What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)(loc.gov)
loc.gov
What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83045774/1922-05-07/ed-1?sp=87
627 comments
> Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better
Let me translate
“you are slaves and you rent everything. We base your ability to purchase on a social credit score. But we let you rent houses in our artificially limited VR world.”
I don’t make much of predictions like these. It’s ALWAYS a safe bet to assume people will lose liberty. To the point the FED was created in 1913, research why it was created - not just wikipedia, get some books published between the 20 to 60s. When was public education first introduced at scale? When was eugenics promoted in the United States?
The 1910s - 1920s was the beginning of the major authoritarian and progressive movements in the United States. Read about the history of Woodrow Wilson.
At the end of the day, the United States during the 20s was losing its independence already. It was openly talked about on higher-class circles.
In that context all these predictions are really aspirations.
That said, I think the United States is still one of the most free and diverse countries on the planet. Has its issues and can 100% improve. But the same people and families who are part of the WEF are the same families / people in the 1910s - 1920s promoting the same general ideas.
Let me translate
“you are slaves and you rent everything. We base your ability to purchase on a social credit score. But we let you rent houses in our artificially limited VR world.”
I don’t make much of predictions like these. It’s ALWAYS a safe bet to assume people will lose liberty. To the point the FED was created in 1913, research why it was created - not just wikipedia, get some books published between the 20 to 60s. When was public education first introduced at scale? When was eugenics promoted in the United States?
The 1910s - 1920s was the beginning of the major authoritarian and progressive movements in the United States. Read about the history of Woodrow Wilson.
At the end of the day, the United States during the 20s was losing its independence already. It was openly talked about on higher-class circles.
In that context all these predictions are really aspirations.
That said, I think the United States is still one of the most free and diverse countries on the planet. Has its issues and can 100% improve. But the same people and families who are part of the WEF are the same families / people in the 1910s - 1920s promoting the same general ideas.
It’s probably a waste of time to argue this, but the arguments for central banking were the same as the arguments put forth by Alexander Hamilton. More stability, greater resilience, etc.
The arguments against it were vague references to tyranny, orchestrated by people whose wealth is generated from resource extraction and inherited wealth.
The arguments against it were vague references to tyranny, orchestrated by people whose wealth is generated from resource extraction and inherited wealth.
Inflationary monetary policy is wealth transfer into the upper class without most people realizing it. Wealth, be it institutions or individuals, will always push for central banking as it entrenches their power.
“Inflationary monetary policy” is wealth transfer to the government (which they're then supposed to spend on common infrastructure, and other collaborative projects that everybody agrees on but nobody wants to shell out for unless everyone else is too). If the government is supporting the upper class and leaving everyone else to rot, no monetary policy will fix the issue.
I think this is supposed to be true, but nowadays when the wealthy mostly hold assets that have real value, like real estate and equities, as opposed to USD in a bank account, I'm not sure how well it works.
That's what tax is for.
Sadly, my internet degree in armchair economics doesn't give me the ability to come up with a functioning tax system (however much I think I can beat the status quo) so I have no further pearls of wisdom.
Sadly, my internet degree in armchair economics doesn't give me the ability to come up with a functioning tax system (however much I think I can beat the status quo) so I have no further pearls of wisdom.
Is this really the case? Inflation favors debtors over creditors, the upper class tends to be the latter not the former. While it is the case that the value of savings goes down, the lower class are much less likely to save.
Nobody owes more money than the rich. This is true of countries as well.
“Wealth” as most people think of it comes from power over money more than from the absolute value of net worth.
I had a lot of credit card debt in University. I was the richest person my friends knew. That money gave me access to people and opportunities I would not have had otherwise. Today, I owe a million dollars ( mostly mortgage ) but am considered quite well off I think. Don’t get me wrong, I am far from wealthy but I am probably the “richest” person in my family.
In University I used to joke that if you gave $50,000 to a penniless man with nothing, he would have $50,000 ( be doing pretty well ) whereas if you gave it to me I would be broke and it would not change my life at all. Today, I guess it would be several hundred thousand instead but otherwise still totally true.
If your average Latin American country was able to borrow as much per person as the US owes, they could build roads and factories and hospitals and universities and chip foundries and be instantly wealthy. The only problem is who is going to lend it to them?
Wealth is not what we think it is.
“Wealth” as most people think of it comes from power over money more than from the absolute value of net worth.
I had a lot of credit card debt in University. I was the richest person my friends knew. That money gave me access to people and opportunities I would not have had otherwise. Today, I owe a million dollars ( mostly mortgage ) but am considered quite well off I think. Don’t get me wrong, I am far from wealthy but I am probably the “richest” person in my family.
In University I used to joke that if you gave $50,000 to a penniless man with nothing, he would have $50,000 ( be doing pretty well ) whereas if you gave it to me I would be broke and it would not change my life at all. Today, I guess it would be several hundred thousand instead but otherwise still totally true.
If your average Latin American country was able to borrow as much per person as the US owes, they could build roads and factories and hospitals and universities and chip foundries and be instantly wealthy. The only problem is who is going to lend it to them?
Wealth is not what we think it is.
I think you're mistaking wealth with purchase of luxury goods. If someone has no money, and borrows to buy a fancy set of clothes they might be perceived as wealthy by onlookers but they still have no money. Worse, even, as the interest on that loan will make them even poorer to the point of having a negative net worth. If you owe more than you own, you are not wealthy as you have negative net worth. Inflation someone in your situation precisely because they aren't actually wealthy: they owe more than they own.
This is exactly my point: someone who borrowed money for, say, university or to buy a house or a car is helped by inflation. By comparison wealthier people who are more likely to have bought those assets outright, are not. And the wealthiest people who are - directly or indirectly - the ones lending out money to other people see their wealth transferred to the first group.
This is exactly my point: someone who borrowed money for, say, university or to buy a house or a car is helped by inflation. By comparison wealthier people who are more likely to have bought those assets outright, are not. And the wealthiest people who are - directly or indirectly - the ones lending out money to other people see their wealth transferred to the first group.
Some debtors and people who own hard assets benefit from inflation.
People with more ephemeral assets and in service business are harmed by inflation. The service sectors in particular are full of low quality, debt-laden companies who can’t withstand interest driven financial stress.
People with more ephemeral assets and in service business are harmed by inflation. The service sectors in particular are full of low quality, debt-laden companies who can’t withstand interest driven financial stress.
>Nobody owes more money than the rich. This is true of countries as well.
This is completely incorrect. The rich are net lenders. They are also net interest recipients.
The companies they own are also net lenders.
This is completely incorrect. The rich are net lenders. They are also net interest recipients.
The companies they own are also net lenders.
Net lender doesn’t matter if there is no cap on the upside. The person you are replying to has it right.
It's not the case, but people keep wringing their hands about how inflation robs the poor of the ~$500 they have in their savings accounts, while ignoring how much it helps the middle-class mortgage owner who is in fixed-rate debt for a million dollars.
They get away with it because they don't make the distinction between price inflation and asset inflation. The cost of bread doubling is a huge problem for the poor, but means little to everyone else. The cost of assets doubling doesn't matter to the poor, because they have never, and will never save enough money to buy assets. The cost of assets doubling matters greatly against a yuppie who is trying to buy a home. The cost of assets doubling matters greatly in favor of someone who bought a home last week.
Inflation sucks for you if you earn minimum wage, because half the country thinks that raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation means will bring about the apocalypse. Inflation doesn't matter much to you if you're in a high-demand industry, with wages rising to match it. Inflation sucks for you if you're not working, but doesn't matter to you if you are, and there's a labour shortage, which increases your wage bargaining power.
They get away with it because they don't make the distinction between price inflation and asset inflation. The cost of bread doubling is a huge problem for the poor, but means little to everyone else. The cost of assets doubling doesn't matter to the poor, because they have never, and will never save enough money to buy assets. The cost of assets doubling matters greatly against a yuppie who is trying to buy a home. The cost of assets doubling matters greatly in favor of someone who bought a home last week.
Inflation sucks for you if you earn minimum wage, because half the country thinks that raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation means will bring about the apocalypse. Inflation doesn't matter much to you if you're in a high-demand industry, with wages rising to match it. Inflation sucks for you if you're not working, but doesn't matter to you if you are, and there's a labour shortage, which increases your wage bargaining power.
Let's use an example that might look familiar.
If inflation robs the poor person of the $500 and helps the middle class person with a mortgage.... all other things being equal, we transferred wealth from the poor person to the middle class person. yay, with me so far?
By the same account, if the middle class person is helped a little bit by inflation, (but also has some cash) the rich person who is leveraged many times over into 10 properties, and has most of their wealth in equities (which themselves are leveraged because of corporate debt) is going to be even better off after the increase in money supply.
Their share of the pie grew and the middle class persons maybe grew, but not relative to the rich person. Therefore, that is wealth transfer.
The majority of US equities is held by the upper class and corporate debt dwarfs consumer debt (including mortgages).
If inflation robs the poor person of the $500 and helps the middle class person with a mortgage.... all other things being equal, we transferred wealth from the poor person to the middle class person. yay, with me so far?
By the same account, if the middle class person is helped a little bit by inflation, (but also has some cash) the rich person who is leveraged many times over into 10 properties, and has most of their wealth in equities (which themselves are leveraged because of corporate debt) is going to be even better off after the increase in money supply.
Their share of the pie grew and the middle class persons maybe grew, but not relative to the rich person. Therefore, that is wealth transfer.
The majority of US equities is held by the upper class and corporate debt dwarfs consumer debt (including mortgages).
But you're missing the bigger picture: the rich who issues mortgages (or more likely, has stake in a real estate company) is having their wealth transferred to the lender. Most wealthy people loan more than they owe. If you owe more than to loan out then by definitely you're not wealthy, your net worth is negative. Similarly, a poor person who owes $20,000 on an auto loan, whose car is now worth $25,000 just saw a significant gain.
Inflation helps people who owe more than they lend out (most poor and middle class people). People who lend out more than they owe, directly or indirectly through stake in companies that do lending, are the ones experiencing less profit because of inflation.
Inflation helps people who owe more than they lend out (most poor and middle class people). People who lend out more than they owe, directly or indirectly through stake in companies that do lending, are the ones experiencing less profit because of inflation.
You're right that the banking system is a little more complicated than I made it out to be, but let's ignore that for now. You agree that the majority of the fortune 50 is holds more debt than credit, right?
We don't have to speculate about how much debt rich people have, you can look at what % of equities is owned by the upper class and you can go compare consumer debt to corporate debt.
Now as to the banking system, there's a little bit of a feedback loop here because they're really the ones creating money, so no they're not really a net creditor either. I owe my bank 700k on my house, but that's new money being created in some respects.
We don't have to speculate about how much debt rich people have, you can look at what % of equities is owned by the upper class and you can go compare consumer debt to corporate debt.
Now as to the banking system, there's a little bit of a feedback loop here because they're really the ones creating money, so no they're not really a net creditor either. I owe my bank 700k on my house, but that's new money being created in some respects.
> You agree that the majority of the fortune 50 is holds more debt than credit, right?
No. Not at all. Apple, #3 on the list for example, has hundreds of billions its loaning out because it has nothing better to do with its excess cash [1]. Almost every company on that list has positive total equity, some on them on the orders of hundreds of billions of dollars.
> We don't have to speculate about how much debt rich people have, you can look at what % of equities is owned by the upper class and you can go compare consumer debt to corporate debt.
I'm really baffled at what you mean by this? Yes, the rich own most equity. But how do you interpret this has having more debt? Equity isn't debt, it's ownership in a company.
> Now as to the banking system, there's a little bit of a feedback loop here because they're really the ones creating money, so no they're not really a net creditor either. I owe my bank 700k on my house, but that's new money being created in some respects.
Sort of? Banks don't get to regulate currency supply, the Fed does. It's true that banks leverage more than they have in their reserve, but that doesn't necessarily increase the money supply.
And my point is if you owe 700k on your house and inflation doubles (all prices go up 2x, but so do all wages) then this is very good for you. You effectively got a house for half the price. If you are a multi-millionaire real estate mogul who's writing mortage loans, then this not good for you. That money invested in the home loan isn't even going to keep up with inflation.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital
No. Not at all. Apple, #3 on the list for example, has hundreds of billions its loaning out because it has nothing better to do with its excess cash [1]. Almost every company on that list has positive total equity, some on them on the orders of hundreds of billions of dollars.
> We don't have to speculate about how much debt rich people have, you can look at what % of equities is owned by the upper class and you can go compare consumer debt to corporate debt.
I'm really baffled at what you mean by this? Yes, the rich own most equity. But how do you interpret this has having more debt? Equity isn't debt, it's ownership in a company.
> Now as to the banking system, there's a little bit of a feedback loop here because they're really the ones creating money, so no they're not really a net creditor either. I owe my bank 700k on my house, but that's new money being created in some respects.
Sort of? Banks don't get to regulate currency supply, the Fed does. It's true that banks leverage more than they have in their reserve, but that doesn't necessarily increase the money supply.
And my point is if you owe 700k on your house and inflation doubles (all prices go up 2x, but so do all wages) then this is very good for you. You effectively got a house for half the price. If you are a multi-millionaire real estate mogul who's writing mortage loans, then this not good for you. That money invested in the home loan isn't even going to keep up with inflation.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital
Thanks for the detailed reply, we're really getting into the meat of it here in this debate.
It's really fixed rate loans that are 'creditors', not investment firms. Some googling tells me they also have ~230 billion in outstanding debt. So I think it's safe to say in this example they're a net debtor.
"has hundreds of billions its loaning out because it has nothing better to do with its excess cash "
It's really fixed rate loans that are 'creditors', not investment firms. Some googling tells me they also have ~230 billion in outstanding debt. So I think it's safe to say in this example they're a net debtor.
>But how do you interpret this has having more debt?
>Sort of? Banks don't get to regulate currency supply, the Fed does.
>If you are a multi-millionaire real estate mogul who's writing mortgage loans, then this not good for you.
> If inflation robs the poor person of the $500 and helps the middle class person with a mortgage.... all other things being equal, we transferred wealth from the poor person to the middle class person. yay, with me so far?
No, I'm not with you, because it's not the poor person who is fronting a million bucks in cash that the middle class person borrows, in order to buy the house.
For the obvious reason that he doesn't have a million dollars to lend out.
FYI, corporate debt is ~60% of household debt in the United States. (~10T vs 15T). Corporate cash balances are ~4T, and household cash balances are ~5T. [1] Net corporate debt is ~6T, and net household debt is ~10T.
You look at these numbers, and you tell me - who benefits more from having debt inflated away?
[1] https://www.valuepenguin.com/banking/average-savings-account...
No, I'm not with you, because it's not the poor person who is fronting a million bucks in cash that the middle class person borrows, in order to buy the house.
For the obvious reason that he doesn't have a million dollars to lend out.
FYI, corporate debt is ~60% of household debt in the United States. (~10T vs 15T). Corporate cash balances are ~4T, and household cash balances are ~5T. [1] Net corporate debt is ~6T, and net household debt is ~10T.
You look at these numbers, and you tell me - who benefits more from having debt inflated away?
[1] https://www.valuepenguin.com/banking/average-savings-account...
You need to stop viewing money in amounts and start viewing it as % of total available money in existence.
In our contrived example, now the middle class person owns a bigger slice of the pie after the pie doubled in size due to their leverage.
In our contrived example, now the middle class person owns a bigger slice of the pie after the pie doubled in size due to their leverage.
Your contrived example very conveniently excludes what inflation buys (Infrastructure, public spending)[1], and also who pays for the majority of it (The lender - who happens to be neither of the two people in your example.)
So yes, if we have an incorrect contrived example that doesn't even attempt to serve as a proxy the ground facts, and we ignore half the consequences of it, yes, of course, we can draw whatever conclusion you want.
Still not with you.
[1] Yes, obviously, its possible for a government to spend that money on stupid shit. It's a good incentive to elect ones that spend it on useful things.
So yes, if we have an incorrect contrived example that doesn't even attempt to serve as a proxy the ground facts, and we ignore half the consequences of it, yes, of course, we can draw whatever conclusion you want.
Still not with you.
[1] Yes, obviously, its possible for a government to spend that money on stupid shit. It's a good incentive to elect ones that spend it on useful things.
>our contrived example very conveniently excludes what inflation buys
So once the contrived example made sense to you your first response is to move the goalpost completely and talk about something unrelated?
We're not talking about the necessities of monetary policy we're talking about the effects, please focus on the relevant parts of a debate instead of jumping around to avoid conceding a (very basic) issue.
As an aside, you picked infrastructure as your main deflection point? Do you have any idea what % of US revenue is spent on infrastructure compared to everything else?
You also seem to misunderstand per capita vs. aggregate. Do you think if poor people have as much money in aggregate as one rich person that means they're rich? In the same way, comparing all outstanding consumer debt (of which the vast majority of mortgages) is not helping your argument, you'll have to show me a breakdown that shows on average a poor person is more often a net debtor.
You also need to distinguish debt into assets vs. depreciating assets. Using leverage on stock is not the same as buying nikes with a high interest credit card.
You're still missing the part where its not poor folks who hold cash. The bottom quartile owns next to zero cash. All that an average person in that position owns is the clothes on their back, their personal effects, and maybe a shitty beater car.
The rest of your argument unravels, because you've based it on this fundamentally flawed assumption.
The rest of your argument unravels, because you've based it on this fundamentally flawed assumption.
All things are not equal. I know someone who was the CEO of a small hospital network.
When he retired, his compensation was greater than the sum of salary for the entire company. The company paid for his Tesla lease, but orderlies making $12/hr had a uniform deposit deducted from their first few checks.
When he retired, his compensation was greater than the sum of salary for the entire company. The company paid for his Tesla lease, but orderlies making $12/hr had a uniform deposit deducted from their first few checks.
I would need a source to believe this. The hospital would have had to not have any doctors on staff to come close.
That can happen. Doctors are employed by physician practices which work as contractors at the hospital.
Something like 70% of the population has no savings of any kind.
You know that the arguments about poor grandma with $500 life savings are bullshit, because everyone making them would happily let grandma die for a buck.
The only reason resource extraction types care about inflation is that most use debt to avoid taxation, and increase interest rates hurt their return on assets. Because the perversion of the US Senate has happened, we care more about corn companies, oil drillers, etc than anyone else.
You know that the arguments about poor grandma with $500 life savings are bullshit, because everyone making them would happily let grandma die for a buck.
The only reason resource extraction types care about inflation is that most use debt to avoid taxation, and increase interest rates hurt their return on assets. Because the perversion of the US Senate has happened, we care more about corn companies, oil drillers, etc than anyone else.
That's not really correct. What's correct through is that the bottom 80% don't receive enough interest to break even on interest expenses. I.e. they pay more interest than they receive back. This is the primary driver of inequality.
And this is true for everything. For housing, for stocks, for lent out money.
And this is true for everything. For housing, for stocks, for lent out money.
Deflation and inflation are bad because they make people speculate on the currency in either way. Inflation discourages paying off debt. Deflation encourages hoarding. Both of them are harmful because they create a self reinforcing feedback loop.
A negative interest rate forces money to circulate and it encourages you to pay off debts. Thereby it eliminates both inflation and deflation.
A negative interest rate forces money to circulate and it encourages you to pay off debts. Thereby it eliminates both inflation and deflation.
I'd imagine that wealthy individuals are highly leveraged. In other words, rather than selling assets to buy things they take loans against those assets to buy things. This (1) prevents ever having to pay tax (2) gives them benefits from inflation and (3) gives them benefits from low interest rates as their assets appreciate faster than their interest rate consumes money
Most sources I read indicate the opposite: poor and middle class people are much less likely to be debtors rather than creditors. They're more likely to have an auto loan rather than own a car outright. Likewise, they're more likely to have a mortgage on their home rather than own it. The wealthy, by comparison, are more likely to invest their money, issuing loans to other people.
Yes, the majority of US equities is held by the upper class and corporate debt dwarfs consumer debt (including mortgages).
> inflationary monetary policy is wealth transfer to the upper class without people realizing it.
Going to need some evidence to back up that statement.
Without centralized banking you essentially have no set policy one way other the other. I can understand why one would take issue with the current governance structure, but I don’t agree that letting money randomly fluctuate with no mechanisms for intervention to be a good thing.
Going to need some evidence to back up that statement.
Without centralized banking you essentially have no set policy one way other the other. I can understand why one would take issue with the current governance structure, but I don’t agree that letting money randomly fluctuate with no mechanisms for intervention to be a good thing.
In a nutshell if I have enough assets that generate lets say for example 6% return and can borrow cheaply like at 1% then I can't lose. Money makes money unlike the poor who borrow at 19%. Inflation benefits the wealthy because their assets go up in value and then that "perceived wealth" gives them access to more cheap money as collateral.
The problem is that interest redistributes wealth since it is based on how much you already own.
Even if you were paid 19% interest and the rich not you would not have enough money to break even.
Even if you were paid 19% interest and the rich not you would not have enough money to break even.
