This thread by @kwamurai is worth responding to. The idea is that government by any system end with that system being corrupted by insiders, gamed or goodhearted in some way.

Right now we're seeing lots of this in The West, a whole bunch of systems are getting gamed.
The implied solution is that you shouldn't have any systems, just some kind of Conan-the-Barbarian leader whose word is law.

But I think this is the wrong lesson to learn from the subversion of Western institutions.
Western institutions like the academy, the press, the bureaucracy etc simply weren't designed (or didn't have time to evolve) to deal with subversion. They rely far too much on people using judgement - the editor of a journal, the staff in a newsroom, etc.
You can't subvert Conan the Barbarian the way you can subvert an organization, but systems of government based on single individuals have other weaknesses; assassination, individual variation, etc.
Besides, we have seen countries and empires run by monarchs fall to communist ideology; Tsarist Russia fell to The Bolsheviks. Yes, there is some path dependence here but a bunch of European Monarchs ended up fighting against each other in the Early 20th century...
... despite all being related and all having relatively similar values.

Big powerful ug-man in charge is very much a tried-and-tested way of ruling human tribes, but the history of that looks quite messy; there's always another ug-man with a bunch of warriors...
... who want to fight to get access to status, resources, mates, etc.

Where does this leave us?

You have to have systems. But we shouldn't see Universities and legacy media as the last word in systems.
I keep seeing this urge on the political right: something about modernity went wrong, so we need to put humanity into reverse gear.

Be ruled by a Conan. Live on a farm. Unironically believe in a Bronze-age god. Etc.
I think this is wrong; reverse gear isn't a viable option. The only viable option is steering.
On some more specific points:

> " Instead of trying in vain to escape from power, we should create a system that incentivizes it to do good. In a monarchy, for instance, the king's power is tied to the long-term wellbeing of his country."

Having kings and queens is not the only or best way of creating good incentives.

Remember, in 1914 the various kings of Europe all declared war on each other and sent their subjects to meatgrinders like The Somme.
Now it's reasonable to pin the blame for WWI on the various systems (political, bureaucratic, etc) that the kings of Europe sat on top of.

But that also seems to undermine monarchism. What's the point of a King if he's not in charge?
You have a bunch of countries with kings (Britain, Germany, Russia) that all get into a stupid suicide pact, but it turns out that none of the kings get any blame for it?

I thought the point of monarchy was to not obscure power?

Of course the reality of it ...
... is that Europe just before 1914 was run on a bunch of systems where input from the Monarchs was just a single variable.…
Monarchy already didn't work for early 20th century empires. And we want to go back to it in the 21st?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Roko -

Roko - Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RokoMijicUK

2 May
People are trying to shill me @urbit stars.

I love the idea of urbit and still have a planet, but I'm not sure about urbit as an investment.

Urbit made a LOT of digital land and it currently has ~0 users. The market cap of stars is ~$600M at $9500 for each of 64k stars.
The bull case for Urbit stars is that Urbit works out how to get users/how to make it so that you can actually use Urbit without lots of technical know-how, which causes interest in planet ownership and therefore in stars and galaxies.
But even then, the current market cap of ALL the stars is a bit too big. $600M for a system with no users and a bunch of whales is not great.

But, Urbit could start burning stars and planets at the same time as they launch a decent UI. And some stars are locked 🤔
Read 4 tweets
1 May
Simon Dedeo "why you should delete social media"

I disagree. Deleting social media is dumb. Without social media in the pandemic I would have had essentially no human contact for 15 months.
But I know a few people who get mental health issues from social media.

You need to control it. I have pruned notifications as aggressively as possible on twitter and Facebook.

On Facebook I've unfollowed almost everyone.
Youtube I've blocked all recommendations via a browser extension

The only social media I haven't aggressively pruned is Tiktok, but the crypto-tiktok content is actually painful to listen to and I have to force myself to use it.
Read 5 tweets
30 Apr
Just to give you all some idea of how insanely early we still are in crypto and how dumb the mainstream is, read this from PayPal:…
Paypal is offering customers Ethereum and 3 different types of digital pet rock.

> "Bitcoin Cash: created in 2017, the group behind Bitcoin Cash say transaction times are faster than the original Bitcoin."
> "Litecoin: designed to be a future payment method and can be mined more quickly than Bitcoin - producing one new coin every 2.5 minutes (whereas Bitcoin produces one every 10 minutes)."
Read 4 tweets
30 Apr
Mencius Moldbug is dismissive of the idea of replacing rule by a King with rule by a smart contract, he calls it a "Quantum Exponential leap".

Here's why I think he's wrong:

First of all, you can see the whole section from @kaschuta's show here (skip to 1:11:18):

The criticism is two-pronged:

(1) We don't have the technology to use smart contracts to make real-world decisions and blockchain tech is slow and expensive, and you would also need AI tech that we don't have because it's AI-complete.
Read 27 tweets
29 Apr
Mighty App wants to lobotomize your computer, i.e. everyone has a thin-client and absolutely everything happens on a server somewhere, you just see a stream of pixels.

Is this a good thing? There are some pros and cons.

- it's very inefficient to have ordinary people doing computer admin, a centralized service could make everything work well.
- a centralized server can have better hardware, such as GPUs or more RAM that can be utilized more efficiently via timesharing.

- a centralized service will probably deliver a worse experience to users because of moat/monopoly effects. For example, you get unskippable adverts playing on your screen unless you upgrade to the super-premium plan.
Read 8 tweets
29 Apr
Toxic femininity? Mental illness at scale? Lunatics running the asylum?
Other options:

- Nth Wave Feminism
- Your grandfather died at Omaha Beach for this

(more suggestions in the comments please)
Personally I like "Mental illness at scale", thanks to @micsolana.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!