Tämä näyttää olevan liian monen oikeistolaisen suoranainen tavoite.
Olen aiemminkin kirjoittanut, että oikeisto on kriisissä. Liberaalin oikeistolaisuuden kruununjalokivi, kapitalismin kulta-ajan oppeihin perustuva talousosaaminen, on ohittanut parasta ennen-päivänsä.
Sitä mukaa kun ihmiset tajuavat maailman olevan sittenkin rajallinen ja yksien rikastumisen olevan siksi toisilta pois, mitä oikeiston ideologiaan jää enää jäljelle?
Ei enää juuri mitään, mitä voisi asia-argumentein tehokkaasti puolustaa.
Jäljelle jää identiteettipolitiikka.
Britit näyttivät mallisuorituksen.
Tuhotaan maan talous vastoin asiantuntijoiden rukouksia rikkaiden rikastuttamiseksi vähäsen.
Mutta mitäpä siitä, kun on saatu omisteltua liberaaleja.
On kuin 16-vuotiaat IRC-edgelordit olisivat vallassa.
Nyt varsinkin on varmasti tullut myös isovenäläisyyteen taipuvaista väkeä vain kutsuntoja pakoon, kun - kuten nationalistimouhoille tavallista - he eivät itte aio ikinä maksaa mouhoamisensa laskuja.
Mutta moni Venäjältä tullut on luotettavampi Kremlin vihollinen kuin persut.
I believe Musk's cowardice stems in part from acceptance of what I'd call naive longtermism.
Long term thinking is really important. But using it to dismiss present problems is not just insensitive, I believe it's counterproductive for long term survival of civilization.
I'm convinced that if civilization is to survive the emergence of extremely powerful technologies, the only sustainable solution to the otherwise probably lethal unilateralist's curse is to limit the power of individual actors AND share this power equitably.
(Why this is so is a project I'm working on right now. In a word, the reason is competition.)
And this in part means that we not only have a moral responsibility to help those suffering from injustices and inequalities. Justice is needed to reduce existential risks.
For about two years now, I've been cautiously optimistic about the future. My focus is on environmental issues and the questions of sustainable society. There are many indicators that suggest there's light at the end of the tunnel, and it isn't an incoming train! 1/
The biggest story to come is the rapid fall of the price of low-carbon energy and ancillary equipment - and frankly insane increase in production capabilities. E.g. very soon the world could install solar power in appreciable fractions of total electricity demand. EVERY YEAR. 2/
The biggest hammer of the Industrial Revolution, mass production, is now beating down the prices of just about everything we need to end fossil fuel use. I suspect the transition will be much smoother and much faster than many believe. 3/
Fukuyama was right. I too used to be mistaken by his use of the term “end of history.” But what that means is not that there aren’t any struggles left; it’s that democracy will eventually become the default.
And more democratic systems will outcompete less democratic ones.
This process will take much more time than many understood in the 1990s. It may take centuries. But the trends in technology, availability of information, and global problems practically guarantee, in my opinion, that over time, societies that prevail are getting more democratic.
More democracy simply means so great advantages in societal decision making and resilience, that less democratic societies will fail one way or another.
Democracies can fail as well, and some will. But democracy as a cause won’t, especially if technical civilization survives.
One more thread about #nuclear weapons: why I don't worry much about nuclear war and believe surrendering to the Kremlin would present a much bigger risk of a disaster (including an actual nuclear war in the future).
In short: nuclear wars are notoriously hard to initiate. 1/
Sure, one could argue that we haven't seen a nuclear war, so how could we know how difficult it is to start one?
Well. We haven't seen a nuclear war after 1945. That's data point #1. Then there is data point #2: practically everything we know from _exercises_ says it's hard. 2/
Again, a disclaimer: nothing in this thread ought to be constituted as an attempt to minimize the terrible damage nuclear weapons can do, or the risks of nuclear war. There is always a risk of nuclear war, especially so when two nuclear powers are in confrontation. That said - 3/