Outsized returns on capital happen with or without an inflationary environment.
The phenomenon you are describing has existed since before central banking was established.
The phenomenon you are describing has existed since before central banking was established.
> no set policy one way other the other
Isn't that the idea of liberty though? No central authority deciding what is a "good thing" - just keeping the peace.
Isn't that the idea of liberty though? No central authority deciding what is a "good thing" - just keeping the peace.
The absolute end to that line of reasoning is that there shouldn’t be any state at all.
Why does the state need to “keep the peace”? It does so through a monopoly on force. Why can’t private individuals simply work things out on their own however they see fit?
The idea of liberty, to me, is the idea that citizens have power over collective decision making, ie the rule of law, consent of the governed. I realize I am in the minority in modern day America though.
Why does the state need to “keep the peace”? It does so through a monopoly on force. Why can’t private individuals simply work things out on their own however they see fit?
The idea of liberty, to me, is the idea that citizens have power over collective decision making, ie the rule of law, consent of the governed. I realize I am in the minority in modern day America though.
No, the absolute end is that the state should enforce negative rights, not positive ones. Liberty is the freedom from interference by or obligation to other people.
> Why can’t private individuals simply work things out on their own however they see fit?
They can, so long as they do peacefully. What the state provides is simply due process for the resolution of disputes, and the expectation that this process will be used instead of violence.
> The idea of liberty, to me, is the idea that citizens have power over collective decision making
This is democracy, which is somewhat tangential here. You can have a decidedly un-free democracy or (more hypothetically) a very free dictatorship.
> Why can’t private individuals simply work things out on their own however they see fit?
They can, so long as they do peacefully. What the state provides is simply due process for the resolution of disputes, and the expectation that this process will be used instead of violence.
> The idea of liberty, to me, is the idea that citizens have power over collective decision making
This is democracy, which is somewhat tangential here. You can have a decidedly un-free democracy or (more hypothetically) a very free dictatorship.
“It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not on paper.” - Ronald Reagan
> Ronald Reagan
you cheeky monkey
you cheeky monkey
I define liberty differently than you do.
I don’t accept the popular, modern definition of negative rights vs positive rights as the bedrock or liberty. It leads to nonsensical conclusions.
There is no such thing under my definition as a “free dictatorship”. A system where rulers aren’t bound by legitimate laws is by definition un-free.
I don’t think my definition is super far off from yours though: liberty as non domination, one isn’t subject to the arbitrary will of another.
I don’t accept the popular, modern definition of negative rights vs positive rights as the bedrock or liberty. It leads to nonsensical conclusions.
There is no such thing under my definition as a “free dictatorship”. A system where rulers aren’t bound by legitimate laws is by definition un-free.
I don’t think my definition is super far off from yours though: liberty as non domination, one isn’t subject to the arbitrary will of another.
A free dictatorship would be one where the dictator's powers are very limited, but he is not democratically elected.
> liberty as non domination, one isn’t subject to the arbitrary will of another.
Yes exactly. I just see things like "interfering in private negotiations/transactions between free, equal people" as fundamentally authoritarian/dominating.
> liberty as non domination, one isn’t subject to the arbitrary will of another.
Yes exactly. I just see things like "interfering in private negotiations/transactions between free, equal people" as fundamentally authoritarian/dominating.
If interference with private transactions is fundamentally authoritarian, I still don’t understand how you see any sort of state as compatible with liberty.
Yes yes, “keeping the peace” but how is such an authority deemed to be legitimate? Who gets to define due process? How are they funded if not by taxation?
At the end of the day I don’t understand how you aren’t just an anarchist.
Yes yes, “keeping the peace” but how is such an authority deemed to be legitimate? Who gets to define due process? How are they funded if not by taxation?
At the end of the day I don’t understand how you aren’t just an anarchist.
The state is compatible with liberty in so far as it acts to secure the liberty of its citizens. Again, liberty here meaning, basically, freedom from violence by other people. A state which acts to protect its citizens liberty is legitimate (in my view) regardless of how its members come to authority. Democracy (in one form or another) seems to be the least-worst option for administering this state (defining the process, etc.), but to me, is it not the source of its legitimacy.
If that is your reasoning then consider barter vs money exchange.
With money one party has to borrow it first and pay interest. With barter nobody is paying interest. The money lender is clearly abusing his "authority" over money by excluding it from the economy. He uses that power to charge interest and thereby render economic activity that can only cover its own costs unprofitable.
Here is an example. I sell you an apple for $1 and you sell me a banana for $1. We are both better off because I like bananas you like apples. However, if I had to borrow the money first from a bank with interest, then the trade would not be profitable. This is the real source of unemployment. Artificial minimum profitability.
With money one party has to borrow it first and pay interest. With barter nobody is paying interest. The money lender is clearly abusing his "authority" over money by excluding it from the economy. He uses that power to charge interest and thereby render economic activity that can only cover its own costs unprofitable.
Here is an example. I sell you an apple for $1 and you sell me a banana for $1. We are both better off because I like bananas you like apples. However, if I had to borrow the money first from a bank with interest, then the trade would not be profitable. This is the real source of unemployment. Artificial minimum profitability.
Well, none of this has anything to do with liberty until some force is used. What happens if you just fail to pay the money lender? If he can imprison or enslave you then you're absolutely right. If all he can do is spread the word that you're not likely to repay your loans then it's not a matter of liberty.
Money is just cut paper, a convenient medium of exchange. If you have bad credit, your liberty is not in danger. The only thing in jeopardy is the willingness of others to cooperate/transact with you. Since they don't owe you anything to begin with, the point is moot.
Money is just cut paper, a convenient medium of exchange. If you have bad credit, your liberty is not in danger. The only thing in jeopardy is the willingness of others to cooperate/transact with you. Since they don't owe you anything to begin with, the point is moot.
That reductionist approach to liberty is a mirage for teenage boys and hermits. If I can do whatever I want, you can’t.
The United States would have been pushed into a deep depression, but for JP Morgan’s vacation plans being a little different. Early 20th century America was not a radical place, the fact that the Federal Reserve was created underlies how fubar the system was.
The United States would have been pushed into a deep depression, but for JP Morgan’s vacation plans being a little different. Early 20th century America was not a radical place, the fact that the Federal Reserve was created underlies how fubar the system was.
> was not a radical place
By what metric? For who? Surely it was good for some and bad for others, much like any other place. How comfortable people are and how happy they are are fundamentally unrelated to how free they are.
> how fubar the system was
All we basically disagree about is how the general welfare clause is to be interpreted. It had a narrow interpretation for most of US history, and then a broad one starting in 1936 with United States v. Butler. The US was clearly a good place to live pre-1936, given that so many people immigrated there. I don't see why a continued narrow interpretation would be catastrophic.
By what metric? For who? Surely it was good for some and bad for others, much like any other place. How comfortable people are and how happy they are are fundamentally unrelated to how free they are.
> how fubar the system was
All we basically disagree about is how the general welfare clause is to be interpreted. It had a narrow interpretation for most of US history, and then a broad one starting in 1936 with United States v. Butler. The US was clearly a good place to live pre-1936, given that so many people immigrated there. I don't see why a continued narrow interpretation would be catastrophic.
"How comfortable people are and how happy they are are fundamentally unrelated to how free they are."
That would be false.
"The US was clearly a good place to live pre-1936, given that so many people immigrated there."
That would be false, too, unless you were very wealthy. Just because it was better than, say, starving in Ireland does not mean it was "good". Source: My father's father was a sharecropper.
That would be false.
"The US was clearly a good place to live pre-1936, given that so many people immigrated there."
That would be false, too, unless you were very wealthy. Just because it was better than, say, starving in Ireland does not mean it was "good". Source: My father's father was a sharecropper.
I guess we're just disagreeing about definitions then. What word would you use to describe the freedom I'm referring to?
Absolutely!
I do not know any single word or short phrase that describes "the freedom [you are] referring to", since as far as I can tell, the concept you use is known only among certain libertarians where it is called "freedom". Perhaps it would be "the absence of a hypothetical[0] threat of legally sanctioned violence from 'the government' in response to actions outside of a certain limited range". (Personally, if we're discussing the threat of violence, I am much more concerned by non-legally sanctioned violence from 'the government'[1][2], where by "much more" I mean "not very much at all" since violence and the threat thereof is actually fairly low on the useful methods of coercion scale.
Now, if you are interested, my personal definition of "freedom" is along the lines of (OED, 1978 ed., "Freedom (4)") "the state of being allowed to act without hindrance or restraint" with the additional proviso of something like "...not infringing excessively on the freedom of others..." and made all lovely and transitively closed by the Kantian version of the golden rule.
[0] Before you get all wrapped up around "hypothetical", consider: let's say your state health officials declare a mask mandate and you, like all rational people, do not wish to obey; you go into a convenient Half-Price Books mask-free. Many freedom-loving libertarians seem to believe that the next event would be a member of the 101st Airborne popping out of a convenient closet with an M1A1 Abrams under each arm and reduce you to a fine mist for your temerity. What would much more likely happen would be a store employee or manager asking you to leave. Unfortunately, that presents a problem for our libertarian friend---at that point, you are technically trespassing and even the fiercest libertarian would say the use of force against you is legitimate, no?
[1] What is the dividing line between 'the government' and any other human institution, and why do you regard it as more dangerously coercive than, say, your family?
[2] Y'all do realize Rand Paul doesn't want people who vote Democratic to have their votes counted? The methods for that are technically legal, I suppose, but it's not really very far from "round'em up and shoot'em" (which would be illegal) in the grand spectrum of historical human behavior.
I do not know any single word or short phrase that describes "the freedom [you are] referring to", since as far as I can tell, the concept you use is known only among certain libertarians where it is called "freedom". Perhaps it would be "the absence of a hypothetical[0] threat of legally sanctioned violence from 'the government' in response to actions outside of a certain limited range". (Personally, if we're discussing the threat of violence, I am much more concerned by non-legally sanctioned violence from 'the government'[1][2], where by "much more" I mean "not very much at all" since violence and the threat thereof is actually fairly low on the useful methods of coercion scale.
Now, if you are interested, my personal definition of "freedom" is along the lines of (OED, 1978 ed., "Freedom (4)") "the state of being allowed to act without hindrance or restraint" with the additional proviso of something like "...not infringing excessively on the freedom of others..." and made all lovely and transitively closed by the Kantian version of the golden rule.
[0] Before you get all wrapped up around "hypothetical", consider: let's say your state health officials declare a mask mandate and you, like all rational people, do not wish to obey; you go into a convenient Half-Price Books mask-free. Many freedom-loving libertarians seem to believe that the next event would be a member of the 101st Airborne popping out of a convenient closet with an M1A1 Abrams under each arm and reduce you to a fine mist for your temerity. What would much more likely happen would be a store employee or manager asking you to leave. Unfortunately, that presents a problem for our libertarian friend---at that point, you are technically trespassing and even the fiercest libertarian would say the use of force against you is legitimate, no?
[1] What is the dividing line between 'the government' and any other human institution, and why do you regard it as more dangerously coercive than, say, your family?
[2] Y'all do realize Rand Paul doesn't want people who vote Democratic to have their votes counted? The methods for that are technically legal, I suppose, but it's not really very far from "round'em up and shoot'em" (which would be illegal) in the grand spectrum of historical human behavior.
I'd take my definition from The Declaration of the Rights of Man[1]:
> Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights.
> you go into a convenient Half-Price Books mask-free
The problem with this scenario isn't the liberty of the patron, but the liberty of the proprietor. Mask mandates have been varyingly enforced, but generally the government will issue extremely stiff fines or force closure of noncomplying businesses. I'm of the opinion that, like my house, under what conditions I choose to admit people to my business is none of anyone else's concern. I support the right to discriminate against masked and unmasked, shirted and shirtless, tall or short, and any other arbitrary criteria that the proprietor solely chooses.
> What is the dividing line between 'the government' and any other human institution
The government is the sole authority which is able to legitimately use force against you. They also govern public spaces, where you have a right to be, and reach into private interactions. If your family tells you that you have to wear a mask to see them, you can tell them to go to hell and face no consequences. If they beat you up or take your property, you have recourse: you can call the police or take them to court. None of this is true if the action (deemed "legitimate") is taken by the government. They can kidnap you, confine you against your will, and seize your property, and you have no higher power to hear your case.
> but it's not really very far from "round'em up and shoot'em"
I hope you're not comparing election fraud with mass murder. I would implore you to watch some videos of actual mass murders and see if you change your mind. Even a beheading video would do it I imagine.
1. http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html
> Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights.
> you go into a convenient Half-Price Books mask-free
The problem with this scenario isn't the liberty of the patron, but the liberty of the proprietor. Mask mandates have been varyingly enforced, but generally the government will issue extremely stiff fines or force closure of noncomplying businesses. I'm of the opinion that, like my house, under what conditions I choose to admit people to my business is none of anyone else's concern. I support the right to discriminate against masked and unmasked, shirted and shirtless, tall or short, and any other arbitrary criteria that the proprietor solely chooses.
> What is the dividing line between 'the government' and any other human institution
The government is the sole authority which is able to legitimately use force against you. They also govern public spaces, where you have a right to be, and reach into private interactions. If your family tells you that you have to wear a mask to see them, you can tell them to go to hell and face no consequences. If they beat you up or take your property, you have recourse: you can call the police or take them to court. None of this is true if the action (deemed "legitimate") is taken by the government. They can kidnap you, confine you against your will, and seize your property, and you have no higher power to hear your case.
> but it's not really very far from "round'em up and shoot'em"
I hope you're not comparing election fraud with mass murder. I would implore you to watch some videos of actual mass murders and see if you change your mind. Even a beheading video would do it I imagine.
1. http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html
That's one definition of liberty, but not the only one. I'd propose the alternative: Liberty is the freedom to take actions in society as it exists. Therefore a society that had greater prosperity has greater Liberty.
You sort of admit as much, what is keeping the piece but ultimately deciding which things are good things or not?
You sort of admit as much, what is keeping the piece but ultimately deciding which things are good things or not?
Keeping the peace means enforcing nonviolent interaction and providing due process for conflict resolution. Liberty isn't the same thing as prosperity/economic power. They are different words for a reason. You can be very poor and very free, or very comfortably enslaved. Liberty is fundamentally your relationship with those who can use legitimate force against you.
Your definition of liberty here is getting really tangled.
If liberty is “fundamentally your relationship with those who can use legitimate force against you” then how is having a set monetary policy incompatible with liberty as long as it comes from a “legitimate” source of power?
If liberty is “fundamentally your relationship with those who can use legitimate force against you” then how is having a set monetary policy incompatible with liberty as long as it comes from a “legitimate” source of power?
Because compliance with that monetary policy is enforced with.. force? You must pay taxes in USD, and if you don't you go to jail. The government also conveniently controls the USD supply, which allows the to debase it as they see fit, forcing you to obtain a set amount of USD per year to pay taxes. If the government accepted tax revenue in gold or bitcoin or anything else they don't totally control, you'd be absolutely right.
But we all agree that the government is legitimate, and so it's use of force is legitimate. Additionally, if the government forced you to pay it $1000 a year, even if you could deposit that in gold, you would still be forced to pay. The currency seems irrelevant.
It seems like what your saying is you believe taxation is legitimate, but requiring taxes to be pain in USD is illegitimate. Which, like, is just your opinion man (and makes the whole argument circular) I don't see any generic argument that makes taxation compatible with your definition of liberty but taxation in USD incompatible". I don't see really any generic definition of liberty that would distinguish between those two actions.
I'm rate limited, but to your example below of a currency no one could obtain, the government could equivalently apply a greater than 100% wealth tax. Or the government could define all speech as force or any number of other things. A capricious government can do bad things yes, but requiring taxes to be paid in a particular currency doesn't give them any more powerful ways to be capricious.
It seems like what your saying is you believe taxation is legitimate, but requiring taxes to be pain in USD is illegitimate. Which, like, is just your opinion man (and makes the whole argument circular) I don't see any generic argument that makes taxation compatible with your definition of liberty but taxation in USD incompatible". I don't see really any generic definition of liberty that would distinguish between those two actions.
I'm rate limited, but to your example below of a currency no one could obtain, the government could equivalently apply a greater than 100% wealth tax. Or the government could define all speech as force or any number of other things. A capricious government can do bad things yes, but requiring taxes to be paid in a particular currency doesn't give them any more powerful ways to be capricious.
The currency seems irrelevant, but it's not. Imagine my government in Tyrannia only accepted taxes in a currency which was impossible to obtain except by stealing it (also illegal). The government would then hold every citizen in a catch-22, allowing it to arbitrarily decide whom to imprison for not paying taxes and who to imprison for stealing the currency required to pay them.
Any centralized authority with a monopoly on force is going to have to levy taxes. Otherwise you’d end up with people just refusing to pay because they didn’t get the judgements they desire.
If there is a state _at all_ there is force involved. I don’t really understand what you believe is possible here. What you’re discussing is tantamount to assuming that American traditions of due process just exist in a state of nature when they absolutely do not.
If there is a state _at all_ there is force involved. I don’t really understand what you believe is possible here. What you’re discussing is tantamount to assuming that American traditions of due process just exist in a state of nature when they absolutely do not.
I believe it's possible to have a state whose powers and authority are fundamentally limited. I also believe that was the original intention of US. I agree taxes must be levied. I just disagree it's legitimate to levy them for most of what they are spent on today.
If I ask myself "what should the state be allowed to do?", it's basically answered by "what would I be comfortable holding a gun to someone's head for?". To take a popular example: If it's wrong to hold a gun to a doctor's head in order to force them to treat a patient (which I think it is), and it's wrong to hold a gun to a bystander's head to force them to pay the doctor, then it's wrong to fund healthcare with taxation.
If I ask myself "what should the state be allowed to do?", it's basically answered by "what would I be comfortable holding a gun to someone's head for?". To take a popular example: If it's wrong to hold a gun to a doctor's head in order to force them to treat a patient (which I think it is), and it's wrong to hold a gun to a bystander's head to force them to pay the doctor, then it's wrong to fund healthcare with taxation.
> enforcing nonviolent interaction
By ultimately using force or the threat thereof to prevent people from using force in disallowed ways, right?
> Liberty isn't the same thing as prosperity/economic power.
I didn't say they were synonyms. I said prosperity was a prerequisite to liberty[1]. A poor person isn't free to inhabit a house, and if they try to do so the state will use force to prevent or remove them.
[1]: actually I said all else equal, more prosperity means more liberty. To use your example (which I don't really buy, a rich slave is sort of not a thing), a "rich" slave is able to purchase better food for themselves than a poor slave whereas a poor slave would need to resort to theft, and risk force as a consequence.
By ultimately using force or the threat thereof to prevent people from using force in disallowed ways, right?
> Liberty isn't the same thing as prosperity/economic power.
I didn't say they were synonyms. I said prosperity was a prerequisite to liberty[1]. A poor person isn't free to inhabit a house, and if they try to do so the state will use force to prevent or remove them.
[1]: actually I said all else equal, more prosperity means more liberty. To use your example (which I don't really buy, a rich slave is sort of not a thing), a "rich" slave is able to purchase better food for themselves than a poor slave whereas a poor slave would need to resort to theft, and risk force as a consequence.
A homeless person can be more free than a person confined in a mansion, can they not?
> By ultimately using force or the threat thereof to prevent people from using force in disallowed ways
Yes, since using force to compel action is basically the definition of slavery and decidedly un-free.
> By ultimately using force or the threat thereof to prevent people from using force in disallowed ways
Yes, since using force to compel action is basically the definition of slavery and decidedly un-free.
> A homeless person can be more free than a person confined in a mansion, can they not?
Sure. But a rich homeless person is no longer homeless, and a poor person confined in their home is less free than a rich person confined on their home. You haven't addressed my point.
> Yes, since using force to compel action is basically the definition of slavery and decidedly un-free.
Right, so when I said
> You sort of admit as much, what is keeping the piece but ultimately deciding which things are good things or not
I was correct. The government decides which things are good or not (using force in disallowed ways) and prevents those. Generally governments high in libetry also do things like punish fraud, because fraud is bad and misleading people and stealing their money...reduces liberty? Or is fraud prevention unrelated to liberty, and should the government even do it?
Sure. But a rich homeless person is no longer homeless, and a poor person confined in their home is less free than a rich person confined on their home. You haven't addressed my point.
> Yes, since using force to compel action is basically the definition of slavery and decidedly un-free.
Right, so when I said
> You sort of admit as much, what is keeping the piece but ultimately deciding which things are good things or not
I was correct. The government decides which things are good or not (using force in disallowed ways) and prevents those. Generally governments high in libetry also do things like punish fraud, because fraud is bad and misleading people and stealing their money...reduces liberty? Or is fraud prevention unrelated to liberty, and should the government even do it?
> a poor person confined in their home is less free than a rich person confined on their home
I disagree. The rich person may be more comfortable, but they are no more free. Confinement is confinement.
