3 ms·

Is it particularly jarring to realize that central banks issuing a carbon-backed cryptocurrency will probably not save us from climate change?

abeppu 3y ago
I'm not familiar enough with international diplomacy or central banking for that to be the most jarring part. But, when the head of an international organization takes a week and a half to get to a meeting on the other side of the planet, and thinks that it's nicer to take a sequence of trains and sailing ships than it used to be to fly ... that seemed totally alien. When subsistence farmers were surprised by the large amount of money they were paid for getting more carbon into their soil, that seemed really implausible. When KSM glosses by how easy and quick it was to make giant wildlife corridors across North America, and talks about whole communities packing up and voluntarily abandoning towns to ceded those areas to nature ... that seemed wildly implausible. There were a lot of these moments for me, and while I get the people that use these as a criticism against the realism of the book, I also think that gap is a criticism against all of us.
kelseyfrog 3y ago
As much as the story centered around central banking machinations, the buried narrative was that a lot of people in power probably have to die. This realization and it's impossibility make the story a tragedy when compared to the real world.
- abeppu 3y ago
  Sorry, why is it an impossibility for people in power to die? I'm not advocating for violence, to be clear, and in the novel KSM seems to take the stance that at some point violence is really counter-productive. But certainly there have been places and periods in which e.g. targeted kidnappings of rich people, assassination attempts on politicians, and terrorist attacks against high-profile targets have all been around -- why do you think is it impossible for those to be directed at people in power in the future? Especially if there are progressively more climate victims, it seems like we're setting the stage for a generation of people to be ripe for radicalization.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    TMftF heavily hints and at times outright describes the existence of secretly funded UN blackops missions that target and assassinate people in power with strategic importance. It's been a few months since I read it, but if I can recall, it also described it's connection with ostensibly grassroots eco-activist/terrorists. Submarine accidents not withstanding, I'm not convinced the UN in our current timeline could be transformed into one that engages in this behavior.

abeppu 3y ago

I'm not familiar enough with international diplomacy or central banking for that to be the most jarring part. But, when the head of an international organization takes a week and a half to get to a meeting on the other side of the planet, and thinks that it's nicer to take a sequence of trains and sailing ships than it used to be to fly ... that seemed totally alien. When subsistence farmers were surprised by the large amount of money they were paid for getting more carbon into their soil, that seemed really implausible. When KSM glosses by how easy and quick it was to make giant wildlife corridors across North America, and talks about whole communities packing up and voluntarily abandoning towns to ceded those areas to nature ... that seemed wildly implausible. There were a lot of these moments for me, and while I get the people that use these as a criticism against the realism of the book, I also think that gap is a criticism against all of us.

kelseyfrog 3y ago

As much as the story centered around central banking machinations, the buried narrative was that a lot of people in power probably have to die. This realization and it's impossibility make the story a tragedy when compared to the real world.

abeppu 3y ago
Sorry, why is it an impossibility for people in power to die? I'm not advocating for violence, to be clear, and in the novel KSM seems to take the stance that at some point violence is really counter-productive. But certainly there have been places and periods in which e.g. targeted kidnappings of rich people, assassination attempts on politicians, and terrorist attacks against high-profile targets have all been around -- why do you think is it impossible for those to be directed at people in power in the future? Especially if there are progressively more climate victims, it seems like we're setting the stage for a generation of people to be ripe for radicalization.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  TMftF heavily hints and at times outright describes the existence of secretly funded UN blackops missions that target and assassinate people in power with strategic importance. It's been a few months since I read it, but if I can recall, it also described it's connection with ostensibly grassroots eco-activist/terrorists. Submarine accidents not withstanding, I'm not convinced the UN in our current timeline could be transformed into one that engages in this behavior.