4 ms·

Climbing the Kardashev scale is the only interesting problem right now, and making that contingent on everyone stopping and listening to political "system theor

Climbing the Kardashev scale is the only interesting problem right now, and making that contingent on everyone stopping and listening to political "system theorists" as a substitute for human desire is nonsense. TL;DR Total human emancipation is only possible if all humans submit to our omnipotent system. I'm so tired of these people. It's like selling frameworks and management systems where all you have to do is suspend your disbelief, internalize the system of the ideology, and it promises everything. Harari at the WEF is the same kind of misleading doomer. To me these people are just itinerant mesmerists. Any plan, future, or technology that requires accepting the counterfactual where there is no alternative to it is necessarily both wrong and misleading. It begins with a finite, materialistic, zero-sum ontology, and ends with a power struggle over only symbolically scarce resources. I'm glad their ideas are part of the discourse because they need sunlight, as this thinking is what is behind a lot of oppressive government policy and it's important to understand it imo.

zenapollo 2y ago
Totally agree there’s something unnerving about these utopic systems pushers. However, there’s a strong argument to be made to to the question, what does our socio-politico-economic system look like if we leave it “un-designed” and let it grow in its natural direction? To which the answer is royal-subject-feudalism. We’re seeing the decline of constitutional democracies before our eyes. Was it a grand experiment that will give way to the lazier solution to human order? Feudalism is the multi-polar trap we snap back to when the serfs don’t actively put energy into a better system. Maybe some would say fine to that. Because nowadays the serfs could have laptops and nice houses. And the freedoms that you would have limited by your rulers would be minimal. But even so, the idea that sliding back into feudalism would defer a path to more decentralized sovereignty seems obvious.
snapplebobapple 2y ago
utopians ignore the massive anticorruption effects of many small, competing factions then are routinely surprised when they turn it into a monopoly of their utopian idea that it immediately gets corrupted and coopted, usually by a strong man from their own ranks. Then they claim it wasn't real utopia and try to bring about the utopia again until the above happens again. it is basically the song that doesn't end except instead of being annoying it kills millions each repetition,

zenapollo 2y ago

Totally agree there’s something unnerving about these utopic systems pushers. However, there’s a strong argument to be made to to the question, what does our socio-politico-economic system look like if we leave it “un-designed” and let it grow in its natural direction? To which the answer is royal-subject-feudalism. We’re seeing the decline of constitutional democracies before our eyes. Was it a grand experiment that will give way to the lazier solution to human order? Feudalism is the multi-polar trap we snap back to when the serfs don’t actively put energy into a better system. Maybe some would say fine to that. Because nowadays the serfs could have laptops and nice houses. And the freedoms that you would have limited by your rulers would be minimal. But even so, the idea that sliding back into feudalism would defer a path to more decentralized sovereignty seems obvious.

snapplebobapple 2y ago

utopians ignore the massive anticorruption effects of many small, competing factions then are routinely surprised when they turn it into a monopoly of their utopian idea that it immediately gets corrupted and coopted, usually by a strong man from their own ranks. Then they claim it wasn't real utopia and try to bring about the utopia again until the above happens again. it is basically the song that doesn't end except instead of being annoying it kills millions each repetition,