> Or is fraud prevention unrelated to liberty
Fraud is related to securing of property rights, which are a part of liberty. How free are you if people can remove the food from your pantry? Fraud as a criminal offense has been derived from "theft by false pretense". But I'm pretty sure we'd be fine if we decriminalized it and relegated it to a tort.
I disagree. The rich person may be more comfortable, but they are no more free. Confinement is confinement.
> Or is fraud prevention unrelated to liberty
Fraud is related to securing of property rights, which are a part of liberty. How free are you if people can remove the food from your pantry? Fraud as a criminal offense has been derived from "theft by false pretense". But I'm pretty sure we'd be fine if we decriminalized it and relegated it to a tort.
My evidence is arithmetic? Someone who is leveraged with debt into assets now owns a larger piece of the pie (which we can loosely define as wealth) than they did before if the money supply increases compared to people who aren't levered into assets or just hold cash.
That depends heavily on the rollover period of said debt, along with other factors with how the debt is structured (eg variable interest rates).
Broad swaths of the middle class commonly fit within this framework as well, they leverage debt to buy houses.
The poor tend not to have mounds of cash sitting around, so the effects of inflation are only negative if there are not concurrent wage increases.
Pre central banking and stable (low) inflationary regimes, wealth has always been heavily concentrated in the upper class in the western world. The only real exception was the post war booms, which was during a time of heavy global monetary regulation.
Broad swaths of the middle class commonly fit within this framework as well, they leverage debt to buy houses.
The poor tend not to have mounds of cash sitting around, so the effects of inflation are only negative if there are not concurrent wage increases.
Pre central banking and stable (low) inflationary regimes, wealth has always been heavily concentrated in the upper class in the western world. The only real exception was the post war booms, which was during a time of heavy global monetary regulation.
Inflation is super complicated because it depends on what types of assets are held by whom and how susceptible those assets are to inflation. For example, high rates of inflation during/after WWII were a large contributing factor in a net reduction in wealth inequality, because much of the wealthy was heavily invested in fixed-return war bonds. Much of the rentier economy of the 19th century elite depended on predictably low (almost nonexistant) inflation in order to sustain their fortunes. Theoretically, the financial assets of today's wealthy should be somewhat less vulnerable to inflation (real returns over the last ~80 years seem to be lower during periods of high inflation but it's also sometimes hard to untangle inflation from the overall state of the economy). Ultimately, inflation is a pretty crude instrument in terms of who it affects; I think it's hard to make sweeping statements about who it's "good" for that hold up well over time.
That’s why the regulatory environment of the 20th century is important… Monetary policy that includes full employment provides benefits to the broader population.
“Hard money”, gold, Bitcoin, land, etc focused policy only benefits the return on assets for the people with those assets.
What we have now is the worst of both worlds.
“Hard money”, gold, Bitcoin, land, etc focused policy only benefits the return on assets for the people with those assets.
What we have now is the worst of both worlds.
You mean interest is a wealth transfer into the upper class. The more you have, the more you get. Inflation increases interest rates which makes it even worse because it not only attacks incomes but also existing savings.
> Inflationary monetary policy is wealth transfer into the upper class
No, it is a means of wealth transfer to the government without raising taxes. Where does the trillions in deficit spending come from? Inflation!
The politicians, of course, know this. But they keep up the misdirection by blaming it on greedy capitalists and/or unions.
The notion that it is for monetary stability is also propaganda. Milton Friedman in "Monetary History" showed that instability increased after the creation of the Fed.
No, it is a means of wealth transfer to the government without raising taxes. Where does the trillions in deficit spending come from? Inflation!
The politicians, of course, know this. But they keep up the misdirection by blaming it on greedy capitalists and/or unions.
The notion that it is for monetary stability is also propaganda. Milton Friedman in "Monetary History" showed that instability increased after the creation of the Fed.
>No, it is a means of wealth transfer to the government without raising taxes. Where does the trillions in deficit spending come from? Inflation!
Saving creates a hole in the economy, the trillions of deficit spending are a very stupid way of filling that hole. It works better than doing nothing which is why we do it.
>The notion that it is for monetary stability is also propaganda. Milton Friedman in "Monetary History" showed that instability increased after the creation of the Fed.
Uh, that is a property of capitalism. It's great at first when debts are low then it gets worse and worse.
Saving creates a hole in the economy, the trillions of deficit spending are a very stupid way of filling that hole. It works better than doing nothing which is why we do it.
>The notion that it is for monetary stability is also propaganda. Milton Friedman in "Monetary History" showed that instability increased after the creation of the Fed.
Uh, that is a property of capitalism. It's great at first when debts are low then it gets worse and worse.
Central banks and their role in tyranny is hardly “vague”.
They can siphon off the wealth of an entire nation by printing money. It’s an irresistible temptation that I don’t trust any man to resist long term. That kind of power shouldn’t be in the hands of any one person or organization.
They can siphon off the wealth of an entire nation by printing money. It’s an irresistible temptation that I don’t trust any man to resist long term. That kind of power shouldn’t be in the hands of any one person or organization.
>They can siphon off the wealth of an entire nation by printing money.
There are a countless other ways a country can do this and most of those are more targeted. The tax code is the most obvious example. Inflation is a flat tax of a few percentage points. If the goal is to wield power, it is much more important to control the tax code and move the income tax from 0% (generally true before the 16th Amendment in 1913) to 91% (1954-1963) or from 91% back down to 37% (the current rate). Blaming central banking as the primary cause for these issues just doesn't make sense to me.
There are a countless other ways a country can do this and most of those are more targeted. The tax code is the most obvious example. Inflation is a flat tax of a few percentage points. If the goal is to wield power, it is much more important to control the tax code and move the income tax from 0% (generally true before the 16th Amendment in 1913) to 91% (1954-1963) or from 91% back down to 37% (the current rate). Blaming central banking as the primary cause for these issues just doesn't make sense to me.
> Inflation is a flat tax of a few percentage points
Flat tax on cash holdings, which poor people don't have.
It's a negative tax on debt, which poor people tend to hold. It doesn't apply to assets.
Now if wages don't keep track with inflation, that's not a tax, it's an employer reducing wages.
Flat tax on cash holdings, which poor people don't have.
It's a negative tax on debt, which poor people tend to hold. It doesn't apply to assets.
Now if wages don't keep track with inflation, that's not a tax, it's an employer reducing wages.
I'm not sure the distinction you are making here. A flat tax is called that because it is flat in percentage not in nominal value. Yes, debtors will benefit more than creditors, but that doesn't mean it isn't a flat tax. Also it doesn't just impact cash which should be obvious from the last sentence. If inflation decreases the real amount owed by debtors, it also decreases the real amount that is owed to creditors, and therefore decreases the value of their investments.
> If inflation decreases the real amount owed by debtors, it also decreases the real amount that is owed to creditors, and therefore decreases the value of their investments.
I'm sure that's upsetting for wealthy people with investments
For the mom working 3 jobs at Macdonalds, as long as Macdonalds continues to pay an inflation linked salary, her debts being whittled away, that's great news.
Now if Macdonalds can cut salaries relative to inflation, that's a whole other problem.
I'm sure that's upsetting for wealthy people with investments
For the mom working 3 jobs at Macdonalds, as long as Macdonalds continues to pay an inflation linked salary, her debts being whittled away, that's great news.
Now if Macdonalds can cut salaries relative to inflation, that's a whole other problem.
> For the mom working 3 jobs at Macdonalds, as long as Macdonalds continues to pay an inflation linked salary
Huge assumption. Wages have not kept up with inflation since the 1970’s. Know what has? Asset prices. Guess who owns stocks/gold/real estate?
Huge assumption. Wages have not kept up with inflation since the 1970’s. Know what has? Asset prices. Guess who owns stocks/gold/real estate?
I think you are projecting a moral or political argument into my comments. That wasn't my intention. My point is that there are more powerful levers in the government than the inflation rate.
Sure, having your debt reduced by 6% or whatever is good, but the government could also easily forgive all federally owned college debt and 100% reduction is certainly better than 6%. Increasing the minimum wage is another example. That would more directly benefit that mom with 3 jobs more than inflation.
Whatever your political goals are, there is likely a much more powerful tool to accomplish them than nudging the inflation rate up or down a few percentage points.
Sure, having your debt reduced by 6% or whatever is good, but the government could also easily forgive all federally owned college debt and 100% reduction is certainly better than 6%. Increasing the minimum wage is another example. That would more directly benefit that mom with 3 jobs more than inflation.
Whatever your political goals are, there is likely a much more powerful tool to accomplish them than nudging the inflation rate up or down a few percentage points.
>It's a negative tax on debt, which poor people tend to hold. It doesn't apply to assets.
Thank you!! This is the first time I've heard someone acknowledge this since the "inflation crisis" started. Inflation is good for student debt holders.
Thank you!! This is the first time I've heard someone acknowledge this since the "inflation crisis" started. Inflation is good for student debt holders.
Could be, but it makes a lot of assumptions and is loose with terminology. Monetary inflation does not equal price or wage inflation necessarily. We are definitely seeing price inflation which no longer seems to be transitory. There does seem to be wage inflation, but that is not guaranteed. So while if wage inflation keeps up for those holding debt, then yes. I wonder though if those in the position of student debt have the least leverage to take advantage of the wage inflation.
The other thing is that costs go up. The impact of this is much greater if you are poor which could also affect your ability to actually pay the loans. One has to eat after all.
So imho, it's a lot more complicated for an individual. Sure for a corporation that borrows tens of millions for a new capital expenditure it makes debt cheaper. But that may or may not translate to someone that is poor and paying off debt.
The other thing is that costs go up. The impact of this is much greater if you are poor which could also affect your ability to actually pay the loans. One has to eat after all.
So imho, it's a lot more complicated for an individual. Sure for a corporation that borrows tens of millions for a new capital expenditure it makes debt cheaper. But that may or may not translate to someone that is poor and paying off debt.
Their student debt might go down but so does their chance of ever owning a home.
They hoodwinked an entire generation of children into going six-figures in debt, made the high school diploma worthless etc.
Before: -HS degree -no debt -immediately start a factory job that makes enough for an average home, 2 cars, and a spouse that doesn’t work
Now: -4 year degree, delaying income in prime years -graduate with a small house-worth of debt, with no house -your new job’s earnings in real terms is barely enough to rent -your spouse has to work too -have to make one car work
The American people have been robbed of their prosperity and sold a bucket of lies.
They hoodwinked an entire generation of children into going six-figures in debt, made the high school diploma worthless etc.
Before: -HS degree -no debt -immediately start a factory job that makes enough for an average home, 2 cars, and a spouse that doesn’t work
Now: -4 year degree, delaying income in prime years -graduate with a small house-worth of debt, with no house -your new job’s earnings in real terms is barely enough to rent -your spouse has to work too -have to make one car work
The American people have been robbed of their prosperity and sold a bucket of lies.
>There are a countless other ways a country
A country? The federal reserve is run by private individuals. It is a private bank. Don't let the name fool you.
A country? The federal reserve is run by private individuals. It is a private bank. Don't let the name fool you.
"The Federal Reserve is private" is a meme at this point that is largely divorced from our usual meaning of public/private. Calling the Federal Reserve Board "private citizens" is like calling the Supreme Court Justices "private citizens". They are both officials appointed by the president, who must be confirmed by the Senate, and who collect a public salary. Any profits from the Federal Reserve go right back into the US Treasury. What more do we need to consider this part of the government?
While all supreme court justices are appointed, from my understanding only the chairman is appointed correct? Everyone that works for the fed is not necessarily appointed?
Maybe we say it is private but the government serves as the board :)
Seeing the tension over the years the Chairman, the President, and Congress implies to me that the government does not have absolute authority over the Fed.
Maybe we say it is private but the government serves as the board :)
Seeing the tension over the years the Chairman, the President, and Congress implies to me that the government does not have absolute authority over the Fed.
All the board members are appointed. From their website:[1]
>The Board of Governors--located in Washington, D.C.--is the governing body of the Federal Reserve System. It is run by seven members, or "governors," who are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed in their positions by the U.S. Senate.
Not everyone who works for the Fed is appointed, but that is also true of the Supreme Court, Congress, the FBI, or any other part of the government. The leaders are political appointees and they oversee a bureaucratic system that includes many workers who are ostensibly apolitical.
>Seeing the tension over the years the Chairman, the President, and Congress implies to me that the government does not have absolute authority over the Fed.
Once again, just like the Supreme court. Both of these entities are designed to be more independent of the day-to-day political squabbles of the president and Congress.
[1] - https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal...
>The Board of Governors--located in Washington, D.C.--is the governing body of the Federal Reserve System. It is run by seven members, or "governors," who are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed in their positions by the U.S. Senate.
Not everyone who works for the Fed is appointed, but that is also true of the Supreme Court, Congress, the FBI, or any other part of the government. The leaders are political appointees and they oversee a bureaucratic system that includes many workers who are ostensibly apolitical.
>Seeing the tension over the years the Chairman, the President, and Congress implies to me that the government does not have absolute authority over the Fed.
Once again, just like the Supreme court. Both of these entities are designed to be more independent of the day-to-day political squabbles of the president and Congress.
[1] - https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal...
Financial elite finances all candidates, some of them win, the winners appoint the financial elite to be board members of the organization that is capable of printing money and giving bailouts/buying poisoned assets from said financial institutions. The money is not made from FED profits, the money is made by the financial institutions owned by the board members. What's so hard to understand about that? It's clearly a scam.
It does not only happen at the central-banking level, but it's another tool used by them. Let me give you a similar example, not directly involving central banking, from my country. Paulo Guedes is the founder of BTG Pactual bank. He goes on and funds the candidate Jair Bolsonaro for presidency. Once elected, Bolsonaro appoints Guedes to Ministry of Economy. His monetary policies decisions makes the USD/BRL go from R$3.71 to R$5.70. November/2021 comes by and pandora papers are released. We find out the dude has almost 10 million USD stashed in offshore tax-heavens. His decisions made his personal fortune grow by 14 million BRL(equivalent to 956 years of minimum wage).
This does not involve central banking directly but the idea is the same: put the financial elite in positions that allow them to make large scale decisions to grow their personal fortunes while affecting the lives of all others. It's a scam.
It does not only happen at the central-banking level, but it's another tool used by them. Let me give you a similar example, not directly involving central banking, from my country. Paulo Guedes is the founder of BTG Pactual bank. He goes on and funds the candidate Jair Bolsonaro for presidency. Once elected, Bolsonaro appoints Guedes to Ministry of Economy. His monetary policies decisions makes the USD/BRL go from R$3.71 to R$5.70. November/2021 comes by and pandora papers are released. We find out the dude has almost 10 million USD stashed in offshore tax-heavens. His decisions made his personal fortune grow by 14 million BRL(equivalent to 956 years of minimum wage).
This does not involve central banking directly but the idea is the same: put the financial elite in positions that allow them to make large scale decisions to grow their personal fortunes while affecting the lives of all others. It's a scam.
>Financial elite finances all candidates, some of them win
Your entire point rests on this premise and once we accept this premise we acknowledge the entire government is already compromised. Once that happens why does the central bank matter when everything that follows could be accomplished some other way through that already compromised government? That is my fundamental point. It isn't that the central banks don't have power. It is that a central bank's power pails in comparison to the overall government. Therefore conspiracies theories about taking over the government to gain control of the central bank don't make much sense.
Your entire point rests on this premise and once we accept this premise we acknowledge the entire government is already compromised. Once that happens why does the central bank matter when everything that follows could be accomplished some other way through that already compromised government? That is my fundamental point. It isn't that the central banks don't have power. It is that a central bank's power pails in comparison to the overall government. Therefore conspiracies theories about taking over the government to gain control of the central bank don't make much sense.
>Your entire point rests on this premise and once we accept this premise we acknowledge the entire government is already compromised.
I agree.
>Once that happens why does the central bank matter
I guess it matters because public awareness is necessary for us not to allow history to repeat itself. As Ford once said: "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
I agree.
>Once that happens why does the central bank matter
I guess it matters because public awareness is necessary for us not to allow history to repeat itself. As Ford once said: "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
>I guess it matters because public awareness is necessary for us not to allow history to repeat itself.
But it is a symptom rather than a cause of the corruption. The energy spent on raising public awareness about this would likely be better served drawing attention to what we both seem to think is the underlying problem, the outsized influence that the wealthy have on the government.
But it is a symptom rather than a cause of the corruption. The energy spent on raising public awareness about this would likely be better served drawing attention to what we both seem to think is the underlying problem, the outsized influence that the wealthy have on the government.
Fair enough.
Your username is incorrect.
No.
It’s more akin to a public authority.
It’s more akin to a public authority.
>They can siphon off the wealth of an entire nation by printing money. It’s an irresistible temptation
A) Which makes it basically another form of tax.
B) The raising of which always driven the wealthy into fits of rage no matter how necessary or beneficial.
A) Which makes it basically another form of tax.
B) The raising of which always driven the wealthy into fits of rage no matter how necessary or beneficial.
No the wealthy love this because their debt becomes cheaper to service while their assets skyrockets. Inflation primarily hurts the non-asset owning poor.
Have you met the non asset owning poor? They have debt. LOTS of debt.
The interest rates are high enough and the debt terms are short enough that they get screwed hard by relative buying power loss long before any of that matters.
Having your car loan evaporate over three years doesn't mean crap if you can't afford to make the payment after one.
Having your car loan evaporate over three years doesn't mean crap if you can't afford to make the payment after one.
[deleted]
Unfortunately some of early American politicians had some cranky ideas about central banks - which caused some economic depressions.
I recommend reading on history of the bank of the United States. The FED was the 2nd iteration.
Also, Hamilton (who wanted a monarchy) had a lot of very authoritarian ideas and his ideas (and him generally) we’re not well liked by people supporting democracy or the formation of the republic.
Also, Hamilton (who wanted a monarchy) had a lot of very authoritarian ideas and his ideas (and him generally) we’re not well liked by people supporting democracy or the formation of the republic.
This is a very hard conversation to have on HN.
It is impossible to consider that the whole of society has been created and planned in advance. To think that the upper classes manage everyone (they always did), that the schooling system produces people that are incapable of seeing the outside the box (and yet believe that they are free, nay - they 'know' it), that finance is the main weapon in the wealth extraction, that it is planned for us to move to technocracy (with a bio-medical-wallet-etc-id, tracked everywhere in spy-cities, not allowed to even leave your 110sqft micro-flat unless the computer says so), that all the disasters we face have resulted in incremental steps towards this aim (911, covid). Its a lot to consider!
That we have been harnessed and put to work creating someone else's heaven on earth (and hardcore slavery for the rest) is a bitter pill to swallow. And the techies here have recently been the greatest driver of this change. Their livelihoods do depend on it.
Anyway, good on you, for bringing some of these issues up.
It is impossible to consider that the whole of society has been created and planned in advance. To think that the upper classes manage everyone (they always did), that the schooling system produces people that are incapable of seeing the outside the box (and yet believe that they are free, nay - they 'know' it), that finance is the main weapon in the wealth extraction, that it is planned for us to move to technocracy (with a bio-medical-wallet-etc-id, tracked everywhere in spy-cities, not allowed to even leave your 110sqft micro-flat unless the computer says so), that all the disasters we face have resulted in incremental steps towards this aim (911, covid). Its a lot to consider!
That we have been harnessed and put to work creating someone else's heaven on earth (and hardcore slavery for the rest) is a bitter pill to swallow. And the techies here have recently been the greatest driver of this change. Their livelihoods do depend on it.
Anyway, good on you, for bringing some of these issues up.
"This is a very hard conversation to have on HN."
Yes because it implies there is a conspiracy requiring God-like abilities to plan the long term outcomes of a multitude of decisions and actions many of which have conflicting goals.
What is more probable, that the current situation just emerged organically or that some elite group has conspired and executed flawlessly to make the world just like it is ?
There are subcontractors who work for my CM in China and I doubt they are paid much. It wasn't my plan to create wage-slaves and if I paid my CM more they would just likely pocket the difference. I'll admit I contribute to to problems you describe but that's very different than having intent and control.
Yes because it implies there is a conspiracy requiring God-like abilities to plan the long term outcomes of a multitude of decisions and actions many of which have conflicting goals.
What is more probable, that the current situation just emerged organically or that some elite group has conspired and executed flawlessly to make the world just like it is ?
There are subcontractors who work for my CM in China and I doubt they are paid much. It wasn't my plan to create wage-slaves and if I paid my CM more they would just likely pocket the difference. I'll admit I contribute to to problems you describe but that's very different than having intent and control.
No. God-like abilities are not required.
But lots of wealth and a clear long-term plan is.
Do you think that those individuals that own corporations, would be interested to gain greater control and wealth? Wouldn't it be good to transform society in a way that is most beneficial to them? Do you think that those individuals would be pretty ruthless in their execution of their plans? And that they would also try to be secretive? Of course.
Do you think that politicians can be encouraged to vote one way or another? Those on the blue team and on the reds? Given lots of money, lobbyists, etc? Or threats? I think it would be naive to think that they do not.
