4 ms·

History will not remember us fondly (2021)

13 points by tentacleuno 3y ago

monsieurUK 3y ago
I don't have money
fleischhauf 3y ago
if it gets worse, we will be the good guys tho. it's also a matter of perspective. (not disagreeing with the articles points tho)
scandox 3y ago
I've always struggled with this. On the one hand I am hugely sympathetic to the feelings in this article. On the other hand I feel like it is intellectually incoherent. It presupposes some "system" - either unnamed or not yet existing - which will replace the current one and allow the kind of redistribution he is calling for to occur. It presents it like a simple choice we're just aggressively refusing to make. Whereas it seems to me, that it could just be far far worse, in some fairly obvious ways. I do think we have a huge problem with the current system starting to lose its traditional anchors, but that doesn't really address the fundamentals of what he is saying.
- jacknews 3y ago
  The point is we're not even trying to find such a better system, and there's constant pressure to strip away the checks and balances that make the current one even barely tolerable. A better system might not need 'redistribution' since it would not be structured in a way that allows (even encourages) billionaires, for example.
  - scandox 3y ago
    Well 8 billion people are not going to agree on anything. I suppose the question is whether such a system is or is not emerging. Maybe a breakdown in the current hegemony will bring about a global improvement? I mean in that sense the very event he is bemoaning (the storming of the Capitol) could literally signify the outcomes he is seeking.
huijzer 3y ago
This article paints a very negative picture. It might feel "safe" to always focus on the bad things, but optimists typically get more done. Would Torvalds ever have started working on the Linux kernel if he wasn't an enormous optimists? He says that he is an enormous optimist in [1]. Similarly, Robert Noyce (Intel cofounder) said: "an essential ingredient of innovation. How else can the individual welcome change over security, adventure over staying in safe places?" And if you take off the dark colored glasses, there are things to be optimistic about. For example, in response to the Freedom House picture. The world is a power law. Statistics about total numbers of countries paint only half the picture because some small dictatorial countries matters less than huge countries such as the USA or Germany with liberal democracies. Compared to the 1950's, for example, Japan and South Korea have become a friend of the West, which is a major win for everybody if you ask me. In general, I rather live in 2023 than 1990. Entertainment, healthcare, transportation, and availability of knowledge are all much better. Yes, some people end up using things they might regret later, but that doesn't hold for everybody. A more productive mindset, I think, is to pick some "bad" things and focus on trying to make those things a little bit better. It's the "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade". Yes, there are some real problems, but it's not all bad. Only chipping away at the problems will solve them. [1]: https://youtu.be/OvuEYtkOH88 https://youtu.be/OvuEYtkOH88
- jacknews 3y ago
  This makes no sense, and is actually quite patronizing. The author is not really being pessimistic, but simply saying the current system kinda sucks, as a big picture. It could be so much better (yes of course it could also be worse). Or more likely, a different system, focused on human flourishing rather than profit-uber-alles, could be so much better. That seems quite optimistic to me.
  - poisonborz 3y ago
    > It could be so much better At which point in human history will this not be true? I, too, tend to concentrate more on problems rather than what was achieved, but without that in hindsight you can be perpetually miserable for no reason.
  - 3y ago
stareatgoats 3y ago
> Today, we recall the Middle Ages as What "we" will or will not recall in the future is anyone's guess. Suffice to say that the collective "we" really doesn't exist: there are many people today that recall the Middle Ages fondly, and to think of a future "we" with a collective memory of the present is even more fraught with peril. Maybe that's hair-splitting to some extent, we are used to a single narrative forming of which we all are captive: "the victor writes the history" etc. But we can perhaps be allowed to wish that "we" in the future manage to escape from such tunnel vision, somehow.
- jwestbury 3y ago
  While I do I agree with you -- I studied English lit at university, have translated portions of Beowulf, can read Chaucer aloud in Middle English, and generally love all things medieval -- I also think that the general societal understanding of the middle ages is negative. And, in fact, I'd say that most students in the humanities -- i.e., those who generally study and care about history -- tend to view the past through the lens of the present, which often leads to negative perceptions even of reformers and progressives of their time. I recall several instances in my own classes -- now nearly 20 years ago, sigh -- when students criticised medieval writers for their racist/sexist/etc. views, even when the writers were notably forward-thinking. Chaucer, in particular, skewed the institutions of the time, and portrayed female characters of remarkable agency, but is often criticised by those who don't consider the context in which he lived. You can see this today with the founding fathers of the US, too -- wholesale castigation of slave owners, even those who were more modern in their thinking than the average politician of the time. What I think the author of the linked article really misunderstands is that our own mores and inclinations are not those of the past, nor are they those of the future. The people of early modern Europe looked down on the middle ages and viewed ancient Greece and Rome as Platonic ideals (pun somewhat intended), which is a view the author would probably disagree with, given the fact that most of Rome's history was, in fact, anti-democratic, and that Greece's "democracy" was far less egalitarian than even early America's. Perhaps future generations will see us as enlightened. You never know.
  - stareatgoats 3y ago

