If you watch the start of a professional car race, you’ll see something you never see when a red light goes green on an ordinary road. All of the cars head off simultaneously. There’s something very interesting about why this happens, and it’s a way to see . /1
This happens because car races are heavily regulated. The F1 rules for example are over 330 pages long. The drivers all know what the others are going to do at that start, because all of the driving they do on track is heavily regulated. /2
If you tried to do this at an ordinary red light, you’re going to be troubling your insurer pretty fast, for rear-ending the cars in front of you. Some may be fiddling with their in-car audio system when the light goes green, or arguing with the kids, or whatever. /3
There’s no coordination of all the different drivers. To jump straight to the key point here - to achieve a situation of maximum individual freedom on the road and competition requires heavy control and coordination. It’s only the rules that make competition possible. /4
That allows each driver to drive with maximum freedom, the fastest they can, while sharing a road with other cars. After so many years of politics telling us freedom and competition require de-regulation, here’s an empirical example of how wrong that is. /5
The boy racers who like to drive on public roads by ignoring rules, what they call ‘driving to the conditions’, are nothing like racing drivers. A racing driver who drove like that in racing would be either dead, or banned. You can see the smear thing happening with Covid. /6
The argument that public health measures are ‘restrictions’, the whole BS of phrasing quarantine as ‘locking down’. Public health was invented to create FREEDOM, to act in the constant presence of infectious disease. By regulation, and other controls. /7
Just like car racing. It’s not a binary between individual freedom and oppressive regulation. It’s regulation and restriction that creates the individual freedom. That standardises transactions enough to add predictability to them, to give people freedom. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A story to challenge the narrative that a majority wanted to move on from fighting Covid. One of the causes of this rise in road toll is the large increase in the number of people avoiding public transport, to avoid Covid. People still know, and try. This is important. /1
The narratives around ‘living with’ Covid were driven by a tiny minority. A smart tiny minority, who knew how to embed that desire into wider social action. They knew peer pressure, social conformity, would do the job for them, if they played it right. /2
But peer pressure NEVER means the people who go along with things like what they’re doing, or even agree with it. We all know this, from school. They’re not dumb or compliant sheep, they’re stuck inside the strongest force in the human universe. Imitative rivalry, conformity. /3
The idea of ‘hybrid immunity’ seems to draw heavily upon human experience with influenza. A vague hand-waving idea that through living with it for centuries, we eventually reached a workable equilibrium. Couple of questions about that, for me. /1
While it’s likely impossible to know how many humans have died from influenza in history, it’s surely hundreds of millions, based on the records we do have of later times. So if that’s your model for making a disease ‘endemic’, you’re sacrificing huge numbers of people. /2
And just as we notice deaths less if they’re constant and ongoing (humans perceive change rather than steady states), rather than in epidemic peaks, our Covid strategy is focused on current death rates. Rather than deaths across generations to come, or the past 4 years. /3
Here’s a way to shift from despair to hope. How we understand groups and nations and how they work determines how we think and act. Paul O’Neill, CEO of Alcoa at the turn of the century, offered us a priceless lesson we’re not heeding. /1
O’Neill transformed Alcoa, in quick time, doing something that nobody saw coming. He took a huge organisation, and instead of trying to fiddle with all the different aspects of it, he told the staff they were only going to focus on one thing. Safety. Analysts said he was mad. /2
They quickly had to eat humble pie. The revolution at Alcoa is probably unprecedented in history. What O’Neill recognised is that in an organisation, everything is already connected. The key to bring about change is to find the most densely connected thing. /3
The income share of the top 0.1% of key (and representative) English-speaking societies. This history is usually written economically. But it’s much more interesting than that. A thread about the real origins of ‘the economy’. /1
As I Tweet about a lot, all life that we live is social, most fundamentally. Humans live together in groups, and those groups are driven by some pretty standard social behaviours, through all of history. Specifically, groups are structured by hierarchies of status. /2
About 5% of any group of any size, from a tennis club through to a full nation, lead the rest of the group. The other 95% of the group follow, by imitating/emulating the 5%. Not because humans are stupid, but because nobody can do everything, we all have to take our cues. /3
I coined the term reality-based politics because reality determines where societies go. Human opinion on these realities only determines how fast the inevitable changes happen. The corollary of this is something even bigger. /1
What it means is there will always be parts of reality where the existing social status hierarchies are hugely vulnerable. Hierarchies that otherwise are impossible to shift, without total catastrophe like world wars, or plagues of mass death. /2
I suggest the weak point of those hierarchies today is energy, and specifically the plummeting costs of solar energy. That one reality-based fact is the key to bringing about a shift to our social status hierarchies, to fix our biggest problems. All of them. /3
Paul Ewald talks about the need to live with pathogens by engineering their evolution towards mildness. (Something that won’t happen by itself.) Rather than doing nothing or trying to eliminate the pathogen, you *domesticate* it. /1
In that way, the thinking goes, milder variants out-compete virulent ones. There’s a realism about this version of ‘living with’ pathogens that recognises the fundamentally microbial nature of life i.e. we can’t not encounter microbes. (There’s a but coming here though.) /2
An example Ewald sometimes uses is the virulence of cholera, depending on the quality of water available to people. Cleaning the water means cholera has to work harder to infect people, because spread is cut back. /3