And if you control governmental policy, what would you work on? Education - to train obedient workers? Finance? The legal system? All of those.
Would you create or buy the media companies to ensure that your message is always provided, and that any negative exposure is squashed? Or get people talking about all the wrong things? Yes again.
Would you seek to increase dependence on government or increase people's self-reliance? Increase dependence on government, of course! What is the direction of travel do you think?
Would you even create a ready way to smear those who do raise the reality of the situation. A handy handle that allows you to dismiss those who are sharing information that you don't like. This too has been done - and the handle is 'conspiracy theorist'. This smear allows you to ignore whatever evidence might be being presented, and allow you to carry on with your day - no further investigation required!
My view is that if you have a good handle on human nature, specific goals and lots of wealth, it is actually not that hard to create the fish bowl. You will have created a class (the majority) of people who are too invested (financially, emotionally, spiritually) in the unnatural system you have provided. They will go to the schools you created, learn the values you want, just like their parents.
If you control the terrain, and provide the method that people use to "verify" information for themselves (and the method is accept the evidence free claims given, maybe occasionally double check something on Wikipedia) you can really go very far! No one checks anything - we are so invested in this we have to trust that "they've got this".
The truth is that "they" look at you and I as cattle. And they are just executing their best herd-management procedures. And - I think - they have been running things like this for a long time.
But lots of wealth and a clear long-term plan is.
Do you think that those individuals that own corporations, would be interested to gain greater control and wealth? Wouldn't it be good to transform society in a way that is most beneficial to them? Do you think that those individuals would be pretty ruthless in their execution of their plans? And that they would also try to be secretive? Of course.
Do you think that politicians can be encouraged to vote one way or another? Those on the blue team and on the reds? Given lots of money, lobbyists, etc? Or threats? I think it would be naive to think that they do not.
And if you control governmental policy, what would you work on? Education - to train obedient workers? Finance? The legal system? All of those.
Would you create or buy the media companies to ensure that your message is always provided, and that any negative exposure is squashed? Or get people talking about all the wrong things? Yes again.
Would you seek to increase dependence on government or increase people's self-reliance? Increase dependence on government, of course! What is the direction of travel do you think?
Would you even create a ready way to smear those who do raise the reality of the situation. A handy handle that allows you to dismiss those who are sharing information that you don't like. This too has been done - and the handle is 'conspiracy theorist'. This smear allows you to ignore whatever evidence might be being presented, and allow you to carry on with your day - no further investigation required!
My view is that if you have a good handle on human nature, specific goals and lots of wealth, it is actually not that hard to create the fish bowl. You will have created a class (the majority) of people who are too invested (financially, emotionally, spiritually) in the unnatural system you have provided. They will go to the schools you created, learn the values you want, just like their parents.
If you control the terrain, and provide the method that people use to "verify" information for themselves (and the method is accept the evidence free claims given, maybe occasionally double check something on Wikipedia) you can really go very far! No one checks anything - we are so invested in this we have to trust that "they've got this".
The truth is that "they" look at you and I as cattle. And they are just executing their best herd-management procedures. And - I think - they have been running things like this for a long time.
"Do you think that those individuals that own corporations, would be interested..."
I can't even get my business partner to agree with me on mundane things let alone a grand plan to shape the world regardless of wealth.
Your argument hinges on this hypothetical "you" and that is like identifying the handful of termites that coordinated the building of the colony's mound.
Besides does this mindset serve you in any way ? Even if you are right, keep in mind there is a third role: sideliner. Many financially independent people are neither cattle or rancher.
I can't even get my business partner to agree with me on mundane things let alone a grand plan to shape the world regardless of wealth.
Your argument hinges on this hypothetical "you" and that is like identifying the handful of termites that coordinated the building of the colony's mound.
Besides does this mindset serve you in any way ? Even if you are right, keep in mind there is a third role: sideliner. Many financially independent people are neither cattle or rancher.
"I can't even get my business partner to agree with me on mundane things let alone a grand plan to shape the world regardless of wealth."
You don't have enough money.
"Your argument hinges on this hypothetical "you""
It does. So, do you think that politicians, businessmen - the really successful ones, are there on merit? That these are the best of us? Or the worst? Do they even have a morality?
"Besides does this mindset serve you in any way ?"
Fair question.
It doesn't serve me when it comes to finding motivation to earn more money, get my children into better schools, having a fantastic holiday, a holiday home, etc.
If you are prepared to consider that there is more to life than contorting yourself that enable you to make more money though, perhaps. I seek to uncover as much truth as I can in my way. I think my search does serve me in my attempt to live a meaningful life. Regardless of what others may say is a meaningful life.
One way to consider it, is that when we die we judge ourselves. We might ask, did we do what should have, did we do it right, did we even try? Why wait to do the things you think/know are right?
You don't have enough money.
"Your argument hinges on this hypothetical "you""
It does. So, do you think that politicians, businessmen - the really successful ones, are there on merit? That these are the best of us? Or the worst? Do they even have a morality?
"Besides does this mindset serve you in any way ?"
Fair question.
It doesn't serve me when it comes to finding motivation to earn more money, get my children into better schools, having a fantastic holiday, a holiday home, etc.
If you are prepared to consider that there is more to life than contorting yourself that enable you to make more money though, perhaps. I seek to uncover as much truth as I can in my way. I think my search does serve me in my attempt to live a meaningful life. Regardless of what others may say is a meaningful life.
One way to consider it, is that when we die we judge ourselves. We might ask, did we do what should have, did we do it right, did we even try? Why wait to do the things you think/know are right?
>Yes because it implies there is a conspiracy requiring God-like abilities to plan the long term outcomes of a multitude of decisions and actions many of which have conflicting goals.
Are you sure? You don't need a conspiracy theory. All you need is compound interest. Just think about it. An asset produces returns above what you spend on consumption. I.e. you are a net winner of the financial system. But milk, eggs, cars, houses have to be built by someone and you can clearly see poor people at the construction site of your house. You don't see rich millionaires build your house.
Meanwhile most people are paying into this system and they are net losers.
Are you sure? You don't need a conspiracy theory. All you need is compound interest. Just think about it. An asset produces returns above what you spend on consumption. I.e. you are a net winner of the financial system. But milk, eggs, cars, houses have to be built by someone and you can clearly see poor people at the construction site of your house. You don't see rich millionaires build your house.
Meanwhile most people are paying into this system and they are net losers.
Not that I disagree with the underlying ideas, but I'd argue we're not slaves. I'll concede that in practice we can definitely be thought something more akin to peasants, but what we live in today is not slavery.
Now, is being a peasant, with all the concomitant limitations on one's livelihood any better than being a slave to the mental health of the bright and ambitious? Perhaps not, but it would be significantly more deleterious to their physical health.
I also understand that reasonable people can debate whether physical or mental health is more important.
Now, is being a peasant, with all the concomitant limitations on one's livelihood any better than being a slave to the mental health of the bright and ambitious? Perhaps not, but it would be significantly more deleterious to their physical health.
I also understand that reasonable people can debate whether physical or mental health is more important.
If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery. You wouldn't think it ok if an individual forced you, or the mafia. The government is just big mafia.
But that is not really the nub of it.
Slavery is really a mental state - having been through the system we have been propagandised that the government is a good thing, it's the right way to manage ourselves - anything else is very bad. This is the creation of the slave mentality, putting the policeman inside your head, so that you feel highly uncomfortable just considering non-standard ideas - they are thoughtcrime.
Thoughtcrime egs: that news is just another show, a serious type of advert. That pharmaceutical companies will run world wide campaigns, seconding governments, drafting laws, to poison millions - this will fill up their pipeline with sickness for the coming decades.
But that is not really the nub of it.
Slavery is really a mental state - having been through the system we have been propagandised that the government is a good thing, it's the right way to manage ourselves - anything else is very bad. This is the creation of the slave mentality, putting the policeman inside your head, so that you feel highly uncomfortable just considering non-standard ideas - they are thoughtcrime.
Thoughtcrime egs: that news is just another show, a serious type of advert. That pharmaceutical companies will run world wide campaigns, seconding governments, drafting laws, to poison millions - this will fill up their pipeline with sickness for the coming decades.
If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery
This is a good example of what I'm talking about.
Maybe you think of it as slavery, but in reality, it's the very definition of peasantry.
Slavery is you get no money. And by the way, if you disagree with it, the power holder beats the tar out of you. Or maybe s/he just kills you and gets another slave. Whatever's most convenient at the time/place.
Other than money, there are also a host of other differences between how we live and slavery. Including the fact that slaves don't choose their masters. There is no right to leave. Less than expected productivity results in severe beatings. And on and on and on.
Again, peasantry is its own special form of perdition. No need to exaggerate to get that point across. I was only saying that it's clearly not slavery.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about.
Maybe you think of it as slavery, but in reality, it's the very definition of peasantry.
Slavery is you get no money. And by the way, if you disagree with it, the power holder beats the tar out of you. Or maybe s/he just kills you and gets another slave. Whatever's most convenient at the time/place.
Other than money, there are also a host of other differences between how we live and slavery. Including the fact that slaves don't choose their masters. There is no right to leave. Less than expected productivity results in severe beatings. And on and on and on.
Again, peasantry is its own special form of perdition. No need to exaggerate to get that point across. I was only saying that it's clearly not slavery.
"Slavery is you get no money. And by the way, if you disagree with it, the power holder beats the tar out of you."
If you try to withhold payment of taxes, I suspect you will feel a the force of the law.
"There is no right to leave."
Can I stop paying tax without a negative effect?
--
I am not free if I am forced to pay 100% of my income - that is slavery by your definition.
But if I pay 90%, am I free now? What about 40% - is that the 'freedom percentage'?
Please let me know what amount of income a free man should hand over under threat of force if they do not consent willingly.
If you try to withhold payment of taxes, I suspect you will feel a the force of the law.
"There is no right to leave."
Can I stop paying tax without a negative effect?
--
I am not free if I am forced to pay 100% of my income - that is slavery by your definition.
But if I pay 90%, am I free now? What about 40% - is that the 'freedom percentage'?
Please let me know what amount of income a free man should hand over under threat of force if they do not consent willingly.
There will always be someone more powerful than you. I prefer that I can elect the leaders of the most powerful group. This is why anarchy doesn't make any sense: The government is simply the most powerful violent group. As long as violence exists, any anarchic arrangement is inherently unstable.
"The government is simply the most powerful violent group."
100% right. But let's not lie to ourselves that this is also morally right.
You may kid yourself that you are freely doing something meaningful when you vote to be governed by someone else, but the reality is that is based in fear (of others or the government).
You don't in fact need governance when you meet family members for social occasions. This natural behaviour can scale up.
But no, I don't think we are heading towards freedom. I think government is too powerful. Government would create the anarchic situations to allow for the strong paternal government response. In fact, this is how it has so much power now! It creates the objects of fear, and proposes a responses that just happen to require more from its citizens. More money, more control, etc. Its a one-way street.
Unfortunately, you cannot comply your way out of tyranny - so we are heading towards greater slavery and greater governmental control. This is because people are unable to take responsibility for their decisions - they don't even know what right and wrong are ffs. (Do not do unto others..)
100% right. But let's not lie to ourselves that this is also morally right.
You may kid yourself that you are freely doing something meaningful when you vote to be governed by someone else, but the reality is that is based in fear (of others or the government).
You don't in fact need governance when you meet family members for social occasions. This natural behaviour can scale up.
But no, I don't think we are heading towards freedom. I think government is too powerful. Government would create the anarchic situations to allow for the strong paternal government response. In fact, this is how it has so much power now! It creates the objects of fear, and proposes a responses that just happen to require more from its citizens. More money, more control, etc. Its a one-way street.
Unfortunately, you cannot comply your way out of tyranny - so we are heading towards greater slavery and greater governmental control. This is because people are unable to take responsibility for their decisions - they don't even know what right and wrong are ffs. (Do not do unto others..)
> If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery. You wouldn't think it ok if an individual forced you, or the mafia. The government is just big mafia.
The government uses your money to build infrastructure that makes the land the rich own more valuable. The government itself is also a victim.
The government uses your money to build infrastructure that makes the land the rich own more valuable. The government itself is also a victim.
> I also understand that reasonable people can debate whether physical or mental health is more important.
I'm actually unsure what this means. I take it to imnply that physical health is more important, but I'm not convinced of that. Physical health impacts the individual and loved ones (via emotional labor and support). Mental health impacts the community (mass shootings); it's hard to predict the outcome of poor mental health per individual but it's clear on the whole that it's often the community that pays for it.
I'm actually unsure what this means. I take it to imnply that physical health is more important, but I'm not convinced of that. Physical health impacts the individual and loved ones (via emotional labor and support). Mental health impacts the community (mass shootings); it's hard to predict the outcome of poor mental health per individual but it's clear on the whole that it's often the community that pays for it.
Knowledge is Bayesian, and while there is finite probability for what you said, the probabilities are very low based on real events.
Also, the premise that finance people are just naturally evil isn't based in reality, its just fetishism.
Also, the premise that finance people are just naturally evil isn't based in reality, its just fetishism.
Yes. Those that have the power to trick others into giving them even more power have little restraining them from doing so.
It's also complicated by the fact that those who push against it haven't exactly made a name for themselves as reasonable people (at least the most vocal ones haven't) leading to derision of "freedumbs" and so forth.
I mourn the dearth of different perspectives and not assuming everyone is on a "side".
It's also complicated by the fact that those who push against it haven't exactly made a name for themselves as reasonable people (at least the most vocal ones haven't) leading to derision of "freedumbs" and so forth.
I mourn the dearth of different perspectives and not assuming everyone is on a "side".
'power to trick' - that hit the nail on the head! The oligarchs, higher level bureaucrats, politicians, extreme wealthy etc. that is the superpower, at their core, they are magicians but not in a good, fun way, more like con-man who have mastered the power to _trick_ and deceive. I came to the conclusion sometime ago, that all these people of power and position are really just charlatans, albeit extremely good ones, they are nothing to aspire to and respect, they are no better then a grifter using 'slight of hand' and deception to remove as much wealth and power from others to themselves and when all else fails, they will resort to force/war if need be. In a nutshell, nothing but liars, cheats, cowards and dishonorable megalomaniacs that put on a (good) show for us peasants to better rob us blind.
I mean, "liberty" is exactly allowing people to convince each other to exchange things. Some people might get the short end, but does that mean it's not free exchange? Or does that mean liberty itself is not an aim worth pursuing?
In my personal opinion it is worth it to have liberty, even if so many people are fine with giving it up to others at the drop of a hat. It's too important not to have. I just wish individual independence wasn't so derided these days.
Gun control in the 1880s Old West:
"The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)"
"Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-...
"The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)"
"Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-...
Probably unconstitutional, but never challenged in the Supreme Court, I believe.
Back then the Second Amendment was read as a right to an Armed Militia. SCOTUS probably would of allowed these laws at the time.
It's only the in past few decades that the Second Amendment has been perverted into the right to carry any gun you want where ever you want.
Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/09/why-accura...
It's only the in past few decades that the Second Amendment has been perverted into the right to carry any gun you want where ever you want.
Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/09/why-accura...
That's an Op Ed, not a reference.
It would have been perfectly Constitutional until the Supreme Court changed their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the Heller case.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
IANAL, but I think there was no interpretation until the Supreme Court made that ruling. The Second Amendment was in a quantum state before that, both an individual right and not. When it becomes necessary to clarify something, then SCOTUS collapses the wave function in that particular area of law.
John Paul Stevens was a lawyer and a judge on the Supreme Court. He disagrees and includes actual court decisions and opinions.
>the Miller Court unanimously concluded that the Second Amendment did not apply to the possession of a firearm that did not have “some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” And in 1980, in a footnote to an opinion upholding a conviction for receipt of a firearm, the Court effectively affirmed Miller, writing: “[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-...
>the Miller Court unanimously concluded that the Second Amendment did not apply to the possession of a firearm that did not have “some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” And in 1980, in a footnote to an opinion upholding a conviction for receipt of a firearm, the Court effectively affirmed Miller, writing: “[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-...
SCOTUS didn’t begin to apply the bill of rights to anyone besides the federal government until Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago in 1897. The entire notion of individual rights (in the modern sense) guaranteed by the constitution was in its nascency in 1878.
Nah Heller is the outlier here. Here's the Wikipedia page for its precedent, Miller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Wow, that one sounds nuts:
"In reality, the district court judge was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would surely be a victory because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument....Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision had been rendered."
"In reality, the district court judge was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would surely be a victory because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument....Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision had been rendered."
Yeah, sometimes legal strategies are odd. I guess the point is that 2A was always about militias; essentially everything up until Thomas' concurrence in Printz considered 2A in the context of militia readiness, and the draft of 2A was even more explicitly about militias. It's sort of unassailable, but obviously not actually unassailable, because now we have Heller.
Myself, I think 2A is just an anachronism. Militias as they were at the founding don't exist anymore. Almost no one in modern US society meets military readiness standards. Armed forces use bonkers weapons of war the founders could never have imagined. Even individual person-on-the-street weapons are pretty boggling by 18th century standards. And this is just considering firearms, expanding "arms" to whatever the US military considers to be a weapon (software/hardware exploits, biological weapons, chemical weapons).
Further, I think "2A as a check on government" is meritless because Congress regulates militias, and the Constitution (Article I, §8) reads: "The Congress shall have power to... provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Allowing governments to suppress insurrections is the opposite of allowing checks on government.
I'm not like, super into gun control--I think the US is too big for a one-size-fits-all policy and I think a lot of implementations just land men of color in prison w/ felonies. But none of the pro-gun 2A interpretations make sense to me, and from where I sit the debate is more a reflection of Congress' ongoing slide into irrelevance and sclerosis as other less encumbered institutions in the US do the actual legislating.
Myself, I think 2A is just an anachronism. Militias as they were at the founding don't exist anymore. Almost no one in modern US society meets military readiness standards. Armed forces use bonkers weapons of war the founders could never have imagined. Even individual person-on-the-street weapons are pretty boggling by 18th century standards. And this is just considering firearms, expanding "arms" to whatever the US military considers to be a weapon (software/hardware exploits, biological weapons, chemical weapons).
Further, I think "2A as a check on government" is meritless because Congress regulates militias, and the Constitution (Article I, §8) reads: "The Congress shall have power to... provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Allowing governments to suppress insurrections is the opposite of allowing checks on government.
I'm not like, super into gun control--I think the US is too big for a one-size-fits-all policy and I think a lot of implementations just land men of color in prison w/ felonies. But none of the pro-gun 2A interpretations make sense to me, and from where I sit the debate is more a reflection of Congress' ongoing slide into irrelevance and sclerosis as other less encumbered institutions in the US do the actual legislating.
You make several good points, but this whole "what can civilians with pew-pew weapons do against a modern army?" argument has been put to bed in actual combat now. See Vietnam and Afghanistan for humbling examples. Not to say it wouldn't be bloody, but victory is not assured by the technologically superior force, apparently.
Oh, definitely. But like, those weren't thriving countries at the time right. In any hypothetical US revolt, things go south very fast. Schools are closed, roads are closed, hospitals are commandeered, power stations are commandeered. Core internet infrastructure is shut down. We're talking about 1st to 3rd world country in under 2 years.
So to me, that kind of means the terrorists win. China/Russia would like nothing more than for that to happen--it would be a self-inflicted wound of insane magnitude, with global consequences. I don't know that any political issue is so bad that it's worth solving at that cost. Maybe climate change, but the groups of people who are heavily armed and the groups of people who care about climate change are mostly separate.
So I still think 2A is an anachronism. I'm not sure even TJ would agree that refreshing the tree of liberty at the cost of the west makes any sense at all. The world has just become unrecognizable in the last 250 years.
So to me, that kind of means the terrorists win. China/Russia would like nothing more than for that to happen--it would be a self-inflicted wound of insane magnitude, with global consequences. I don't know that any political issue is so bad that it's worth solving at that cost. Maybe climate change, but the groups of people who are heavily armed and the groups of people who care about climate change are mostly separate.
So I still think 2A is an anachronism. I'm not sure even TJ would agree that refreshing the tree of liberty at the cost of the west makes any sense at all. The world has just become unrecognizable in the last 250 years.
> the United States is still one of the most free ... countries on the planet.
By what metric? More importantly by what magnitude?
Would "in the top 20" count? Axross 200 world countries maybe, but to patriotic Americans who speak about freedom abstractly, knowing that they are 16th in democracy [0], 44th in press freedom [1], and 20th in economic freedom [2], probably wouldn't cut it as "one of the top".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Ranking?wprov=sfla1
[1] https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom?wpro...
By what metric? More importantly by what magnitude?
Would "in the top 20" count? Axross 200 world countries maybe, but to patriotic Americans who speak about freedom abstractly, knowing that they are 16th in democracy [0], 44th in press freedom [1], and 20th in economic freedom [2], probably wouldn't cut it as "one of the top".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Ranking?wprov=sfla1
[1] https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom?wpro...
Those rankings are very biased. The press one used to penalize countries at one point for not having journalist unions (don't know if they still do).