13 points by tentacleuno 3y ago

I don't have money

if it gets worse, we will be the good guys tho. it's also a matter of perspective. (not disagreeing with the articles points tho)

scandox 3y ago

I've always struggled with this. On the one hand I am hugely sympathetic to the feelings in this article. On the other hand I feel like it is intellectually incoherent. It presupposes some "system" - either unnamed or not yet existing - which will replace the current one and allow the kind of redistribution he is calling for to occur. It presents it like a simple choice we're just aggressively refusing to make. Whereas it seems to me, that it could just be far far worse, in some fairly obvious ways. I do think we have a huge problem with the current system starting to lose its traditional anchors, but that doesn't really address the fundamentals of what he is saying.

jacknews 3y ago
The point is we're not even trying to find such a better system, and there's constant pressure to strip away the checks and balances that make the current one even barely tolerable. A better system might not need 'redistribution' since it would not be structured in a way that allows (even encourages) billionaires, for example.
- scandox 3y ago
  Well 8 billion people are not going to agree on anything. I suppose the question is whether such a system is or is not emerging. Maybe a breakdown in the current hegemony will bring about a global improvement? I mean in that sense the very event he is bemoaning (the storming of the Capitol) could literally signify the outcomes he is seeking.

huijzer 3y ago

This article paints a very negative picture. It might feel "safe" to always focus on the bad things, but optimists typically get more done. Would Torvalds ever have started working on the Linux kernel if he wasn't an enormous optimists? He says that he is an enormous optimist in [1]. Similarly, Robert Noyce (Intel cofounder) said: "an essential ingredient of innovation. How else can the individual welcome change over security, adventure over staying in safe places?" And if you take off the dark colored glasses, there are things to be optimistic about. For example, in response to the Freedom House picture. The world is a power law. Statistics about total numbers of countries paint only half the picture because some small dictatorial countries matters less than huge countries such as the USA or Germany with liberal democracies. Compared to the 1950's, for example, Japan and South Korea have become a friend of the West, which is a major win for everybody if you ask me. In general, I rather live in 2023 than 1990. Entertainment, healthcare, transportation, and availability of knowledge are all much better. Yes, some people end up using things they might regret later, but that doesn't hold for everybody. A more productive mindset, I think, is to pick some "bad" things and focus on trying to make those things a little bit better. It's the "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade". Yes, there are some real problems, but it's not all bad. Only chipping away at the problems will solve them. [1]: https://youtu.be/OvuEYtkOH88 https://youtu.be/OvuEYtkOH88

jacknews 3y ago
This makes no sense, and is actually quite patronizing. The author is not really being pessimistic, but simply saying the current system kinda sucks, as a big picture. It could be so much better (yes of course it could also be worse). Or more likely, a different system, focused on human flourishing rather than profit-uber-alles, could be so much better. That seems quite optimistic to me.
- poisonborz 3y ago
  > It could be so much better At which point in human history will this not be true? I, too, tend to concentrate more on problems rather than what was achieved, but without that in hindsight you can be perpetually miserable for no reason.
- 3y ago

stareatgoats 3y ago

> Today, we recall the Middle Ages as What "we" will or will not recall in the future is anyone's guess. Suffice to say that the collective "we" really doesn't exist: there are many people today that recall the Middle Ages fondly, and to think of a future "we" with a collective memory of the present is even more fraught with peril. Maybe that's hair-splitting to some extent, we are used to a single narrative forming of which we all are captive: "the victor writes the history" etc. But we can perhaps be allowed to wish that "we" in the future manage to escape from such tunnel vision, somehow.

jwestbury 3y ago
While I do I agree with you -- I studied English lit at university, have translated portions of Beowulf, can read Chaucer aloud in Middle English, and generally love all things medieval -- I also think that the general societal understanding of the middle ages is negative. And, in fact, I'd say that most students in the humanities -- i.e., those who generally study and care about history -- tend to view the past through the lens of the present, which often leads to negative perceptions even of reformers and progressives of their time. I recall several instances in my own classes -- now nearly 20 years ago, sigh -- when students criticised medieval writers for their racist/sexist/etc. views, even when the writers were notably forward-thinking. Chaucer, in particular, skewed the institutions of the time, and portrayed female characters of remarkable agency, but is often criticised by those who don't consider the context in which he lived. You can see this today with the founding fathers of the US, too -- wholesale castigation of slave owners, even those who were more modern in their thinking than the average politician of the time. What I think the author of the linked article really misunderstands is that our own mores and inclinations are not those of the past, nor are they those of the future. The people of early modern Europe looked down on the middle ages and viewed ancient Greece and Rome as Platonic ideals (pun somewhat intended), which is a view the author would probably disagree with, given the fact that most of Rome's history was, in fact, anti-democratic, and that Greece's "democracy" was far less egalitarian than even early America's. Perhaps future generations will see us as enlightened. You never know.
- stareatgoats 3y ago