The following post by MarcBago is being replicated because the post has been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/r/ Bitcoin/comments/bwf3yt
The original post's content was as follows:
Bitcoin, trade wars, nuclear war, off-grid living and Ted Kaczynski
I saw a post on here earlier asking if the trade war with China is good news for bitcoin.
Which got me thinking- would war be good news for bitcoin?
What about nuclear war?
Expected answer: cashing out your bitcoins would be the last of your problems during nuclear war.
Which I agree with. But I have a soft spot in my heart for off-grid lifestyles and an anti-tech revolution as imagined by Ted Kaczynski. His latest book released in 2016 I believe, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why & How (pdf is available free online) was a fascinating read, I read it front to back 3+ times in a row after first coming across it.
Kaczynaki takes a look at revolutions throughout history and the social sciences generally (which he rightfully observes is nowhere remotely like the hard sciences) in this book, and one thing he concludes is that human affairs are unpredictable and society cannot be designed and there will sooner or later be catastrophic failure of the industrial technological system we are living in.
You know what, how about I paste a snippet here for y’all to digest and share your thoughts about-
https://we.riseup.net/assets/389236/Kaczynski+Anti-Tech+Revolution+Why+and+How.pdf
CHAPTER ONE
The Development ofa Society Can Never Be Subject to Rational Human Control
I. In specific contexts in which abundant empirical evidence is available, fairly reliable short-term prediction and control of a society's behavior may be possible. For example, economists can predict some ofthe immediate consequences for a modern industrial society of a rise or a fall in the interest rates. Hence, by raising or lowering interest rates they can manipulate such variables as the levels ofinflation and ofunemployment.3 Indirect consequences are harder to predict, and prediction of the conse quences of more elaborate financial manipulations is largely guesswork. That's why the economic policies ofthe U.S. government are subject to so much controversy: No one knows for certain what the consequences of those policies really are. Outside of contexts in which abundant empirical evidence is avail able, or when longer-term effects are at issue, successful prediction-and therefore successful management of a society's development-is far more difficult. In fact, failure is the norm.
• During the first half of the second century BC, sumptuary laws (laws intended to limit conspicuous consumption) were enacted in an effort to forestall the incipient decadence of Roman society. As is usual with sump tuary laws, these failed to have the desired effect, and the decay of Roman mores continued unchecked.4 By the early first century BC, Rome had become politically unstable. With the help ofsoldiers under his command, Lucius Cornelius Sulla seized control of the city, physically exterminated the opposition, and carried out a comprehensive program ofreform that was intended to restore stable government. But Sulla's intervention only made the situation worse, because he had killed offthe "defenders oflawful government" and had filled the Senate with unscrupulous men "whose tra dition was the opposite ofthat sense ofmission and public service that had animated the best of the aristocracy."5 Consequently the Roman political system continued to unravel, and by the middle of the first century BC Rome's traditional republican government was essentially defunct.
• In Italy during the 9th century AD certain kings promulgated laws intended to limit the oppression and exploitation of peasants by the aristocracy. "The laws proved futile, however, and aristocratic landowning and political dominance continued to grow."6
• Simon Bolivar was the principal leader ofthe revolutions through which Spain's American colonies achieved their independence. He had hoped and expected to establish stable and "enlightened" government throughout Spanish America, but he made so little progress toward that objective that he wrote in bitterness shortly before his death in 1830: "He who serves a revolution plows the sea." Bolivar went on to predict that Spanish America would "infallibly fall into the hands ofthe unrestrained multitude to pass afterward to those of. . . petty tyrants of all races and colors . . . [We will be] devoured by all crimes and extinguished by ferocity [so that] the Europeans will not deign to conquer us. . . ."7 Allowing for a good deal of exaggeration attributable to the emotion under which Bolivar wrote, this prediction held (roughly) true for a century and a half after his death. But notice that Bolivar did not arrive at this prediction until too late; and that it was a very general prediction that asserted nothing specific.