As an example, the US press was allowed to publish on the Snowden leaks but in the UK policemen forced The Guardian to smash their hard drives. UK is 11 places above the US: https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2021
The freedom ones often pick and choose freedoms. For example: none include self defense possession, but do include same sex marriage (something that was invented two decades ago).
As an example, the US press was allowed to publish on the Snowden leaks but in the UK policemen forced The Guardian to smash their hard drives. UK is 11 places above the US: https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2021
The freedom ones often pick and choose freedoms. For example: none include self defense possession, but do include same sex marriage (something that was invented two decades ago).
I assure you, same sex marriage wasn't invented two decades ago. [0]
What was invented two decades ago is treating gay people with enough humanity to begin to CONSIDER giving them the same universal freedoms as straight people get.
So yeah, at this point, in 2022, same-sex marriage is an objective basic freedom. I am not interested in any religion-based counterarguments. Anyone's freedom to hold religious beliefs cannot impune on OTHER people's freedom, regardless of what religious people will claim.
Self-defense posession is a subjective one, I agree. I personally think it's an archaic freedom desire [1] (Honestly, to me comparable "I want the freedom to be able to beat my slave"). But I understand the alternative arguments. This one happens to be something on which the US is a massive outlier from the rest of the "developed" world.
The main point, though, is I don't think people on HackerNews seeking "freedom" are talking about freedom to own guns. I might be wrong.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death
What was invented two decades ago is treating gay people with enough humanity to begin to CONSIDER giving them the same universal freedoms as straight people get.
So yeah, at this point, in 2022, same-sex marriage is an objective basic freedom. I am not interested in any religion-based counterarguments. Anyone's freedom to hold religious beliefs cannot impune on OTHER people's freedom, regardless of what religious people will claim.
Self-defense posession is a subjective one, I agree. I personally think it's an archaic freedom desire [1] (Honestly, to me comparable "I want the freedom to be able to beat my slave"). But I understand the alternative arguments. This one happens to be something on which the US is a massive outlier from the rest of the "developed" world.
The main point, though, is I don't think people on HackerNews seeking "freedom" are talking about freedom to own guns. I might be wrong.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death
>The freedom ones often pick and choose freedoms.
Is there another way to index multiple countries and measure against each other?
Sounds like you might disagree with the freedoms they chose rather than the process of defining and measuring "freedom." That may be an expression of your own bias.
Is there another way to index multiple countries and measure against each other?
Sounds like you might disagree with the freedoms they chose rather than the process of defining and measuring "freedom." That may be an expression of your own bias.
You are looking at this all wrong. If you want maximum freedom you need to go to a place like rural Somalia. As long as you have the most guns nobody will tell you how to live your life. Want to rape children all day long? Nobody is going to stop you. Want to kill your neighbors and steal their stuff? Total freedom. No nanny state government is going to try to take your money to build roads or remove the dead bodies.
Anyone who has "the most guns" will have "maximum freedom" anywhere. Somalia, USA, England, anywhere. The difference is it's easier to be the person with the most guns in Somalia than in US. However we are talking about freedom of ordinary citizens, not about being the most powerful individual in your country.
Those rankings have absolutely 0 values. We are currently under our 2nd curfew in less than a year, I can't go outside after 10pm under the threat of a 2000$ fine (which the police is very heavily enforcing) and yet we are way up there in the list you linked. Complete joke
Well, when we're in the middle of a Global Pandemic, with the 5th-highest death toll in human history [0], a couple things have to change temporarily, don't you think?
Also, this is a Quebec-only curfew. Take it up with your provincial government. If separated as a country, perhaps Quebec wouldn't make the list. Quebec has plenty of other counter-freedom policies including your government-endorsed islamophobia.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics#By_death_tol...
Also, this is a Quebec-only curfew. Take it up with your provincial government. If separated as a country, perhaps Quebec wouldn't make the list. Quebec has plenty of other counter-freedom policies including your government-endorsed islamophobia.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics#By_death_tol...
You are contradicting yourself. It's a global pandemic yet only quebec is going for these absolutely ridiculous measures. Hence why it's ludicrous for canada to be higher than the US. And it's been 2 years, it's not exactly temporary, especially since there's literally no scientific backing for a curfew in a pandemic and our government is not even pretending that there is any. At a certain point the "it's a global pandemic" excuse just does not work and you get well into the threshold of a non free society and I think we are well past that in quebec.
Also, quebec is still part of canada. So again, your point is just strange. You are just deflecting very weakly what I said.
Also, quebec is still part of canada. So again, your point is just strange. You are just deflecting very weakly what I said.
Every province can take invidiual actions for their citizens that the federal government disagrees with. Quebec can do more than the rest.
That's not an argument for restrictive Canadian freedom, that's an argument for INCREASED freedom in Canada for individual provinces (especially Quebec)
"You don't like it -> move" is an argument that doesn't work very well across international borders, but ABSOLUTELY works within a country. If you find Quebec to repressive, move to a different province.
That's not an argument for restrictive Canadian freedom, that's an argument for INCREASED freedom in Canada for individual provinces (especially Quebec)
"You don't like it -> move" is an argument that doesn't work very well across international borders, but ABSOLUTELY works within a country. If you find Quebec to repressive, move to a different province.
Agreed, and as a Muslim it's for more than one reason as you pointed out earlier. I'm actively looking into moving, probably across the southern border though. But still, I think it's very reasonable to expect the experiences of the second biggest province in a country to be reflected in international rankings.
Are you in the USA? I didn't know you had curfews!?
In canada currently. 6th month of curfews this year... but at least this time it's until 10 pm and not 8pm like the first curfew. So I guess that's something lol
Depends on your definition of freedom, certainly. If your primary definition is "the range of behaviors for which the government will not prosecute you", it's probably the highest one not currently involved in a civil war.
I shared 3 definitions of freedom. You're welcome to yours.
But that sounds like optimizing a society for reckless individual expressionism that the government looks the other way on, vs ensuring that every human being in society has their basic needs met despite their race, gender, gender expression, socioeconomic class, diablement, or mental health.
Is it freedom if you can shoot guns at a barrel in your back yard without getting prosecuted, but can also be legally fired from your job and not have a house rented to you, solely for being trans?
But that sounds like optimizing a society for reckless individual expressionism that the government looks the other way on, vs ensuring that every human being in society has their basic needs met despite their race, gender, gender expression, socioeconomic class, diablement, or mental health.
Is it freedom if you can shoot guns at a barrel in your back yard without getting prosecuted, but can also be legally fired from your job and not have a house rented to you, solely for being trans?
The last man on earth is also the most free man in history. Freedom is not an absolute good nor is it defined as "that which produces the best outcome". The entire purpose of government is deciding which limits on freedom are reasonable to adopt.
I don't think the US is free at all, and would be interested in seeing facts that back it up. I see a country run like a corporation, where media, tech and science are carrying out very specific instructions from their handful of billionaire owners to steer the ship where they want it to go.
You can think what you want in the US but you cannot express it publicly if you have a significant following. You will get blocked, censored, ridiculed etc.
Maybe you mean something else with freedom? Freedom to carry out work and get payed for it? Sure.
You can think what you want in the US but you cannot express it publicly if you have a significant following. You will get blocked, censored, ridiculed etc.
Maybe you mean something else with freedom? Freedom to carry out work and get payed for it? Sure.
I couldn't disagree more. Today's American society has way more liberty than it did in 1912. Blacks, women, Native Americans, LBGTQ+, other minorities: all live better today than whatever period you want to choose. Native American children were forced from their homes into institutionalize schools. In NYC tenements the police conducted midnight raids to force people to be vaccinated for smallpox (a worthy end but a terrible means). Women didn't have the right to vote. As others mentioned, Jim Crow ruled the South. There really is no comparison.
Many non renewable resources are past peak production, and declining fast. Austerity will be next. But it will be disguised as saving the environment. So that not only do you do not blame your politicians for being poorer. You will be blamed for over consuming and destroying the environment.
Energy crisis, like running out of heating gas is already hitting Europe. And shortages of fertilizer will be here this spring. China and Russia are not exporting. US doesn't make enough. Farmers will be planting without it. Expect higher food prices and possibly food shortages.
Things are running short in the supply chain, from chips to little bits and pieces. When things break, they will break fast. Make a plan B people. The wave is coming.
Energy crisis, like running out of heating gas is already hitting Europe. And shortages of fertilizer will be here this spring. China and Russia are not exporting. US doesn't make enough. Farmers will be planting without it. Expect higher food prices and possibly food shortages.
Things are running short in the supply chain, from chips to little bits and pieces. When things break, they will break fast. Make a plan B people. The wave is coming.
this is horribly misguided to say "disguised as saving the environment" .. it is conflating real environmental crisis with political posturing.. It is intellectually lazy to blur two big topics like this..
It's not just intellectually lazy, it's deadly. The last thing we need is to conflate politics with a catastrophe that will wipe out our lifestyle, a significant proportion of species, and potentially our civilization.
This reads more like am emotional outburst from somone with a belief system than an actual opinion. It's hard to argue against belief systems. And it will probably be taken by you in entirely the wrong way. It would be like trying to convincing a hasidic jew the messiah isn't coming. Kind of rude to even try.
I can't tell whether you're describing my own comment or my parent comment. Which one are you describing here?
I'm not conflating anything that hasn't been done. Political posturing around saving thr environment is exactly how politician convinced a vast section of the professional class that solar is a solution to our energy needs. Despite it being much less reliable, producing minuscule amounts of energy in large parts of the country and requiring a much more complicated supply chain. Even solar's claimed environmental benefits are vastly over stated.
For poorer people, stuck in older homes with baseboard heaters. The rising price of electricity meant they couldn't heat their home as much. So they're already suffering. While also being told by politicians its better for the environment this way.
A better, vastly more reliable, and powerful alternative of building new nuclear plants lost out due to political posturing around the environment. My province of Ontario, killed two nuclear projects, and our electrical prices nearly doubled. The professional class deference to "feel good" saving the environment experts they see on TV is a bummer to see. But they will not be isolated from these feel good, but poor decisions into the future. So I don't need to convince anyone. The bill will come due.
For poorer people, stuck in older homes with baseboard heaters. The rising price of electricity meant they couldn't heat their home as much. So they're already suffering. While also being told by politicians its better for the environment this way.
A better, vastly more reliable, and powerful alternative of building new nuclear plants lost out due to political posturing around the environment. My province of Ontario, killed two nuclear projects, and our electrical prices nearly doubled. The professional class deference to "feel good" saving the environment experts they see on TV is a bummer to see. But they will not be isolated from these feel good, but poor decisions into the future. So I don't need to convince anyone. The bill will come due.
There are trouble brewing in EU over energy and food prices, but at the same time there are mitigating factors. The cut that middle men get for food has risen sharply the last few decades, especially for the kind of food that risen most in price. The more the customer pays in stores, the more incentive there is from the producers to cut the middle men. As an example, around 1/3 of the price for raw beef goes to the producer where I live, which is a result of low competition among the middle men, strict regulation, and a lack of innovation in the direct-to-customer space.
Energy prices was at a historical low just last year. This year the price has doubled compared to last year, but compared to 10 years ago its the same. People need to have a plan B, through hopefully it will involve investments to use modern standards and energy efficient heating.
Energy prices was at a historical low just last year. This year the price has doubled compared to last year, but compared to 10 years ago its the same. People need to have a plan B, through hopefully it will involve investments to use modern standards and energy efficient heating.
Central Banking has been one of the most powerful and liberating achievements of civilization.
And you now have the 'freedom' to strike and sue your employer, women have the 'freedom' to actually have a job, you have the 'freedom' to attend college which only about 5% did at the time, you have the 'freedom' to do almost anything in life.
And what 'freedoms' have you lost?
Well, there's more taxation.
And you have to sell your car to a Black man if he wants to buy it from you.
And you have to prove drugs work before selling them.
You have to pay workers a minimum wage, and make sure they don't die on the job.
What other 'freedoms' were are you keen to regain?
And you now have the 'freedom' to strike and sue your employer, women have the 'freedom' to actually have a job, you have the 'freedom' to attend college which only about 5% did at the time, you have the 'freedom' to do almost anything in life.
And what 'freedoms' have you lost?
Well, there's more taxation.
And you have to sell your car to a Black man if he wants to buy it from you.
And you have to prove drugs work before selling them.
You have to pay workers a minimum wage, and make sure they don't die on the job.
What other 'freedoms' were are you keen to regain?
Can you explain why the freedoms you mention are the result primarily of central banking and not social and technological change?
The key freedom lost via central banking (at least irresponsible central banking) is the freedom of those in the future to do anything other than meet debt obligations.
Debt and credit is obviously necessary, and making money easily accessible and keeping markets liquid is a good thing, but if debt obligations grow too large, people increasingly forfeit their future productivity and the future of their children’s productivity to paying interest.
No one can enjoy increased freedoms if they are spending all their time paying off individual and collective interest.
The key freedom lost via central banking (at least irresponsible central banking) is the freedom of those in the future to do anything other than meet debt obligations.
Debt and credit is obviously necessary, and making money easily accessible and keeping markets liquid is a good thing, but if debt obligations grow too large, people increasingly forfeit their future productivity and the future of their children’s productivity to paying interest.
No one can enjoy increased freedoms if they are spending all their time paying off individual and collective interest.
I’m confused. If you mean public debt, doesn’t central banking free the public from meeting debt obligations when those obligations are denominated in the national currency?
Countries can and do issue public debt in other currencies. If we all used gold or bitcoin, there’s no reason to think public debt would be lower. But the obligation to pay it back would, in a sense, be harder to dodge.
It’s worth noting, as an aside, that the trend line on cost of servicing public debt in the US has been downward (though I would expect this to change): https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/us-debt-has-increa....
Countries can and do issue public debt in other currencies. If we all used gold or bitcoin, there’s no reason to think public debt would be lower. But the obligation to pay it back would, in a sense, be harder to dodge.
It’s worth noting, as an aside, that the trend line on cost of servicing public debt in the US has been downward (though I would expect this to change): https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/us-debt-has-increa....
> If we all used gold or bitcoin, there’s no reason to think public debt would be lower.
For reference, public debt tends to be higher when based in currencies that can be more easily debased. This was true in Roman times as it is now.
I’m on my phone, so I’d have to look up the book, but it’s well documented.
For reference, public debt tends to be higher when based in currencies that can be more easily debased. This was true in Roman times as it is now.
I’m on my phone, so I’d have to look up the book, but it’s well documented.
Entirely possible, but defaults tend to be higher when debt is in a currency that cannot be debased, for somewhat obvious reasons.
There is a constraint the prevents (some) countries from more frequent debasement: if you debase your currency, then lenders will increasingly require that future debt be issued in an external currency. And even if you find lenders, the purchasing power provided in the debased currency remains constrained by external trade in non-debased currencies.
You make a very good point.
I should have noted that this applies only when it’s your own currency.
I should have noted that this applies only when it’s your own currency.
The primary purposes of central banking are to privatize seigniorage[1] revenue and increase bankers' ability to control politicians. The former is achieved through the Primary Dealer system and the latter should be self-explanatory. Needless to say, since most spending is electronic transactions, the seigniorage revenue is very nearly the entire face value of the created instrument.
It's a blatantly undemocratic power grab, effectively allowing a consortium of private banks to limit Congress's power of the purse. Or at least that was the theory. As we're seeing now, that one putative upside is nonexistent and the Fed is happy to cooperate with Treasury to spend trillions a year. The rentier class appears to be consoling itself with massive asset inflation, while still banking the seigniorage.
The United States could just as easily once again fund all of its spending by creating new U.S. Notes[2] (perhaps without the public debt clause) and then control inflation by extinguishing those liabilities through taxation.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/seigniorage.asp
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note
It's a blatantly undemocratic power grab, effectively allowing a consortium of private banks to limit Congress's power of the purse. Or at least that was the theory. As we're seeing now, that one putative upside is nonexistent and the Fed is happy to cooperate with Treasury to spend trillions a year. The rentier class appears to be consoling itself with massive asset inflation, while still banking the seigniorage.
The United States could just as easily once again fund all of its spending by creating new U.S. Notes[2] (perhaps without the public debt clause) and then control inflation by extinguishing those liabilities through taxation.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/seigniorage.asp
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note
It seems like you're defining "central banking" in relation to the independence (or maybe ownership of) the central bank. That doesn't seem correct to me.
China has a central bank, but it's fully publicly owned and is not politically independent of the CCP. The ECB, in comparison, is owned by the central banks of constituent banks. And on the other extreme, the Swiss National Bank is publicly traded and a minority of its shares are privately held (i.e., not by governments). (Perhaps related or perhaps not, the Swiss Franc also has historically had very high trust and very low inflation.)
My point is, there are multiple flavors of "central bank" ownership and independence; it seems odd to argue that the primary purpose of central banking is to allow private bankers to violate political oversight when, in some cases, the bank is fully public and not politically independent. Conversely, some examples of significantly more private central banks than the Fed seem to show a history of good management in the public interest.
China has a central bank, but it's fully publicly owned and is not politically independent of the CCP. The ECB, in comparison, is owned by the central banks of constituent banks. And on the other extreme, the Swiss National Bank is publicly traded and a minority of its shares are privately held (i.e., not by governments). (Perhaps related or perhaps not, the Swiss Franc also has historically had very high trust and very low inflation.)
My point is, there are multiple flavors of "central bank" ownership and independence; it seems odd to argue that the primary purpose of central banking is to allow private bankers to violate political oversight when, in some cases, the bank is fully public and not politically independent. Conversely, some examples of significantly more private central banks than the Fed seem to show a history of good management in the public interest.
The UK has plenty of private banks printing notes - it doesn't seem to hurt them.
> irresponsible central banking
Would you also consider triple bypass surgery done on morbidly obese patient as irresponsible? It enables bad behavior and arguably the patient may be better off dead than living in a life of pain, but it's undeniable that emergency heart surgery is a good thing.
Would you also consider triple bypass surgery done on morbidly obese patient as irresponsible? It enables bad behavior and arguably the patient may be better off dead than living in a life of pain, but it's undeniable that emergency heart surgery is a good thing.
The problem, the reason why we don't have a free market economy, is that the saver gets to decide how much debt there is.
The saver gets to decide whether to lend out his money, to spend it or to simply keep it forever. The money is no longer circulating within the economy, which means someone, usually the government, is forced to borrow the money back into the economy at an interest rate that is simply not sustainable.
The saver gets to decide whether to lend out his money, to spend it or to simply keep it forever. The money is no longer circulating within the economy, which means someone, usually the government, is forced to borrow the money back into the economy at an interest rate that is simply not sustainable.
" why the freedoms you mention are the result primarily of central banking and not social and technological change?"
I didn't mean to imply that.
Most of those things didn't come from Central Banking.
That said, modern finance has 'enabled everything' just like having a highly literate education 'enables everything' as well.
I didn't mean to imply that.
Most of those things didn't come from Central Banking.
That said, modern finance has 'enabled everything' just like having a highly literate education 'enables everything' as well.
They have also enabled commercial banks loaning other people money irresponsibly and getting obscenous bailouts when the loan takers default because "the banks are too big to fail".
What a great world to live in.
> What other 'freedoms' were are you keen to regain?
For me I'd like to not pay money for the "privilege" of having a central organization constantly and unapologetically spy on me.
For me I'd like to not pay money for the "privilege" of having a central organization constantly and unapologetically spy on me.
It would be nice if the cost of rungs in the social later (housing, education, etc) wasn't so high that only certain kinds of people could achieve them.
Many of the "your not allowed to do that"s of the past are still in place for entire neighborhoods, only the words changed.
Many of the "your not allowed to do that"s of the past are still in place for entire neighborhoods, only the words changed.
In 1922 only 5% of people went to University - now 50% go on to post secondary which is largely due to cost and opportunity.
Only about 50% finished HS - now it's 95%.
Doctors were not very affordable by anyone - now it's >90%.
Most people didn't have running water and electricity yet now it's almost 100%.
The only thing that's not as nice as 'real estate' - housing was cheap, but the houses were crap, and often you were isolated.
If you want to go out of major US urban area, and build a small home to 1925 standards, then it's affordable.
But if you are young, then I am actually sympathetic to you: education and housing costs are 'worse' now than in then 1990's. Those are the two things I will say Gen Z 'has it hard' with. That, and having to grow up where everyone has social media, which is not a social benefit, it's dystopian if you ask me.
Only about 50% finished HS - now it's 95%.
Doctors were not very affordable by anyone - now it's >90%.
Most people didn't have running water and electricity yet now it's almost 100%.
The only thing that's not as nice as 'real estate' - housing was cheap, but the houses were crap, and often you were isolated.
If you want to go out of major US urban area, and build a small home to 1925 standards, then it's affordable.
But if you are young, then I am actually sympathetic to you: education and housing costs are 'worse' now than in then 1990's. Those are the two things I will say Gen Z 'has it hard' with. That, and having to grow up where everyone has social media, which is not a social benefit, it's dystopian if you ask me.
