Nostr Web Client

sir, I basically wrote your exact words, almost ipsi literis. they won’t. and not only due to adaptation, but also religion or simply fear. ofc, there’ll be the ones who can barely wait for singularity or whatever, but sarah o’connor is on her way. I made sure to use “post” and not “neo” cause there was already a neoluddism movement on 60’s, guided by ted unabomber. it’s gonna be way worse now, it’s global not local as the two previous.

Mike Brock 2y ago

Yeah. I mean, I hope I'm wrong. Who doesn't want to live in utopia? I want that for my kids and myself. But all the knowledge of accumulated on human nature and human group dynamics points me towards believing there's quite a bit of trouble ahead, socially and politically.

It's one of the reasons thoroughly unconvinced by books like the Sovereign Individual and more recently, Balaji's Network State.

These frameworks for future society are built atop axioms and assumptions of the human condition that I do not believe map onto reality.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

mark tyler 2y ago

Do you think those axioms also break the appeal of bitcoin

mark tyler 2y ago

Rather, that the now broken and currently breaking assumptions also take with them bitcoin

Mike Brock 2y ago

No. I think Bitcoin can and will be successful. But it's not going to shape the world into an anarcho-capitalist utopia like many think, where society has brushed off all non-voluntary power structures. That's a political fairy tale.

rejon 2y ago

💯

mark tyler 2y ago

This is assuming the luddites (and I usually think they will also be socialist as well to resist resource centralization toward the winners of AI) are a minority, not the voting majority, right?

Mike Brock 2y ago

I wouldn't use the term "socialist", since that involves implications for economic production modes. But I think the vast majority of people have some degree of innate collectivist impulse. I think libertarians and anarchists are incorrect in believing the default human impulse is more closer to egoism.

The mere existence of populist movements, and their tendency to rise, both in democratic and non-democratic contexts, would appear to represent a significant empirical challenge to any assumption to the contrary.

ish4k 2y ago

I think both are quite reconcilable, actually, egoistic impulse and collective impulse, as even collective feelings can manifest themselves in different ways in individuals. crowds are capable of committing atrocities that the individual alone would not be capable of. it's the difference between the quantum leap that takes place in a football stadium and the one that takes place between the four walls of a room on a shrooms trip. furthermore, I think it’s really far from being socialist indeed. It seems that socialism has already been co-opted by those in power, see Lenin's bust in Klaus Schwab's office, while today's populist masses are leaning more to the right, or rather, to an organic and non-partisan self-organization.

signal_and_rage 2y ago

#[4] you ok?

ish4k 2y ago

yeah, these utopian futures are either too idealized or too catastrophic. although I’d bet on the latter, if I have to choose with a gun to my head, I still think the former is remotely possible if there is a decent urban exodus and we go back to small communities, to tribes — as we’re essentially tribal. smart cities are doomed to fail, imho. sooner or later, the illusion of harmony would fall to the ground. balaji's network state, for example. let's consider nostr itself. for now, a harmonious community, zapathons and hug marathons. until when? how long till it becomes a new twitter? either we close the citadel gates or barbarians take over.