• In the United States during the late 19th century there were worker-housing projects sponsored by a number ofindividual philan thropists and housing reformers. Their objective was to show that efforts to improve the living conditions ofworkers could be combined with... profits of5 percent annually. ... Reformers believed that the model dwellings would set a stan dard that other landlords would be forced to meet. . . mostly because of the workings of competition. Unfortunately, this solution to the housing problem did not take hold. . . . The great mass ofurban work ers. . . were crowded into. . . tenements that operated solely for profit.8 It is not apparent that there has been any progress over the centuries in the capacity of humans to guide the development of their societies. Relatively recent (post-1950) efforts in this direction may seem superficially to be more sophisticated than those ofearlier times, but they do not appear to be more successful.
• The social reform programs ofthe mid-1960s in the United States, spearheaded by President Lyndon Johnson, revealed that beliefs about the causes and cures of such social problems as crime, drug abuse, poverty, and slums had little validity. For example, according to one disappointed reformer: Once upon a time we thought that ifwe could only get our problem families out of those dreadful slums, then papa would stop taking dope, mama would stop chasing around, and junior would stop car rying a knife. Well, we've got them in a nice new apartment with modern kitchens and a recreation center. And they're the same bunch of bastards they always were.9 This doesn't mean that all ofthe reform programs were total fail ures, but the general level of success was so low as to indicate that the reformers did not understand the workings of society well enough to know what should be done to solve the social problems that they addressed. Where they achieved some modest level of success they probably did so mainly through luck.
One could go on and on citing examples like the foregoing ones. One could also cite many examples ofefforts to control the development ofsocieties in which the immediate goals ofthe efforts have been achieved. But in such cases the longer-term consequences for society as a whole have not been what the reformers or revolutionaries have expected or desired.11
10 ANTI-TECH REVOLUTION • The legislation of the Athenian statesman Solon (6th century BC) was intended to abolish hektemorage (roughly equivalent to serfdom) in Attica while allowing the aristocracy to retain most of its wealth and privilege. In this respect the legislation was successful. But it also had unexpected consequences that Solon surely would not have approved. The liberationofthe"serfs"resultedinalaborshortagethatledtheAtheniansto purchase or capture numerous slaves from outside Attica, so that Athens was transformed into a slave society. Another indirect consequence of Solon's legislation was the Peisistratid "tyranny" (populist dictatorship) that ruled Athens during a substantial part of the 6th century BC.12 • Otto von Bismarck, one of the most brilliant statesmen in European history, had an impressive list ofsuccesses to his credit. Among other things: -He achieved the unification ofGermany in 1867-1871. -He engineered the Franco-Prussian war of1870-71, but his suc- cessful efforts for peace thereafter earned him the respect of European leaders. -He successfully promoted the industrialization of Germany. -By such means he won for the monarchy the support ofthe middle class. -Thus Bismarck achieved his most important objective: He pre vented (temporarily) the democratization of Germany. -Though Bismarckwas forced to resign in 1890, the political struc ture he had established for Germany lasted until 1918, when it was brought down by the German defeat in World War 1.13 Notwithstanding his remarkable successes Bismarck felt that he had failed, and in 1898 he died an embittered old man.14 Clearly, Germany was not going the way he had intended. Probably it was the resumption of Germany's slow drift toward democratization that angered him most. But his bitterness would have been deeper ifhe had foreseen the future. One can only speculate as to what the history ofGermany might have been after 1890 if Bismarck hadn't led the country up to that date, but it is certain that he did not succeed in putting Germany on a course leading to results ofwhich he would have approved; for Bismarck would have been horrified by the disastrous war of 1914-18, by Germany's defeat in it, and above all by the subsequent rise ofAdolfHitler. • In the United States, reformers' zeal led to the enactment in 1919 of"Prohibition" (prohibition ofthe manufacture, sale, or transportation
CHAPTER ONE: PART I 11 of alcoholic beverages) as a constitutional amendment. Prohibition was partl...
No comments:
Post a Comment