All of those facts are meaningless without context.
Higher education is far more necessary for even a middle class existence than it was in 1922, and the middle class is getting less and less affordable. One of my grandfathers worked a family farm. My dad was able to grind his way out of the lower classes by working at Friendly's and other odd jobs to pay for college (up to and including his PhD). My father in law's uncle was a high school dropout who started showing people around at the local hardware store and was such a good salesperson the owner hired him after a few weeks. None of those are possible for most Americans these days (good luck pulling the leave-it-to-beaver "prove my value to the local store owner" at Home Depot or Walmart).
US citizens are now regularly advised to take Uber to the hospital if they can survive the trip, as it avoids the cost of an ambulance, which is often over a thousand dollars in a country where most can't afford a $500 emergency. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "affordable", and certainly not affordable to 90%+. Granted this is primarily an American issue.
More important to me than the quality of the house is the quality of the school district that it's in (see previous remarks about the modern necessity of education). I can fix/improve a house, I can't fix/improve schooling short of private school, which would probably be more expensive than fixing a house over the long term. Good look finding an affordable house in a good school district near any major metropolitan area with jobs.
Higher education is far more necessary for even a middle class existence than it was in 1922, and the middle class is getting less and less affordable. One of my grandfathers worked a family farm. My dad was able to grind his way out of the lower classes by working at Friendly's and other odd jobs to pay for college (up to and including his PhD). My father in law's uncle was a high school dropout who started showing people around at the local hardware store and was such a good salesperson the owner hired him after a few weeks. None of those are possible for most Americans these days (good luck pulling the leave-it-to-beaver "prove my value to the local store owner" at Home Depot or Walmart).
US citizens are now regularly advised to take Uber to the hospital if they can survive the trip, as it avoids the cost of an ambulance, which is often over a thousand dollars in a country where most can't afford a $500 emergency. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "affordable", and certainly not affordable to 90%+. Granted this is primarily an American issue.
More important to me than the quality of the house is the quality of the school district that it's in (see previous remarks about the modern necessity of education). I can fix/improve a house, I can't fix/improve schooling short of private school, which would probably be more expensive than fixing a house over the long term. Good look finding an affordable house in a good school district near any major metropolitan area with jobs.
A 1922s “middle class” experience is affordable for a most Americans today. As in shelter with heat, phone service, and electric lights but no appliances, no car, minimal access to effective healthcare etc.
Upward mobility is still available and just as rare. The health, intelligence, and drive that allowed someone in 1922 to better themselves are the same things that still allow someone to better themselves in 2022. It’s not easy, but it was never easy. Just look at how many people in 1922 where held back by the color of their skin.
As to getting a job at Walmart, have you ever actually applied? Their standards are incredibly lax.
Upward mobility is still available and just as rare. The health, intelligence, and drive that allowed someone in 1922 to better themselves are the same things that still allow someone to better themselves in 2022. It’s not easy, but it was never easy. Just look at how many people in 1922 where held back by the color of their skin.
As to getting a job at Walmart, have you ever actually applied? Their standards are incredibly lax.
So? A middle class experience from 1622 is also affordable for most Americans today, and now we don't have to worry about raids from the natives! Clearly we have no right to complain /s
I'm not arguing things are equivalent to 1922 on an absolute scale, but on a relative scale they're closer than they were in the recent past. The prosperity of the previous century has shifted the goal posts for what defines upper, middle and lower class. But after a long period of shifting the goal posts in a positive direction, we've had three or four decades of things shifting in the opposite direction, and that trend appears to be accelerating for the moment.
As for upward mobility, that largely only exists for people with college degrees these days. And even then only a few select degrees are really worth anything. And college costs are insanely inflated compared to where they were in 1980, let alone 1922. Is it possible to better oneself in 2022? Sure, but I'd argue there were much more opportunities for middle class people just 40 years ago. A Unionized coal miner with experience could make an upper middle class salary without the burden of higher education that costs as much as a house. Ditto for many factory jobs.
A job at Walmart making minimum wage that hasn't been adjusted for inflation for decades does not have anything resembling the same purchasing power as a minimum wage job 60 years ago. Walmart jobs are notorious for requiring food stamps despite working full time hours.
I'm not arguing things are equivalent to 1922 on an absolute scale, but on a relative scale they're closer than they were in the recent past. The prosperity of the previous century has shifted the goal posts for what defines upper, middle and lower class. But after a long period of shifting the goal posts in a positive direction, we've had three or four decades of things shifting in the opposite direction, and that trend appears to be accelerating for the moment.
As for upward mobility, that largely only exists for people with college degrees these days. And even then only a few select degrees are really worth anything. And college costs are insanely inflated compared to where they were in 1980, let alone 1922. Is it possible to better oneself in 2022? Sure, but I'd argue there were much more opportunities for middle class people just 40 years ago. A Unionized coal miner with experience could make an upper middle class salary without the burden of higher education that costs as much as a house. Ditto for many factory jobs.
A job at Walmart making minimum wage that hasn't been adjusted for inflation for decades does not have anything resembling the same purchasing power as a minimum wage job 60 years ago. Walmart jobs are notorious for requiring food stamps despite working full time hours.
[deleted]
A higher percentage of Americans are going to collage in 2020. They are also graduating with more debt, so is it more or less affordable? That’s a more complex question than it might appear as students are in many cases choosing a very expensive education when more economical options are available.
It’s similar to how new cars in 2020 are both substantially more expensive on average but also of vastly higher quality. In both cases the cheapest options represent a tiny slice of the overall market suggesting cost is generally less an imposition by outside forces than a choice.
It’s similar to how new cars in 2020 are both substantially more expensive on average but also of vastly higher quality. In both cases the cheapest options represent a tiny slice of the overall market suggesting cost is generally less an imposition by outside forces than a choice.
Ex: Great Bastion Collage in state tuition is under 11k not per semester but to get a 4 year degree. Out of state is twice that, but you probably have some equivalent in your state. They even have minimum additional requirements for students without a high school diploma or GED to get a collage degree.
I'm explicitly not replying to the meat of your comment, because I don't feel like I have anything to add to the productive discussion in this thread - which, by the way, I'm really enjoying reading :)
That said, this stood out to me:
> A job at Walmart making minimum wage [...]
According to Glassdoor[1], a retail cashier at Walmart with no experience earns an average of $22,049 / year. Assuming 50 weeks @ 40 hours per week, that's $11.05 / hour.
That does not include cash bonuses or profit sharing, which Glassdoor says adds another ~$1k.
Indeed.com[2] shows the average wage for a Walmart cashier is $10.56 - so we're at least in the right ballpark above.
My own experience at Walmart was unloading trucks from 4pm-1am the summer after I graduated high school (2002). I made $7.25 / hour then, when the minimum wage was $5.15.
Trying to build a life on that kind of money isn't easy, and I'm not trying to say that it is; I do want to point out that even Walmart doesn't pay minimum wage as a rule.
That's not to say there aren't other "tricks" that employers use, like limiting hours to prevent employees from qualifying from full-time benefits and such. There are.
The minimum wage in 1982 was $3.25. Today it's $7.25. The purchasing power of the minimum wage has certainly decreased, but I strongly suspect that many more businesses paid minimum wage in 1982 than 2022.
McDonald's in my town of <15k people pays $13/hr with no experience, with a $500 signing bonus and a guaranteed $1/hr raise at six and twelve months. The largest manufacturing employer here produce stamped sheet metal parts, and they have a large sign and banners lining the road claiming $18/hr, a $1,500 signing bonus, and fully paid family benefits. My California-based "healthtech" company employer doesn't even have health insurance as good as theirs.
1: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Walmart-Guest-Service-Team-...
2: https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Walmart/salaries
That said, this stood out to me:
> A job at Walmart making minimum wage [...]
According to Glassdoor[1], a retail cashier at Walmart with no experience earns an average of $22,049 / year. Assuming 50 weeks @ 40 hours per week, that's $11.05 / hour.
That does not include cash bonuses or profit sharing, which Glassdoor says adds another ~$1k.
Indeed.com[2] shows the average wage for a Walmart cashier is $10.56 - so we're at least in the right ballpark above.
My own experience at Walmart was unloading trucks from 4pm-1am the summer after I graduated high school (2002). I made $7.25 / hour then, when the minimum wage was $5.15.
Trying to build a life on that kind of money isn't easy, and I'm not trying to say that it is; I do want to point out that even Walmart doesn't pay minimum wage as a rule.
That's not to say there aren't other "tricks" that employers use, like limiting hours to prevent employees from qualifying from full-time benefits and such. There are.
The minimum wage in 1982 was $3.25. Today it's $7.25. The purchasing power of the minimum wage has certainly decreased, but I strongly suspect that many more businesses paid minimum wage in 1982 than 2022.
McDonald's in my town of <15k people pays $13/hr with no experience, with a $500 signing bonus and a guaranteed $1/hr raise at six and twelve months. The largest manufacturing employer here produce stamped sheet metal parts, and they have a large sign and banners lining the road claiming $18/hr, a $1,500 signing bonus, and fully paid family benefits. My California-based "healthtech" company employer doesn't even have health insurance as good as theirs.
1: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Walmart-Guest-Service-Team-...
2: https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Walmart/salaries
USA is pretty dystopian. I'm an immigrant from the EU, and like most of us here I work in tech where the wages and benefits are very good (wages quite a bit better than even the richer EU countries and benefits on par I would say). But for the lower middle class and below it absolutely sucks in the US compared to most other countries with similar levels of development...
Further, healthcare costs are only “affordable” insofar as we are adding them to our country’s growing debt via medicare.
All of these improvements, numerically speaking, and yet my wife regularly has classes of 40 where none of the students have parents that went to college, a quarter of them need glasses that they can't afford, and an eighth is homeless.
The size of the group that benefits from modernization is indeed growing, as your numbers point out, but if you're not in that group you're just as stuck as you've ever been.
The size of the group that benefits from modernization is indeed growing, as your numbers point out, but if you're not in that group you're just as stuck as you've ever been.
I would argue, as many would, that a high-school graduate now is much worse off now than a high-school dropout a century ago. Jobs are much more specialized, you can't rely on working on "the family farm", and the prestige of a high-school diploma has tanked to "You don't have this, what's wrong with you??"
> And you have to sell your car to a Black man if he wants to buy it from you.
Never thought about this before: Suppose I’m Black, respond to a Craigslist ad for a $10k car for sale by owner, and am refused for my skin color. What law do I or the state prosecute the seller under?
Most of the anti-discrimination laws I know of apply to companies, usually companies with more than N employees.
Never thought about this before: Suppose I’m Black, respond to a Craigslist ad for a $10k car for sale by owner, and am refused for my skin color. What law do I or the state prosecute the seller under?
Most of the anti-discrimination laws I know of apply to companies, usually companies with more than N employees.
> What law do I or the state prosecute the seller under?
Start your research with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Start your research with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-196... - looks like this is all about employment, and even then only applies to those employing more than N employees:
> The term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees [...]
I suppose the root of my question is this: Where is the law stating that an individual cannot act with prejudice against another individual, outside of an employment context? I've always assumed such a law exists, but never asked exactly where it is.
> The term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees [...]
I suppose the root of my question is this: Where is the law stating that an individual cannot act with prejudice against another individual, outside of an employment context? I've always assumed such a law exists, but never asked exactly where it is.
Probably more relevant to dealerships
I'd be keen to be able to employ people without the government intervening in negotiations (minimum wage, various employment laws, etc.). I don't think the government has any place deciding what I can and can't offer. I also would like to be able to use my own judgement when hiring people, without having to worry about proving (the negative) that I'm not being discriminatory.
Workers have always had the freedom to strike. And employers should have the freedom to terminate striking employees. I don't see the need for regulation here. The "freedom" to attend college has created a mountain of student debt and an overeducated workforce. I fail to see the benefit.
All in all, directly, I'd like to live in a society where people are entitled to only what they can negotiate for, not more. And one that does not strive to protect people from the consequences of their own misfortune or inadequacy.
Workers have always had the freedom to strike. And employers should have the freedom to terminate striking employees. I don't see the need for regulation here. The "freedom" to attend college has created a mountain of student debt and an overeducated workforce. I fail to see the benefit.
All in all, directly, I'd like to live in a society where people are entitled to only what they can negotiate for, not more. And one that does not strive to protect people from the consequences of their own misfortune or inadequacy.
Interesting to see how sacrificing some freedoms to give more freedom to others in the short term, eventually enhances your same former freedoms in the medium or long term.
There is absolutely nothing liberating about central banking. It is a monopoly on money creation, and that monopoly is enforced through an apparatus of violence (police, courts and prisons, used to compel compliance).
It leads to a small elite being in control of trillions of dollars in national capital allocations every year, with virtually no democratic oversight.
It leads to financial institutions capturing 42% of corporate profits since 1973, with all of the growth in wealth inequality that goes along with that.
It leads to gigantic corporate welfare programs, like the government mortgage guarantee program, where financial institutions buy $1.5 trillion worth of government guaranteed mortgage backed securities - where profits are 100% privatized, and risk is 100% socialized - every year.
>>And you now have the 'freedom' to strike and sue your employer,
You always had that freedom. Now you have the power to get the state to force the employer to keep you employed, and not replace you, while you strike.
This power has given public sector unions total control over public finances.
For example, New York has nearly 300,000 unionized public sector employees receiving over $100,000 a year:
https://archive.md/JnJQY
In California, emergency workers can retire at 55 with 90% of their pension, that averages $108,000 per year.
California now has $1 trillion in pension obligations for its unionized public sector workers. That is where all the social welfare spending is going.
>>Well, there's more taxation.
Yes, the state now forces you, under pain of imprisonment, to work 40% of the year to pay a bloated bureaucracy.
>>And you have to sell your car to a Black man if he wants to buy it from you.
And every one has to suffer higher costs, and less advancement, as a specialized caste of anti-discrimination lawyers extract billions of dollars per year from corporations for their failure to comply with impossible-to-comply-with anti-discrimination laws [1] while forcing the private sector to 1. spend billions more in "anti-racism" training, that includes lessons on the supposed omnipresence of "white privilege" [2] and 2. institute affirmative action programs, that waste resources and lead to less competent work forces, respectively.
>>And you have to prove drugs work before selling them.
Yes, you need the approval of a centralized regulatory gatekeeper, which is often incompetent, and prevents people from accessing life-saving medical products/services in a timely manner [3][4] or denies people access to a vaccine due to a risk from side effects that is orders of magnitude lower than the risk the vaccine mitigates. [5]
>>women have the 'freedom' to actually have a job,
Women had jobs back then. The jobs available to women have improved due to the cultural impact of much higher per capita productivity, which makes people far more independent and assertive.
>>you have the 'freedom' to attend college which only about 5% did at the time, you have the 'freedom' to do almost anything in life.
That is entirely due to higher per capita productivity, which enables more people to be supported through their post-secondary schooling years.
The massive per capita productivity growth seen since 1922 could soon be a thing of the past in the advanced economies, as the growing repressiveness of the state has steadily reduced per capita GDP growth rates over the last several decades, and this trend sees no signs of abatement or reversal.
[1] https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/wokeness-as-saddam-sta...
[2] https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-why-co...
[3] https://www.propublica.org/article/this-scientist-created-a-...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-de...
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/politics/johnson-johns...
It leads to a small elite being in control of trillions of dollars in national capital allocations every year, with virtually no democratic oversight.
It leads to financial institutions capturing 42% of corporate profits since 1973, with all of the growth in wealth inequality that goes along with that.
It leads to gigantic corporate welfare programs, like the government mortgage guarantee program, where financial institutions buy $1.5 trillion worth of government guaranteed mortgage backed securities - where profits are 100% privatized, and risk is 100% socialized - every year.
>>And you now have the 'freedom' to strike and sue your employer,
You always had that freedom. Now you have the power to get the state to force the employer to keep you employed, and not replace you, while you strike.
This power has given public sector unions total control over public finances.
For example, New York has nearly 300,000 unionized public sector employees receiving over $100,000 a year:
https://archive.md/JnJQY
In California, emergency workers can retire at 55 with 90% of their pension, that averages $108,000 per year.
California now has $1 trillion in pension obligations for its unionized public sector workers. That is where all the social welfare spending is going.
>>Well, there's more taxation.
Yes, the state now forces you, under pain of imprisonment, to work 40% of the year to pay a bloated bureaucracy.
>>And you have to sell your car to a Black man if he wants to buy it from you.
And every one has to suffer higher costs, and less advancement, as a specialized caste of anti-discrimination lawyers extract billions of dollars per year from corporations for their failure to comply with impossible-to-comply-with anti-discrimination laws [1] while forcing the private sector to 1. spend billions more in "anti-racism" training, that includes lessons on the supposed omnipresence of "white privilege" [2] and 2. institute affirmative action programs, that waste resources and lead to less competent work forces, respectively.
>>And you have to prove drugs work before selling them.
Yes, you need the approval of a centralized regulatory gatekeeper, which is often incompetent, and prevents people from accessing life-saving medical products/services in a timely manner [3][4] or denies people access to a vaccine due to a risk from side effects that is orders of magnitude lower than the risk the vaccine mitigates. [5]
>>women have the 'freedom' to actually have a job,
Women had jobs back then. The jobs available to women have improved due to the cultural impact of much higher per capita productivity, which makes people far more independent and assertive.
>>you have the 'freedom' to attend college which only about 5% did at the time, you have the 'freedom' to do almost anything in life.
That is entirely due to higher per capita productivity, which enables more people to be supported through their post-secondary schooling years.
The massive per capita productivity growth seen since 1922 could soon be a thing of the past in the advanced economies, as the growing repressiveness of the state has steadily reduced per capita GDP growth rates over the last several decades, and this trend sees no signs of abatement or reversal.
[1] https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/wokeness-as-saddam-sta...
[2] https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-why-co...
[3] https://www.propublica.org/article/this-scientist-created-a-...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-de...
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/politics/johnson-johns...
Has Central Banking been liberating or do we only perceive it as such because it has historically aligned with American business and political interests? Would a small South American country being forced to sell it's natural resources or lose it's borrowing power agree? Would Middle Eastern countries that tried to form the petro dollar and were met with endless wars agree?
Any attempt to depict the US as a free country prior to 1920 is a nonstarter. There was slavery, Jim Crow, and women could not vote. Seriously, give me a break.
We also had one of the strongest eugenics movements in the world, under the same progressive flag as women's suffrage. It took the horrors of WWII to snap us out of it.
And it set us back because we overcorrected. The biggest evil of historical eugenics was the non-consensual application, not the idea that we should improve the gene pool.
This thread is an interesting summary of possible "eugenics" type applications and if those surveyed consider them moral today:
https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1462824227090976772
This thread is an interesting summary of possible "eugenics" type applications and if those surveyed consider them moral today:
https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1462824227090976772
The Catholic Church still opposes all of those except for offering network support and feeding single mothers (in which cases it recommends generosity). I don't think that's an overcorrection; I think it's the result of thinking very hard about human dignity over many generations.
You can't completely discount the past because it doesn't meet a modern standard. It's certain that something many are doing today will be considered abhorrent in one hundred years. So are we all today too evil to bother with? Are you no worse than a murderer because you live in our flawed times? I doubt it. There were people and institutions before 1920 that were terrible and some that should be celebrated.
It was a free country, for a subset of the population. I would suggest that the idea of liberty, the definition, was as worthy then as it is now. I would also completely agree with the expansion of the people who are entitled to it.
Maybe you mean different things?
Why is freedom defined differently if you exclude slavery and women's rights?
my ancestors had property rights and university education for women, always anti-slavery.. please do not lump me into your vague assertion
edit- the USA was divided strongly between states, which had constitutions of their own. There was a very bright line between the Massachusetts colonies and the Virginia colonies, and then others.. Property rights and real education for women were a large topic! slavery was hated for good reasons .. the social contract that "my particular ancestors" created, specifically are what the PP were dismissing.. its inaccurate to dismiss that
edit- the USA was divided strongly between states, which had constitutions of their own. There was a very bright line between the Massachusetts colonies and the Virginia colonies, and then others.. Property rights and real education for women were a large topic! slavery was hated for good reasons .. the social contract that "my particular ancestors" created, specifically are what the PP were dismissing.. its inaccurate to dismiss that
What do your specific ancestors have to do with anything?
> To the point the FED was created in 1913, research why it was created - not just wikipedia, get some books published between the 20 to 60s.
Do you have any sources on this? I’m not trying to degrade your point though, just curious about the topic.
Do you have any sources on this? I’m not trying to degrade your point though, just curious about the topic.
This is one of the wrongest comments I've ever seen on HN, hah.
This comment adds nothing to the discussion, and hackernews isn't the place for comments such as these. If you disagree with the ideas, elaborate and disect those you take issue with. Additionally, please keep the tone civil, disagreeing and adding nothing more that saying "hah" is not really the maturity level expected in debates on HN.
Fair point, I've now elaborated in a child comment.
Then it should be easy to say what's wrong with it.
