4 ms·

Theres a theory that the black plague led to the enlightenment. The landed monopolistic rich had their foot on the necks of the poor for so long during the dar

Theres a theory that the black plague led to the enlightenment. The landed monopolistic rich had their foot on the necks of the poor for so long during the dark ages that when 50% of all people were killed it actually allowed new opportunities to arise and new people in nepotistic positions and the economy to flow again. This allowed a flourishing middle class to arise again, which gives more people free time to use however they want. It's also theorized that WW2 had the same effect on the middle/lower class prosperity for almost a century. Growing up in the '90s it was super easy to get a cheap apartment and a job as a waiter and just play in a band or write a book or work on some passion project. This also allowed huge groups of people to congregate in the same spot to develop crazy subcultures for their passions (i.e. grunge, cbgbs, Hollywood, etc ) Now were losing that middle class edge and everything being so expensive the friction to do any sort of risky activity makes it almost impossible unless your parents are already rich. I personally think that when you take away the ability for people to explore their passions because they're working two jobs to survive it removes culture and takes potential genius out of the human race. I wonder if this is the beginning of regressing to some sort of human mean of massive inequality that won't be broken again until another war, revolution, or plague. That's the cynical economic take. There could be other reasons as well, like maybe we're too comfortable.

akmarinov 3y ago
WW2 was amazing for women’s rights
- euroderf 3y ago
  Well, that was the theory. Rosie the Riveter and all that. But after the war, the old ways got back in the saddle. Same thing happened in the USSR. Wartime needs brought women into the industrial workplace; peace sent them back into the kitchen. So to speak.
- nerdchum 3y ago
  it arguably paved the way for financial justice so that social justice could then follow. 1 million American men died so it wasnt awesome for men's rights
Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
But think of the landed aristocracy before the plague, or the rich in the US before WW2. They had things locked in hard and life was sweet. We're seeing that now with the current classes of the super rich. They are getting stuff locked in and life is absolutely amazing for them. What right does 99.9% of the people have to anything if it even remotely threatens their sweet sweet life?
- nerdchum 3y ago
  I get your sarcasm and it was funny. The sad cynical part is if you think throughout all of human history, the rich have had their foot on the neck of the poor for almost all of it except for a few bright spots here and there.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    This is true, and what's sadly also true is that the rich have always believed they were justified in having their foot on the neck on the poor. These reasons have changed over time, from 'divine right', to 'for their own good', to more recently because 'rich people will make better use of the wealth' (e.g. effective altruism).
doryWalnut 3y ago
[dead]
rektide 3y ago
Having some slack for actual culture & personal development is indeed in my view too the differentiator between an alive & vibrant world and a sad static deadening one. Well argued, thanks a dozen!
snapplebobapple 3y ago
I think you kind of have this turned on its head in that exploring passions is a natural outcome of our current labor productivity when the actual thing that is the problem is under control rather than out of control and that is abusing market power for rent seeking purposes. Housing costs have gotten out of control because people who own houses lobby for regulatory changes that increase the value of their assets and this is just one small subset of the regulatory rent seeking abuse going on today making it expensive to live even though labor productivity is very high. Same thing with the black death in the middle ages. Killing a huge portion of the population while leaving almost all the capital in tact made labor valuable and capital cheap and labor used their new ascendence to roll back some of the most heinous abuses of the pre black death era. With the new found rights labor had a higher chance of keeping the proceeds from innovation they came up with and so innovation ensued. Same thing with post WWII. In this case the old world was completely crushed putting humanity on a more equal level than it has probably ever been and this combined with post enlightenment thinking on equality, human rights and American Libertarianism to let a whole new batch of billionaires grow out of providing services to humanity that were in demand (who then invested in rent seeking themselves putting us where we are today).
- nerdchum 3y ago
  Yeah I'm not sure exactly how it works but I could definitely see an increase in value of labor providing more financial resources to a huge swath of people which allow them to influence the business sphere with their own ideas. Nowadays there's pretty significant monopolistic capture providing the illusion of choice in most markets, food, telecom, tech, etc. There's no breaking this stuff up without some major change in the foundation of society. https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fae94534b-3005-4331-9468-304f2d22abe7_800x771.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...
  - snapplebobapple 3y ago
    It actually wouldn't take much. They were effectively doing this prior to the supreme court swinging far to far to the laissez faire attitude on market power in the 1970's through now. We wouldn't even need to swing back very far to start breaking the monopolists up.
roncesvalles 3y ago
Not only art but also in science. I've noticed that people are averse to pursuing careers in higher academia, especially in niche subjects (in 2023 this means anything other than ML) unless they're from a privileged and financially stable family background. Everyone's just going straight for the money.
Ferret7446 3y ago
From that theory, it sounds your conclusion is wrong: > I personally think that when you take away the ability for people to explore their passions because they're working two jobs to survive it removes culture and takes potential genius out of the human race. Simply, there is too many people. Thus, the events cited in the theory revitalized humanity by culling the population. It's not the most comfortable theory, but reality is not comfortable.
- nerdchum 3y ago
  Not so sure. I used to think that until I drove across the United States. There are vast swaths of habitable land. "too many people" in what way?
  - nerdchum 3y ago
    As a follow-up, there's absolutely too many people in India and China because for whatever reason they keep having massive amounts of kids despite poverty and limited space and then they try to immigrate to other countries... But in America where population controls a little more responsible we have plenty of space for our population.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

