possession. We pretend the opportunity is still to be had. But taxes and inflation steal most of the commoner's earnings. Taxes and inflation see to it that wealth (not necessarily dollars) flows to the elite class. Regulations ensure no one can fight the loss of wealth.

RobRivera 5y ago

I think people may sometimes forget thag, so far as 95% of the population goes, the internet is still a communication and commerce channels, with endpoints in meatspace. some endpoints are in liberal democracy, some in totalitarian regime. to overthrow the latter you need revolution or nationstate interference. Policy change-politik-is a function of political will and political efficacy. the internet is just an information conduit, end of day

joconde 5y ago

> I can absolutely envision - without much difficulty - a megatons-to-megawatts motion swiftly bringing an end to this period in Earth's history. I can't figure out if you're talking about a nuclear war changing the world, or a nuclear disarmament process that somehow also leads to energy production.

PontifexMinimus 5y ago
I found the rest of jMyles' comment equally baffling. My advise to people is to talk as simply and clearly as you can.
jMyles 5y ago
> I can't figure out if you're talking about a nuclear war changing the world, or a nuclear disarmament process that somehow also leads to energy production. My apologies - the latter.

dotnet00 5y ago

I think you're forgetting that the only thing the internet does is make communication easy. The material realities of where we live, our cultures and belief systems determine how we split into groups like countries. So while the internet certainly enables us to be more connected as a species, it doesn't eliminate what makes having nations a valuable construct for human societies. As long as our physical environment matters, nations or similar constructs will be around.