My favorite way to characterize this is "it's not even wrong".
Which part is wrong? Some parts are obviously correct.
The US is definitely one of the most diverse large countries. India is probably more diverse along language lines. China is definitely not along any dimension. Even the EU states (that depend on US for defense and use oil to power their economies) are less diverse.
The US is definitely one of the most diverse large countries. India is probably more diverse along language lines. China is definitely not along any dimension. Even the EU states (that depend on US for defense and use oil to power their economies) are less diverse.
Some parts are correct, true. Mostly "It’s ALWAYS a safe bet to assume people will lose liberty." is really wrong.
The US is a far more free country now than it was 100 years ago or at any point since the introduction of agriculture.
Compared to one hundred years ago, there's political changes:
- Minorities and women can vote
- Labor rights
- Consumer protections (No more debtor prisons, etc.)
And tech changes:
- People aren't stuck on their farms all day
- Families aren't stuck doing chores all day
- Birth control has allowed sexual freedom
- The trains, planes, cars and the internet has allowed freedom of location
Etc.
The US is a far more free country now than it was 100 years ago or at any point since the introduction of agriculture.
Compared to one hundred years ago, there's political changes:
- Minorities and women can vote
- Labor rights
- Consumer protections (No more debtor prisons, etc.)
And tech changes:
- People aren't stuck on their farms all day
- Families aren't stuck doing chores all day
- Birth control has allowed sexual freedom
- The trains, planes, cars and the internet has allowed freedom of location
Etc.
I agree with much of this as I think some of this has contributed to people's economic agency. But I think we should analyze the impact of these and not just chalk them up as actual improvements in people's liberty.
For example does enabling a person's ability to vote actually increase one's liberty in a corrupt/narrow system.
For example does enabling a person's ability to vote actually increase one's liberty in a corrupt/narrow system.
Yes and no.
You see, "private property" was a step up from Feudalism. It allows you to own things. For example, the Web disrupted AOL, MSN, Compuserve, cable channels, radio stations, journalism, etc. But then, people started to just make their own "private" sites bigger. "I built it -- I own it!" OK, so Mark Z owns facebook, Jeff Bezos owns Amazon, and so forth. Our public discussions take place on "privately owned" platforms (really, owned by Wall Street bigwigs, but even they can't vote Mark Z out, they try and fail every year).
So basically the current system has led to a bunch of surveillance capitalism. That iPhone and Kindle can yank the apps and books you "own" out from under you. That Alexa and Siri listens to whatever you say all the time. That car you "own" will also soon have a bunch of software downloaded to make sure you are limited in what you can do -- which is probably the scariest thing because some sleeper attack can make all cars suddenly crash into gas stations at once.
In short ... your ideas of "private ownership" work on a small level but then you get these large corporations that continue "owning" things, and not giving them to you (infrastructure, backend software, AI data sets, you name it -- even "intellectual property" of patents and copyrights).
This IS a feature of capitalism, that we might want to rein in. Perhaps there should be a principle that courts would enforce private property less and less when it came to scale. So on a small scale (enforce my right to chattel property, my first 3 houses etc.) it's fine. But just what does it mean that I "own" 999 houses, and see no lessening of my ability to evict people ACTUALLY living in the house as squatters, just because I contracted with a bank and some "People with Guns" to enforce some "deed of ownership"? The land used to belong to some natives hundreds of years ago, or some other group that the current group just "took" from them. What moral system are you going to appeal to, that would allow unlimited private property ownership? Even John Locke's "homsteading" concept had a "proviso" saying that you should only own that which you can reasonably use. Even Adam Smith writing about the "invisible hand" was actually writing about how the Rich are led by an invisible hand to distribute goods equally (in his time) because they can only eat so much.
We see this pathology in online systems as well. Just like Bitcoin and Ethereum allow sending unlimited amounts of money in a fixed time for a fixed fee, this necessarily causes a bottleneck somewhere (proof of work miner, for instance, or everyone storing everything, leading to "flash loans" and other crap on the "world computer"). Actually, they charge the maximum fee for every transaction (even sending 5 cents) because the entire network secures everything. It's built for really huge transfers.
It can be summarized like this: "Centralization is bad, and happens through enforcement of some rules. The resources to enforce rules should therefore not be deployed for unlimited value of ownership by accounts, they shouldn't even be centralized (e.g. proof of work mining elects one "consensus leader", or Facebook has a huge centralized server farm) to the point that you get these pathologies: the elites at the top are out of touch with the people who are ACTUALLY using the products / services. Same with politics / states / etc. Keep it decentralized whenever you can.
You see, "private property" was a step up from Feudalism. It allows you to own things. For example, the Web disrupted AOL, MSN, Compuserve, cable channels, radio stations, journalism, etc. But then, people started to just make their own "private" sites bigger. "I built it -- I own it!" OK, so Mark Z owns facebook, Jeff Bezos owns Amazon, and so forth. Our public discussions take place on "privately owned" platforms (really, owned by Wall Street bigwigs, but even they can't vote Mark Z out, they try and fail every year).
So basically the current system has led to a bunch of surveillance capitalism. That iPhone and Kindle can yank the apps and books you "own" out from under you. That Alexa and Siri listens to whatever you say all the time. That car you "own" will also soon have a bunch of software downloaded to make sure you are limited in what you can do -- which is probably the scariest thing because some sleeper attack can make all cars suddenly crash into gas stations at once.
In short ... your ideas of "private ownership" work on a small level but then you get these large corporations that continue "owning" things, and not giving them to you (infrastructure, backend software, AI data sets, you name it -- even "intellectual property" of patents and copyrights).
This IS a feature of capitalism, that we might want to rein in. Perhaps there should be a principle that courts would enforce private property less and less when it came to scale. So on a small scale (enforce my right to chattel property, my first 3 houses etc.) it's fine. But just what does it mean that I "own" 999 houses, and see no lessening of my ability to evict people ACTUALLY living in the house as squatters, just because I contracted with a bank and some "People with Guns" to enforce some "deed of ownership"? The land used to belong to some natives hundreds of years ago, or some other group that the current group just "took" from them. What moral system are you going to appeal to, that would allow unlimited private property ownership? Even John Locke's "homsteading" concept had a "proviso" saying that you should only own that which you can reasonably use. Even Adam Smith writing about the "invisible hand" was actually writing about how the Rich are led by an invisible hand to distribute goods equally (in his time) because they can only eat so much.
We see this pathology in online systems as well. Just like Bitcoin and Ethereum allow sending unlimited amounts of money in a fixed time for a fixed fee, this necessarily causes a bottleneck somewhere (proof of work miner, for instance, or everyone storing everything, leading to "flash loans" and other crap on the "world computer"). Actually, they charge the maximum fee for every transaction (even sending 5 cents) because the entire network secures everything. It's built for really huge transfers.
It can be summarized like this: "Centralization is bad, and happens through enforcement of some rules. The resources to enforce rules should therefore not be deployed for unlimited value of ownership by accounts, they shouldn't even be centralized (e.g. proof of work mining elects one "consensus leader", or Facebook has a huge centralized server farm) to the point that you get these pathologies: the elites at the top are out of touch with the people who are ACTUALLY using the products / services. Same with politics / states / etc. Keep it decentralized whenever you can.
> You see, "private property" was a step up from Feudalism.
Private property absolutely existed under fuedalism as well, albeit in a more limited form for most people. Serfs generally worked land privately owned by - or granted by the crown to - private individuals. Minor nobles had property rights equal to and exceeding those of private landowners today.
Property other than real estate was privately owned by serfs. This included all of their possession and in many cases and countries, their homes. They were usually nominnaly free to move elsewhere, though in practice this rarely happened for cultural and practical reasons.
> So basically the current system has led to a bunch of surveillance capitalism.
I agree completely with this, except for the "capitalism" part. Our current system has arisen in an increasingly regulatory environment, and most of the issues with it are directly attributable to that.
> In short ... your ideas of "private ownership" work on a small level but then you get these large corporations that continue "owning" things [...]
Ah, this strikes me as important. The concept of the corporation - or more specifically, limited liability - is 100% a product of our governmental system. One place where I break from the mainstream in a big way is that I believe that those responsible for a company should be responsible personally for damages caused by that company. How that breaks down between employees, managers, officers, and shareholders is left as an exercise for the reader but suffice it to say that when Exxon covers the Gulf of Mexico with crude oil I believe the damage caused by that should be remedied by everyone involved, including those who allegedly own a share of ownership in the company.
> even "intellectual property" of patents and copyrights
My position here is very adequately described by "Against Intellectual Property", by Stephan Kinsella
https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0
> But just what does it mean that I "own" 999 houses, and see no lessening of my ability to evict people ACTUALLY living in the house as squatters, just because I contracted with a bank and some "People with Guns" to enforce some "deed of ownership"?
It means that if people don't agree with your practices as a landlord, they shouldn't rent from you. If it's that egregious, homeowners should decide not to sell to you or to demand a higher price.
If people don't want to rent from you, you will have to lower your prices to maintain occupancy. If people don't want to sell to you, you'll have to increase your offers to continue to grow. Both of those things decrease profitability. When they intersect, then you'll have to start selling those houses to recoup your investment.
> Even John Locke [...] > Even Adam Smith [...]
John Locke and Adam Smith are surely foundational, but they are hardly representative of our modern concept of "Capitalism".
For that matter, Thomas Paine is usually thought of as one of America's Founders; he'd likely be considered a Communist today based on the ideas he wrote about.
> It can be summarized like this: "Centralization is bad, and happens through enforcement of some rules. The resources to enforce rules should therefore not be deployed for unlimited value of ownership by accounts, they shouldn't even be centralized (e.g. proof of work mining elects one "consensus leader", or Facebook has a huge centralized server farm) to the point that you get these pathologies: the elites at the top are out of touch with the people who are ACTUALLY using the products / services. Same with politics / states / etc. Keep it decentralized whenever you can.
This statement is really interesting to me. I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist. Obviously, based on your post here, you and I have very different ideas of what an optimal socioeconomic system would look like.
... yet I completely agree with the statements "Centralization is bad" and "Keep it decentralized". I would go so far as to say that while our policy ideas aren't compatible, our worldviews are. We could likely work together to build something that worked well and that we both hated in equal measure. :)
Private property absolutely existed under fuedalism as well, albeit in a more limited form for most people. Serfs generally worked land privately owned by - or granted by the crown to - private individuals. Minor nobles had property rights equal to and exceeding those of private landowners today.
Property other than real estate was privately owned by serfs. This included all of their possession and in many cases and countries, their homes. They were usually nominnaly free to move elsewhere, though in practice this rarely happened for cultural and practical reasons.
> So basically the current system has led to a bunch of surveillance capitalism.
I agree completely with this, except for the "capitalism" part. Our current system has arisen in an increasingly regulatory environment, and most of the issues with it are directly attributable to that.
> In short ... your ideas of "private ownership" work on a small level but then you get these large corporations that continue "owning" things [...]
Ah, this strikes me as important. The concept of the corporation - or more specifically, limited liability - is 100% a product of our governmental system. One place where I break from the mainstream in a big way is that I believe that those responsible for a company should be responsible personally for damages caused by that company. How that breaks down between employees, managers, officers, and shareholders is left as an exercise for the reader but suffice it to say that when Exxon covers the Gulf of Mexico with crude oil I believe the damage caused by that should be remedied by everyone involved, including those who allegedly own a share of ownership in the company.
> even "intellectual property" of patents and copyrights
My position here is very adequately described by "Against Intellectual Property", by Stephan Kinsella
https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0
> But just what does it mean that I "own" 999 houses, and see no lessening of my ability to evict people ACTUALLY living in the house as squatters, just because I contracted with a bank and some "People with Guns" to enforce some "deed of ownership"?
It means that if people don't agree with your practices as a landlord, they shouldn't rent from you. If it's that egregious, homeowners should decide not to sell to you or to demand a higher price.
If people don't want to rent from you, you will have to lower your prices to maintain occupancy. If people don't want to sell to you, you'll have to increase your offers to continue to grow. Both of those things decrease profitability. When they intersect, then you'll have to start selling those houses to recoup your investment.
> Even John Locke [...] > Even Adam Smith [...]
John Locke and Adam Smith are surely foundational, but they are hardly representative of our modern concept of "Capitalism".
For that matter, Thomas Paine is usually thought of as one of America's Founders; he'd likely be considered a Communist today based on the ideas he wrote about.
> It can be summarized like this: "Centralization is bad, and happens through enforcement of some rules. The resources to enforce rules should therefore not be deployed for unlimited value of ownership by accounts, they shouldn't even be centralized (e.g. proof of work mining elects one "consensus leader", or Facebook has a huge centralized server farm) to the point that you get these pathologies: the elites at the top are out of touch with the people who are ACTUALLY using the products / services. Same with politics / states / etc. Keep it decentralized whenever you can.
This statement is really interesting to me. I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist. Obviously, based on your post here, you and I have very different ideas of what an optimal socioeconomic system would look like.
... yet I completely agree with the statements "Centralization is bad" and "Keep it decentralized". I would go so far as to say that while our policy ideas aren't compatible, our worldviews are. We could likely work together to build something that worked well and that we both hated in equal measure. :)
Yep. I am friends with many anarcho capitalists. I would say I’m a left-libertarian. We have a lot in common!
The way I arrive at it is like this:
1) Property requires “men with guns” to enforce. How do we as a society determine property on a larger scale than personal property? However we do it seems to centralize control in the hands of a few, to exclude others from using a resource.
2) People form organizations, and those organizations make rules (of which property laws represent just one aspect). Organizations can be small (neighborhoods, small forums like this) or large (cities, states, federations, Big Tech)
3) Governments are just the people in charge of running the organizations. Every organization is run by some rules. The question is what system leads to the best results. I don’t criticize “THE government”. I criticize large organizations like states, corporations etc.
4) Taxes are just the analogue of rent. Private landlords can force you to pay rent or get out. If the scale is larger, a city makes you pay tax. The city is the landlord. Consider that Disneyworld is owned by a corporation, while Boca Raton used to be privately owned but then sold to the residents.
5) What would you arrive at if you applied the same critiques of intellectual property — owning ideas, songs etc. — to owning water, air, and so forth … and then down the line — owning huge forests or fields. What does “ownership” of such huge things really benefit people? When the eviction moratorium expires, from a consequentialist point of view is a nation with many nearly-homeless people going to be richer?
On my side, I would really love to hear how you work out this “exercise for the reader”you mentioned — it seems way above my pay grade hehe
The way I arrive at it is like this:
1) Property requires “men with guns” to enforce. How do we as a society determine property on a larger scale than personal property? However we do it seems to centralize control in the hands of a few, to exclude others from using a resource.
2) People form organizations, and those organizations make rules (of which property laws represent just one aspect). Organizations can be small (neighborhoods, small forums like this) or large (cities, states, federations, Big Tech)
3) Governments are just the people in charge of running the organizations. Every organization is run by some rules. The question is what system leads to the best results. I don’t criticize “THE government”. I criticize large organizations like states, corporations etc.
4) Taxes are just the analogue of rent. Private landlords can force you to pay rent or get out. If the scale is larger, a city makes you pay tax. The city is the landlord. Consider that Disneyworld is owned by a corporation, while Boca Raton used to be privately owned but then sold to the residents.
5) What would you arrive at if you applied the same critiques of intellectual property — owning ideas, songs etc. — to owning water, air, and so forth … and then down the line — owning huge forests or fields. What does “ownership” of such huge things really benefit people? When the eviction moratorium expires, from a consequentialist point of view is a nation with many nearly-homeless people going to be richer?
On my side, I would really love to hear how you work out this “exercise for the reader”you mentioned — it seems way above my pay grade hehe
[deleted]
United States does rank below the UK in terms of social mobility. The notion that that is because the economic development of the country is "finished" seems weird.
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report....
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report....
"United States does rank below the UK in terms of social mobility."
It always did, because the US had slaves, and ex-slaves who had no much opportunity to 'climb'.
The US now also has a giant class of a specific kind of migrant - Latinos from Central America, who are completely different than those from Spain or Cuba and the rest of the world. They exist in a kind of 'separate' USA and while technically might have the opportunities others have, they live in a system that is not suited to exploiting them. They are happy in their version of he US, they're family oriented, patriots - but not going to college or after the white collar trades like migrants from 'everywhere else'.
Those two cohorts make the US 'very different' in terms of social mobility, and so you have a situation a bit akin to Brazil etc..
Canada and Australia are 'Immigrant States' without those cohorts, and newcomers do reasonably well or somewhere approaching 'normal' after one or two generations.
I'll bet social mobility among non-African American and Latino Americans, is about on part with Canada or Australia, and maybe even a little bit better than UK, and most of Europe (even Sweden) which also have vestiges of class.
Some indicative data here [1]. You can see mobility gap between Black and White in the US, it's very crude and subject to interpretation, but it does line up with PISA standardized testing results which show the same, that non-Black/Latino America is actually 'a lot like' Europe or Japan in terms of so many outcomes. 2018 PISA test scores here [2] (download the PDF).
FYI I'm not 'endorsing' or 'supporting' any kind of system here, just pointing out that the the US has a 'multi system dynamic' different than other places and it's essential to understanding how it works esp. on a comparative basis. FYI a lot of E/S European countries are poor, and represent similar kind of 'isolated communities' which is why gini coefficient etc. for the entirety of the EU is much worse than it is for any individual EU state.
From 1922 until today - most of our progress has been incremental. Other than satellites, and maybe computers, it seems as though they ave predicted a lot. Maybe not quite the social impact of them however.
What will change in 2122?
If we have successful Fusion at scale, it could change a lot of things.
If not, maybe it won't be that different: longer lives, more fashion. Maybe we figure out Climate Change and get plastics out of he ocean, but we'll probably still be arguing about 'what is normal'
Eventually, we'll be able to colour our skin, eyes, hair very readily, we'll have cosmetic limbs (i.e. pair of wings that don't to much but flap a bit). And maybe mechanical uterus - where you provide the eggs and sperm and it will make a baby in 9 months. If the identity wars are a bit complicated now just wait.
We will send a probe to Alpha Centuari and they'll be a small station on Mars, but it will be boring and young people won't even care.
Reduced population in the West and massive population booms in Africa and some other spots will crate some odd international dynamics. Africa will be much better off, but mostly still corrupt with crackpot leaders and nuclear weapons. One of them will use one on their neighbouring country.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/02/14/no-room-a...
[2] https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results.htm
It always did, because the US had slaves, and ex-slaves who had no much opportunity to 'climb'.
The US now also has a giant class of a specific kind of migrant - Latinos from Central America, who are completely different than those from Spain or Cuba and the rest of the world. They exist in a kind of 'separate' USA and while technically might have the opportunities others have, they live in a system that is not suited to exploiting them. They are happy in their version of he US, they're family oriented, patriots - but not going to college or after the white collar trades like migrants from 'everywhere else'.
Those two cohorts make the US 'very different' in terms of social mobility, and so you have a situation a bit akin to Brazil etc..
Canada and Australia are 'Immigrant States' without those cohorts, and newcomers do reasonably well or somewhere approaching 'normal' after one or two generations.
I'll bet social mobility among non-African American and Latino Americans, is about on part with Canada or Australia, and maybe even a little bit better than UK, and most of Europe (even Sweden) which also have vestiges of class.
Some indicative data here [1]. You can see mobility gap between Black and White in the US, it's very crude and subject to interpretation, but it does line up with PISA standardized testing results which show the same, that non-Black/Latino America is actually 'a lot like' Europe or Japan in terms of so many outcomes. 2018 PISA test scores here [2] (download the PDF).
FYI I'm not 'endorsing' or 'supporting' any kind of system here, just pointing out that the the US has a 'multi system dynamic' different than other places and it's essential to understanding how it works esp. on a comparative basis. FYI a lot of E/S European countries are poor, and represent similar kind of 'isolated communities' which is why gini coefficient etc. for the entirety of the EU is much worse than it is for any individual EU state.
From 1922 until today - most of our progress has been incremental. Other than satellites, and maybe computers, it seems as though they ave predicted a lot. Maybe not quite the social impact of them however.
What will change in 2122?
If we have successful Fusion at scale, it could change a lot of things.
If not, maybe it won't be that different: longer lives, more fashion. Maybe we figure out Climate Change and get plastics out of he ocean, but we'll probably still be arguing about 'what is normal'
Eventually, we'll be able to colour our skin, eyes, hair very readily, we'll have cosmetic limbs (i.e. pair of wings that don't to much but flap a bit). And maybe mechanical uterus - where you provide the eggs and sperm and it will make a baby in 9 months. If the identity wars are a bit complicated now just wait.
We will send a probe to Alpha Centuari and they'll be a small station on Mars, but it will be boring and young people won't even care.
Reduced population in the West and massive population booms in Africa and some other spots will crate some odd international dynamics. Africa will be much better off, but mostly still corrupt with crackpot leaders and nuclear weapons. One of them will use one on their neighbouring country.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/02/14/no-room-a...