akmarinov 3y ago

WW2 was amazing for women’s rights

euroderf 3y ago
Well, that was the theory. Rosie the Riveter and all that. But after the war, the old ways got back in the saddle. Same thing happened in the USSR. Wartime needs brought women into the industrial workplace; peace sent them back into the kitchen. So to speak.
nerdchum 3y ago
it arguably paved the way for financial justice so that social justice could then follow. 1 million American men died so it wasnt awesome for men's rights

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago

But think of the landed aristocracy before the plague, or the rich in the US before WW2. They had things locked in hard and life was sweet. We're seeing that now with the current classes of the super rich. They are getting stuff locked in and life is absolutely amazing for them. What right does 99.9% of the people have to anything if it even remotely threatens their sweet sweet life?

nerdchum 3y ago
I get your sarcasm and it was funny. The sad cynical part is if you think throughout all of human history, the rich have had their foot on the neck of the poor for almost all of it except for a few bright spots here and there.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  This is true, and what's sadly also true is that the rich have always believed they were justified in having their foot on the neck on the poor. These reasons have changed over time, from 'divine right', to 'for their own good', to more recently because 'rich people will make better use of the wealth' (e.g. effective altruism).

doryWalnut 3y ago

[dead]

rektide 3y ago

Having some slack for actual culture & personal development is indeed in my view too the differentiator between an alive & vibrant world and a sad static deadening one. Well argued, thanks a dozen!

snapplebobapple 3y ago

I think you kind of have this turned on its head in that exploring passions is a natural outcome of our current labor productivity when the actual thing that is the problem is under control rather than out of control and that is abusing market power for rent seeking purposes. Housing costs have gotten out of control because people who own houses lobby for regulatory changes that increase the value of their assets and this is just one small subset of the regulatory rent seeking abuse going on today making it expensive to live even though labor productivity is very high. Same thing with the black death in the middle ages. Killing a huge portion of the population while leaving almost all the capital in tact made labor valuable and capital cheap and labor used their new ascendence to roll back some of the most heinous abuses of the pre black death era. With the new found rights labor had a higher chance of keeping the proceeds from innovation they came up with and so innovation ensued. Same thing with post WWII. In this case the old world was completely crushed putting humanity on a more equal level than it has probably ever been and this combined with post enlightenment thinking on equality, human rights and American Libertarianism to let a whole new batch of billionaires grow out of providing services to humanity that were in demand (who then invested in rent seeking themselves putting us where we are today).

nerdchum 3y ago
Yeah I'm not sure exactly how it works but I could definitely see an increase in value of labor providing more financial resources to a huge swath of people which allow them to influence the business sphere with their own ideas. Nowadays there's pretty significant monopolistic capture providing the illusion of choice in most markets, food, telecom, tech, etc. There's no breaking this stuff up without some major change in the foundation of society. https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fae94534b-3005-4331-9468-304f2d22abe7_800x771.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  It actually wouldn't take much. They were effectively doing this prior to the supreme court swinging far to far to the laissez faire attitude on market power in the 1970's through now. We wouldn't even need to swing back very far to start breaking the monopolists up.

roncesvalles 3y ago

Not only art but also in science. I've noticed that people are averse to pursuing careers in higher academia, especially in niche subjects (in 2023 this means anything other than ML) unless they're from a privileged and financially stable family background. Everyone's just going straight for the money.

Ferret7446 3y ago

From that theory, it sounds your conclusion is wrong: > I personally think that when you take away the ability for people to explore their passions because they're working two jobs to survive it removes culture and takes potential genius out of the human race. Simply, there is too many people. Thus, the events cited in the theory revitalized humanity by culling the population. It's not the most comfortable theory, but reality is not comfortable.

nerdchum 3y ago
Not so sure. I used to think that until I drove across the United States. There are vast swaths of habitable land. "too many people" in what way?
- nerdchum 3y ago
  As a follow-up, there's absolutely too many people in India and China because for whatever reason they keep having massive amounts of kids despite poverty and limited space and then they try to immigrate to other countries... But in America where population controls a little more responsible we have plenty of space for our population.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]