Glad to hear the build went well! 🙂

Keeping any complex system stable requires continuous adaptation to its environment. Even our bodies, whose phase space of stability, which we describe as homeostasis, is a series of complex feedback mechanisms to cope with environmental changes in temperatures, threats, injury, infectious pathogens, changes in availability of energy inputs (food availability, etc), and if all of these feedback mechanisms were not constantly changing to adjust for all these stresses, we could die very quickly.

This all adds up to your own metabolic processes being “metastable”. They are stable given a certain set of parameters. But there is not set of parameters that is universally stable. There is no arrangement of these systems that could so be devised as to make us immortal in the face of an unbounded set of temperature ranges (because the behavior of chemical processes that keep us alive are temperature-dependent, which is why our body must maintain a constant temperature internally), nor could our body isolate itself from the entropy, or be able to survive below a certain minimum energy input.

Society and economic systems are exactly like this. Believing that we can formulate a perfectly stable economic system and set of norms and values that tracks close to some normative ideal, and this solution can be distilled down to a set of specific rules and abstractions (represented by some monetary theory, conception fo property rights, or some natural law concept of how to achieve optimal cooperation) is really, in my opinion, a fool’s errand. And I recognize I’m indicting a lot of people’s closely held political and economic beliefs when I say that. But I just happen to believe it’s true.

I also believe this kind of thinking can be outright dangerous, because it enhances people confidence that “burning it all down” is a safe and/or desirable thing to do, because they are so certain of their solutions, and they are so certain they know what the problems are, that they’re not even open to the possibility that they could be wrong. So they’d be willing to take these giant risks for millions, if not billions of people — believing they’re emancipating them — without considering for a brief moment, that maybe their capacity to understand the equities of human interest, in aggregate, are not cognizable by any one political or economic theory.

This is why I never jump on any “maximalist” bandwagons in really anything in my life, to the great frustration of many in these conversations.

I have an unfinished book manuscript, I started writing in 2020. I'm actually quite happy with what's there. It's called "A World Worth Living In". It is my attempt to capture the constitution of the principles I think lead towards what you might call the "good life". It's a deeply philosophical book, and it tries to synthesize what I see as the best principles for thinking about the present, and how I think we could move towards the future.

I keep opening up Scrivener, and can't get past a writer's block. I think what's really happened is some pretty important assumptions I went into writing it, have shifted under my feet. In particular, a pretty deep re-evaluation of how I think about the problems and opportunity of technology.

That said, I've come to a conclusion. I think I'm going to try and repurpose some select portions of the manuscript I still think represent my current thoughts into some Medium posts in the coming months.

Also, I want to start a new manuscript, that tried to build my case for bitcoin. Why I think it's important. Where I think it's going. Where I think it's not going. And how it interfaces with political and cultural challenges. I speak to a lot of people who constantly tell me that they are glad I'm advancing the perspectives I am, and that I represent a thread of thought in bitcoin that has a decent amount of adherents, but there's really no corpus to capture what the full argument is. There is plenty of such sources of this from an anarchist and libertarian perspective. I want to give a shot at creating an argument that treads a lot closer to the classical liberal tradition.

I really feel like I need a new Sunday hobby.

"Photo of a man mansplaining a woman how to eat a hamburger."

🤡+🤖=?

Testing image uploads

Looks like it works! Pushing new build

Who here read David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5000 Years?"

I'm curious what peoples' thoughts on it. I already have my own thoughts on it, but for something I'm working on I'm interested in hearing what people on Nostr think about it in their own words.