Thinking of King Cape Gilette's (inventor of a safety razor system, co-founder of the Gilette company), and his strange and wondrous #solarpunk utopia (1894) where all of the US would live together in one huge city, with one publicly owned company, powered by Niagara falls
The plan of his utopian city, outlined in The Human Drift (1894) is extremely detailed. You can read it here.
Gilette was a gilded age businessman but he believed business competition was harmful for the people, and thought of a different idea. archive.org/details/TheHum…
All the people would be the stockholders of the *one* company that would produce everything. The president and board of directors would be voted by the stockholders, aka the people. Gilette believed people-owned companies would lead to wealth and progress for all
Here's a picture of "a perspective view of a complete building and its imaginary surroundings. Here we see the tiers of apartments arranged in a circle and joined at the back, and the interior court thus formed is surmounted by a dome of metal and glass."
And here's a picture of what an individual apartment would look like, suitable for a family of 4-8 people. Note it has a library, a music room, a veranda
Now I am intrigued about why Gilette believed that competition was harmful and decreased the overall wellbeing and wealth of the people (contrary to e.g., Smith, Mandeville). My guess is extreme wealth inequality + oligopolies in the late 19th c much like today
E.g., only 3 companies produce insulin and prices have become exorbitant. Gilette thought thiswas not ideal for the super-wealthy either "They are under a constant strain of anxiety in guarding their property and keeping their surplus invested in safe securities." (poor them :))
Moreover, and it seems to me that Gilette echoes Alexis Tocqueville (Democracy in America), and maybe Marx, there is an imbalance between the proprietors and the people, which results in increased poverty.
He also worried that social inequality would de facto mean slavery for many people. So, for him equality was to an important extent connected to freedom as that would allow ppl to expand their natural capabilities
As in all utopias, Gilette considered that the urban environment of Metropolis (the name of the city) should be not merely functional but also beautiful, a "an endless variety of beautiful designs" in the public buildings
This passage is the most solar-punky where you have pedestrians, cyclists, and people using electric cars. Outside of the city you'd have the natural environment.
Here we have a map of how Metropolis would be laid out concretely near Niagara Falls with sizes of current populations in the US to give an idea of scale (he also left some room for population growth/future immigration)
Also Gilette believed a single large publicly owned company and its progress would free up our minds from the grind of labor + production that most of us are tied in now, through scientific progress we'd finally be free to invest our labor into science, arts, and inventions
Finally, the book is dedicated to all of humanity "for to all the hope of of escape from an environment of injustice, poverty, and crime, is equally desirable". \end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many ppl are dismissive of "great books" conservatives, but I think for one thing it is good to have conservatives who aren't anti-intellectual. The movement away from expertise, science, and the humanities among conservative voters has huge negative repercussions.
We will always have conservatives. I grew up among people who were quite conservative, notably my maternal grandfather who was a major general with the Belgian army. Textbook conservative, but also super-well read and well-informed about science. He had subscriptions to ...2/
National Geographic, Scientific American, and the Tijd (the kind of Belgian equivalent of WSJ/Financial Times). He had a huge library of books with classics I grew up reading over summers, as well as books on World War II and on airplanes (he was with the Air Force) 3/
Go to big conference, come back with covid. Many of my academic friends are on "their sickbed," "convalescing," "still so tired," after infection, and we decided collectively this is normal? Comes with the job, like jet lag and CO2 footprint? Aren't Academics smarter than that?
I know academics who back in 2020 (I came back to FB after a long hiatus so I can confirm) who were super super cautious, washing their groceries, running in the woods with a mask in early 2020, who are now on their 4th-5th infection....
Most of the peer-reviewed lit on covid doesn't suggest it's a good idea to catch it repeatedly. Academics used to be empirically-informed and follow the science. Yet we do ZERO mitigations at conferences--no testing on arrival, no masks, no air purifiers, nothing.
A friend shared this today: extensive covid testing protocols for the International Economic Forum, to begin tomorrow in St. Petersburg. She said "World leaders are protecting their health while assuring us all it's over".
However, they're failing to protect themselves 1/
A key mistake world leaders and economic elites are making is to think that you can somehow isolate yourself from the rest of the world/nature, and sacrifice the plebs to covid, the climate crisis, and societal collapse while you will be fine. 2/
But however they isolate themselves, they'll still have to interact with people and no protocol is 100% foolproof. There's a lot of covid around all year long bc of the let-it-rip decisions to sacrifice the "vulnerable" to the economy. And so it's impossible to be safe 3/
Today I learned about this elaborate eulogy carved into stone of a 1st c Roman husband for his wife (identity uncertain, traditionally referred to as "Turia")
It's the longest personal document of this kind. He loved her a lot, they were married for 40 years.
Highlights: 1/
This elaborate carved eulogy challenges our expectations about Roman women. Far from these meek, defenseless creatures the husband keeps on going on about how his wife saved him (and doesn't seem to feel threatened in his masculinity for this), how she avenged her family, etc. 2/
It begins already like this "You were orphaned suddenly before the day of our wedding when both of your parents were killed together in the solitude of the countryside. It was mainly through your efforts that the death of your parents did not go unavenged:" 3/
We all know we are mortal. It's in the classic syllogism where all men/humans are mortal and Socrates is a man so...
Yet we also think of ourselves as practically immortal.
What happens then if you find yourself in a situation where you might not live? How does it change you?
that's where I had been thinking of. at some point things looked really bleak with 20% survival over 5 yrs. Then it considerably looked better. Now, it might look better or not I am waiting. It is psychologically hard. Very difficult.
It gave me both a sense of futility, namely my work is not worthwhile or anything I did, I failed. Also a strong drive to survive--very potent. My kids, partner need me and I want to write more books.
One more covid thread. I have a (serious) personal health situation.
I do link it to my prior covid infection.
So: We often see the choice presented as follows: just accept this new level of illness OR restrictive, politically unpopular measures
But this is not the choice 1/
This presentation of choices implies that it is sustainable to live with covid. That's the choice we made. But I think we see mounting evidence that at a population level this choice is not sustainable. 2/
I follow health news in several countries I have ties to: the US, the UK, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany (OK no ties to Germany personally but I try to read German regularly to keep it up). The story is the same everywhere: record levels of long-term illness 3/