4 ms·

> I think you're romanticizing the present. You might be right, actually. Common bias eh? But I suggest we look at it practically. > Would I prefer to live no

> I think you're romanticizing the present. You might be right, actually. Common bias eh? But I suggest we look at it practically. > Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. How do you suppose that technology came about? I don't wish to trivialize this, but I'm convinced systems of government and levels of technology have a very strong connection. Maybe we just need to agree to disagree on that. > It's a fantasy to believe the ruling class are not in an eternal struggle to take more, or that they have ever only restrained themselves due to the threat of revolt. I did not proclaim otherwise. Elite assholes are exactly the same. It's just that they are less capable of actualizing it now. In my experience they lack the privileges they used to have. Sure, they are rich and fuck you over, but that doesn't come close to what they were able to do in the past. I am only interested in results, nothing else. Human souls are as murky as they ever were and maybe it's worse now. I don't know about that. > You're trying to make it an all or nothing thing, but it's not. I'm sorry, maybe I did come across like that indeed. I meant to imply that whatever is between cockroach and omnipotent, it is more now, not less. Cockroaches these days have way more power than they ever did. > And what does "winning" mean? It's not just money. This could also mean forcing them to change course. We had something called "Urgenda" that took our gov to court (and won). In this case our government was blamed for doing too little about climate change and they had to adapt. There were also cases that for example challenged governmental oversight.

throwawaylinux 3y ago
> How do you suppose that technology came about? By people, inventors, creatives, entrepreneurs, explorers. Certainly not government or bureaucracy. Many of the most incredible inventions, discoveries, and creative works came about under governments that were not free or democratic. I'm sure some amount of government is needed for a society to keep running. I have seen no evidence that it is what gives rise to technology and production rather than the other way around, or that bigger, costlier, more complicated, and more imposing is always better. [snip] > It's not just money. This could also mean forcing them to change course. We had something called "Urgenda" that took our gov to court (and won). In this case our government was blamed for doing too little about climate change and they had to adapt. There were also cases that for example challenged governmental oversight. These are trifles. Corporations are all "on board" with climate change now. Petroleum profiteers have ESG scores. As far as the government is concerned, "doing more about climate change" means nothing for the people involved beyond making the commoners pay more for their food and energy.

throwawaylinux 3y ago

> How do you suppose that technology came about? By people, inventors, creatives, entrepreneurs, explorers. Certainly not government or bureaucracy. Many of the most incredible inventions, discoveries, and creative works came about under governments that were not free or democratic. I'm sure some amount of government is needed for a society to keep running. I have seen no evidence that it is what gives rise to technology and production rather than the other way around, or that bigger, costlier, more complicated, and more imposing is always better. [snip] > It's not just money. This could also mean forcing them to change course. We had something called "Urgenda" that took our gov to court (and won). In this case our government was blamed for doing too little about climate change and they had to adapt. There were also cases that for example challenged governmental oversight. These are trifles. Corporations are all "on board" with climate change now. Petroleum profiteers have ESG scores. As far as the government is concerned, "doing more about climate change" means nothing for the people involved beyond making the commoners pay more for their food and energy.