[2] https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results.htm
>but it does line up with PISA standardized testing results which show the same, that non-Black/Latino America is actually 'a lot like' Europe or Japan in terms of so many outcomes
That's an understatement. Americans do well on PISA compared to their ethnic relatives.(<https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-new-2018-pisa-school-test-sco...>) Asian Americans do better than Asians; whites do better than Europeans; Latinos do better than Latin Americans; and blacks do better than Africans.
As you note, Hispanics and especially blacks' scores drag the US average down. Both white and Asian Americans score higher than Canada (and white+Asian is essentially Canada's racial makeup), and higher than New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, Norway, and the UK; Estonia is below US Asians but above white Americans. Norway is by far the wealthiest Nordic state but its average is only two points higher than the US national average, despite not having a demographic that is 13% of the population and scores 85 points below the white American average.
That's an understatement. Americans do well on PISA compared to their ethnic relatives.(<https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-new-2018-pisa-school-test-sco...>) Asian Americans do better than Asians; whites do better than Europeans; Latinos do better than Latin Americans; and blacks do better than Africans.
As you note, Hispanics and especially blacks' scores drag the US average down. Both white and Asian Americans score higher than Canada (and white+Asian is essentially Canada's racial makeup), and higher than New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, Norway, and the UK; Estonia is below US Asians but above white Americans. Norway is by far the wealthiest Nordic state but its average is only two points higher than the US national average, despite not having a demographic that is 13% of the population and scores 85 points below the white American average.
I'm still amazed the first and last times nukes were used against people were in 1945.
I've heard arguments for and against the justifications to use nukes against Japan, and while I think it was probably unnecessary, at least it only happened at the very end of the war. If it had been introduced a couple years earlier then I worry our perception might be that it's just another thing you use during war.
If there wasn't a major adversary with similar weapons that might have happened. Low-yield tactical are probably more effective than things like the "MOP" bunker-busters. But the hard-line we've drawn on the application of nukes has prevented such a slippery slope in our proxy wars.
In my eyes, nuclear weapons are both much less and much more terrifying that they seem to be considered by most people.
The smallest nuclear devices aren't anywhere close to as large as commonly believed. An M28 "Davy Crockett" with a yield of 20T - 0.02kT - isn't that much different from a conventional GBU-43/B MOAB, which has a yield of 11T.
Tactical nuclear weapons are basically a faster and more effective version of conventional strategic bombing. "Little Boy", the first weapon used in combat (in Nagasaki), had a yield of 15kT. That resulted in an estimated 66k deaths and 70k injuries. Compare that to the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed ~100k civilians and burned the homes of over a million more.
Strategic nuclear weapons... they're in a whole other category. Obviously lots of people are killed during conventional strategic bombing, but most of the damage is ultimately done through fires set by the destruction of the intended targets. Some people have a chance to escape.
What's more, conventional bombing is WW2 wasn't generally a "one-night" affair; it took days or weeks to saturate a target to the point of neutralizing it, and after the first couple of attacks many people would have left the target area. The firebombing of Tokyo resulted in so many civilian casualties precisely because it was a (very effective) one-night event, and people didn't have a chance to flee. That was exceptional even in WW2.
Strategic nuclear weapons are effectively instant. They're incredibly powerful. We stopped building bigger ones not because we didn't know how, but because we couldn't see any reason to. If a 50MT blast won't do the job, a 500MT blast isn't going to either... so why spend the money to develop, create, and maintain bigger ones?
Finally, the idea that even a full nuclear exchange between major powers would be an extinction-level event is absurd. It would utterly destroy the countries involved, devastate the world economy, and poison huge swaths of the planet practically in perpetuity. Between the direct and indirect damage and the societal impacts on the remainder of humanity, it would set us back centuries as a species - but we would rebuild and it would take much less time to do so than it did to get to where we the first time.
The smallest nuclear devices aren't anywhere close to as large as commonly believed. An M28 "Davy Crockett" with a yield of 20T - 0.02kT - isn't that much different from a conventional GBU-43/B MOAB, which has a yield of 11T.
Tactical nuclear weapons are basically a faster and more effective version of conventional strategic bombing. "Little Boy", the first weapon used in combat (in Nagasaki), had a yield of 15kT. That resulted in an estimated 66k deaths and 70k injuries. Compare that to the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed ~100k civilians and burned the homes of over a million more.
Strategic nuclear weapons... they're in a whole other category. Obviously lots of people are killed during conventional strategic bombing, but most of the damage is ultimately done through fires set by the destruction of the intended targets. Some people have a chance to escape.
What's more, conventional bombing is WW2 wasn't generally a "one-night" affair; it took days or weeks to saturate a target to the point of neutralizing it, and after the first couple of attacks many people would have left the target area. The firebombing of Tokyo resulted in so many civilian casualties precisely because it was a (very effective) one-night event, and people didn't have a chance to flee. That was exceptional even in WW2.
Strategic nuclear weapons are effectively instant. They're incredibly powerful. We stopped building bigger ones not because we didn't know how, but because we couldn't see any reason to. If a 50MT blast won't do the job, a 500MT blast isn't going to either... so why spend the money to develop, create, and maintain bigger ones?
Finally, the idea that even a full nuclear exchange between major powers would be an extinction-level event is absurd. It would utterly destroy the countries involved, devastate the world economy, and poison huge swaths of the planet practically in perpetuity. Between the direct and indirect damage and the societal impacts on the remainder of humanity, it would set us back centuries as a species - but we would rebuild and it would take much less time to do so than it did to get to where we the first time.
>Tactical nuclear weapons are basically a faster and more effective version of conventional strategic bombing. "Little Boy", the first weapon used in combat (in Nagasaki), had a yield of 15kT. That resulted in an estimated 66k deaths and 70k injuries. Compare that to the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed ~100k civilians and burned the homes of over a million more.
Two points:
The first bomb was on Hiroshima, and killed many more people. The reason why the Nagasaki bomb killed "so few" people is because they missed. They were supposed to do a visual confirmation of the target, but the weather was cloudy so they (probably) used radar targeting, which wasn't particularly accurate in 1945. A lot of the energy hit the side of a mountain.
Second, there's a huge difference between a conventional bomb and a nuke of the same size simply because of the fallout. It continues to kill well after it's dropped.
Two points:
The first bomb was on Hiroshima, and killed many more people. The reason why the Nagasaki bomb killed "so few" people is because they missed. They were supposed to do a visual confirmation of the target, but the weather was cloudy so they (probably) used radar targeting, which wasn't particularly accurate in 1945. A lot of the energy hit the side of a mountain.
Second, there's a huge difference between a conventional bomb and a nuke of the same size simply because of the fallout. It continues to kill well after it's dropped.
> The first bomb was on Hiroshima, and killed many more people.
Ugh. I hate when I do that. I don't know why I reversed them, other than the fact that I've been commenting on HN all day instead of working and probably just got overwhelmed :).
> Second, there's a huge difference between a conventional bomb and a nuke of the same size simply because of the fallout.
This applies much less to airbursts than groundbursts, and airbursts are the norm for modern weapons.
That's not to say it's not there - it is - but it's significantly less of an issue than commonly believed.
Ugh. I hate when I do that. I don't know why I reversed them, other than the fact that I've been commenting on HN all day instead of working and probably just got overwhelmed :).
> Second, there's a huge difference between a conventional bomb and a nuke of the same size simply because of the fallout.
This applies much less to airbursts than groundbursts, and airbursts are the norm for modern weapons.
That's not to say it's not there - it is - but it's significantly less of an issue than commonly believed.
I'm convinced that's because of M.A.D. had nukes bwwn on only one side, they'd have bwwn used more often.
>Latinos from Central America, who are completely different than those from Spain or Cuba and the rest of the world. They exist in a kind of 'separate' USA and while technically might have the opportunities others have, they live in a system that is not suited to exploiting them. They are happy in their version of he US, they're family oriented, patriots - but not going to college or after the white collar trades like migrants from 'everywhere else'.
This is so wrong and misinformed it's hard to know what to say. This sounds like the happy slaves justification for slavery.
The fact of the matter is that Latino immigrants from Central/South America follow the same path of assimilation as immigrants from anywhere else do. From the outside it may not see like it but that's because there's a steady flow of new immigrants. I've taught a lot of second-generation Latino immigrants who are very much interested in college and white-collar trades and not looking to continue in low-wage service jobs.
To the extent that there's no opportunity to climb it's because of racist attitudes like yours.
This is so wrong and misinformed it's hard to know what to say. This sounds like the happy slaves justification for slavery.
The fact of the matter is that Latino immigrants from Central/South America follow the same path of assimilation as immigrants from anywhere else do. From the outside it may not see like it but that's because there's a steady flow of new immigrants. I've taught a lot of second-generation Latino immigrants who are very much interested in college and white-collar trades and not looking to continue in low-wage service jobs.
To the extent that there's no opportunity to climb it's because of racist attitudes like yours.
[deleted]
"immigrants from Central/South America follow the same path of assimilation as immigrants from anywhere else do."
Their experience, on the whole is different.
For some obviously much more than others.
Latino Household income is 1/2 that of other recent migrant groups of colour i.e. Asians [1], who fare better than 'White Americans', a simple fact which makes your 'it's all racism' immediately, well, probably wrong.
Latino Americans are more likely to live in a segregated version of America almost due to their own choices, much like many other groups have historically, and much like 'micro enclaves' (i.e. Armenian, Persian, Chinese, Turkish) form among migrant communities across North America, UK, Australia, Germany etc. - the difference being, their cohort is enormous. Entire cities, or regions of cities are formed by relative newcomers from Central America, that doesn't happen with other migrant groups.
Latino Americans fare considerably more poorly in school, and in terms of academic achievement; the independent test scores (to which I referred) point to that, and there's ample evidence of that otherwise.
The 'it's all because of racism argument' holds little water, obviously, because other 'migrants of colour' in the US do actually very well. Would you imply that Latinos face 'racism' but migrants from India don't? That's not a very sound argument.
There's even more detailed data to refute your argument, right in the 2018 PISA references I provided. While migrants across the board fare more poorly in school than regular citizens, in the US, Canada, UK (aka Anglosphere) - once you normalize for income, migrants overall actually do as well as or better than local kids. The same is not the case in Germany or Finland (ostensibly #1 place for education). This is really strong evidence that actually, migrants tend to have 'opportunity' at least in the Anglosphere, at least the level of education.
China, India, and Europe have high, even elite standards for education at least for a minority, and migrants from those places are likely to be from the upper tranches of that spectrum. Canada mostly accepts only those with a University degree.
Migrants from Central America not only come from nations with very poor educational standards, but they're also individually, very poor. Many people cross the US border with literally nothing, often as refugees.
The contrast between Latino Americans and others holds even for rates of crime, where Latino Americans are over-represented in almost all forms of crime, while their counterparts, migrants from other nations, are actually underrepresented in crime data.
Latino Americans, unlike African Americans, are not represented as much pop culture, music, sports and media nearly to the same extent, almost as though 'they don't exist' - or rather they do, but in 'their own media'. Even during the 'Oscar's So White' uproar, nobody wanted to point out that nary 100% of the Latino prize winners were not American. Nobody seemed to care.
Go ahead and name for me some Black SNL cast members. That's easy. Now name the Latinos ones. Much harder. I can't think of a single one other than Fred Armisen who has a bit of 'Latino Heritage'.
If you take a moment to visit those areas of Texas and California, you'll realize how vast the submersion in 'Another America' many of them live in, and that it forms an existential artifact of their integration experience, which is very much unlike those of other migrants.
(Again, it's not entirely the case, obviously there are millions of Latino Americans who live as 'statistically normative Americans')
"To the extent that there's no opportunity to climb it's because of racist attitudes like yours. "
I think it's probably people screaming about this or that and throwing names around that is 'a core problem'.
Latino America is 'different enough' from the other cohorts, and they are 'big enough' that this implies differing policy measures, approaches etc..
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...
Their experience, on the whole is different.
For some obviously much more than others.
Latino Household income is 1/2 that of other recent migrant groups of colour i.e. Asians [1], who fare better than 'White Americans', a simple fact which makes your 'it's all racism' immediately, well, probably wrong.
Latino Americans are more likely to live in a segregated version of America almost due to their own choices, much like many other groups have historically, and much like 'micro enclaves' (i.e. Armenian, Persian, Chinese, Turkish) form among migrant communities across North America, UK, Australia, Germany etc. - the difference being, their cohort is enormous. Entire cities, or regions of cities are formed by relative newcomers from Central America, that doesn't happen with other migrant groups.
Latino Americans fare considerably more poorly in school, and in terms of academic achievement; the independent test scores (to which I referred) point to that, and there's ample evidence of that otherwise.
The 'it's all because of racism argument' holds little water, obviously, because other 'migrants of colour' in the US do actually very well. Would you imply that Latinos face 'racism' but migrants from India don't? That's not a very sound argument.
There's even more detailed data to refute your argument, right in the 2018 PISA references I provided. While migrants across the board fare more poorly in school than regular citizens, in the US, Canada, UK (aka Anglosphere) - once you normalize for income, migrants overall actually do as well as or better than local kids. The same is not the case in Germany or Finland (ostensibly #1 place for education). This is really strong evidence that actually, migrants tend to have 'opportunity' at least in the Anglosphere, at least the level of education.
China, India, and Europe have high, even elite standards for education at least for a minority, and migrants from those places are likely to be from the upper tranches of that spectrum. Canada mostly accepts only those with a University degree.
Migrants from Central America not only come from nations with very poor educational standards, but they're also individually, very poor. Many people cross the US border with literally nothing, often as refugees.
The contrast between Latino Americans and others holds even for rates of crime, where Latino Americans are over-represented in almost all forms of crime, while their counterparts, migrants from other nations, are actually underrepresented in crime data.
Latino Americans, unlike African Americans, are not represented as much pop culture, music, sports and media nearly to the same extent, almost as though 'they don't exist' - or rather they do, but in 'their own media'. Even during the 'Oscar's So White' uproar, nobody wanted to point out that nary 100% of the Latino prize winners were not American. Nobody seemed to care.
Go ahead and name for me some Black SNL cast members. That's easy. Now name the Latinos ones. Much harder. I can't think of a single one other than Fred Armisen who has a bit of 'Latino Heritage'.
If you take a moment to visit those areas of Texas and California, you'll realize how vast the submersion in 'Another America' many of them live in, and that it forms an existential artifact of their integration experience, which is very much unlike those of other migrants.
(Again, it's not entirely the case, obviously there are millions of Latino Americans who live as 'statistically normative Americans')
"To the extent that there's no opportunity to climb it's because of racist attitudes like yours. "
I think it's probably people screaming about this or that and throwing names around that is 'a core problem'.
Latino America is 'different enough' from the other cohorts, and they are 'big enough' that this implies differing policy measures, approaches etc..
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...
The world economic forum is largely lead by former nazis and communists. They have openly called for the United States to decline as a power.
I wouldn’t necessarily take anything they say as fact. Lol
I wouldn’t necessarily take anything they say as fact. Lol
Citation very much needed.
You can read the “Great Reset” book to get a wider view of their vision.
They’ve been talking about this for a long time
https://www.salon.com/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025/
They’ve been talking about this for a long time
https://www.salon.com/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025/
Trading that article, I wonder if you are conflating prediction and desire for something to happen.
Use of the idea that now is an opportunity to be seized I think dictates that it's a desire
So, if I predict something catastrophical will happen and I make efforts to prepare for it, I'm part of the problem?
This is a great question and my answer is possibly. If you prepare so much that you stand to gain from it coming about, then it does create perverse incentives. And it could make you part of the problem.
The institutions are stating that exploitation of the status quo to implement X is an opportunity. One that usually comes at the cost of individuals
And predicting the fall of the US... Makes them both nazis and communists? I'm confused by your argument.
It's really hard to be both far-right and far-left at the same time.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact says otherwise.
German and Soviet troops that met in Poland after invading from the west and east had no trouble in celebrating their victory together, holding parades and such.
As John Gunther—who was in Moscow when the world learned of the pact's existence in August 1939—wrote, "communism and Fascism were more closely allied than was normally understood".
German and Soviet troops that met in Poland after invading from the west and east had no trouble in celebrating their victory together, holding parades and such.
As John Gunther—who was in Moscow when the world learned of the pact's existence in August 1939—wrote, "communism and Fascism were more closely allied than was normally understood".
What about horseshoe theory?
Nazism is far-right and authoritarian. Socialism is just far-left, but not necessarily authoritarian. Soviet-style socialism was very authoritarian and that's why it got its bad reputation. And you can be authoritarian and not even be on the left-right axis - Saudi Arabia is an example, as is Afghanistan now.
Both of those countries are theocratic and extremely socially conservative, which places them on the far right.
Maybe, but they don't have really free markets either. In this regard, North Korea is more of an absolutist monarchy than any previously known form of socialism.
Read the book, look into the forums content, funding sources, history, etc
I was pointing out the anti-United states propaganda has been going on for years.
I was pointing out the anti-United states propaganda has been going on for years.
I'm not going to do all that to verify your comment. It strikes me as an absurd claim, at least in part because nazis and communists are opposites, and everybody is predicting the fall of the US' dominance to China these days.
The WEF is just liberal capitalism. The trend towards technofeudalism (everyone is renting their existence from big corps) has been going on for a while, at the hands of capitalists. Because its profitable. See: the growth of financing/credit, software subscriptions, etc.
The WEF is just liberal capitalism. The trend towards technofeudalism (everyone is renting their existence from big corps) has been going on for a while, at the hands of capitalists. Because its profitable. See: the growth of financing/credit, software subscriptions, etc.
If I am not mistaken "The Great Reset" is written by Glenn Beck. I may be wrong, as there are several books with that name, but the Beck book is the one most likely to involve railing against Nazis and Communists.
You can get a sense for Beck's work here:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=Glenn+beck
You can get a sense for Beck's work here:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=Glenn+beck
"The Great Reset" is the name of a book by Klaus Schwab, who is chairman of the WEF. It was also the name that the WEF gave to their 50th annual meeting, which took place in 2020.
Conspiracy theories aside, I've read Schwab's book, and it's a moronic, badly-written pile of buzzwords and corporate jargon that says nothing of interest and reads like the work of a hungover undergraduate who's padding the wordcount the night before the deadline while hoping the professor won't realise he hasn't done the reading. I'd tell you to ignore it, except Schwab is a man of enormous power and influence, so his apparent inability to produce an intelligent thought is really quite troubling.
Conspiracy theories aside, I've read Schwab's book, and it's a moronic, badly-written pile of buzzwords and corporate jargon that says nothing of interest and reads like the work of a hungover undergraduate who's padding the wordcount the night before the deadline while hoping the professor won't realise he hasn't done the reading. I'd tell you to ignore it, except Schwab is a man of enormous power and influence, so his apparent inability to produce an intelligent thought is really quite troubling.
Indeed. I was ignoring this stuff until the “build back better” was the campaign slogan all over everyone in the western world
I don't see how you can read things like the Great Reset and think the things you do.
I'm open to convincing arguments. What do you think the Great Reset is? To me it seems like late capitalists doing a capitalism as they always do, trying to eke out more profit by way of financier feudalism.
Go browse their website.It's very much transparent, which is both scary and somewhat surreal.
> They will have rebelled against long hours; the chances are that in 2022 few people will work more than seven hours a day, if as much.
honestly, with remote work, seven hours a day seems about right. A lot of that isn't even lost productivity, it's cutting back on the general time overhead of working in an office.
I don't think that Americans are so prosperous that we've become less enterprising due to class immobility. but we do seem to be getting more efficient with our time
honestly, with remote work, seven hours a day seems about right. A lot of that isn't even lost productivity, it's cutting back on the general time overhead of working in an office.
I don't think that Americans are so prosperous that we've become less enterprising due to class immobility. but we do seem to be getting more efficient with our time
>honestly, with remote work, seven hours a day seems about right.
This is, with the most possible respect, a position of great privilege. Most people in the US are not remote workers that get to work 7 hours a day. They are expected to be physically present doing things like retail service work, manufacturing, healthcare, construction, etc.
The average HN user is in a very specific demographic that has benefited enormously from recent economic trends, a benefit that is not distributed evenly. Many (most?) people are working more then they ever did for an increasingly smaller piece of the pie.
This is, with the most possible respect, a position of great privilege. Most people in the US are not remote workers that get to work 7 hours a day. They are expected to be physically present doing things like retail service work, manufacturing, healthcare, construction, etc.
The average HN user is in a very specific demographic that has benefited enormously from recent economic trends, a benefit that is not distributed evenly. Many (most?) people are working more then they ever did for an increasingly smaller piece of the pie.
> Most people in the US are not remote workers that get to work 7 hours a day. They are expected to be physically present doing things like retail service work, manufacturing, healthcare, construction, etc.
This is not entirely accurate — as much as 69% of all full-time employees worked remotely during the pandemic: https://news.gallup.com/poll/355907/remote-work-persisting-t...
While we certainly do have professions that require in-person presence, it’s not every role in those professions and certainly many more people can enjoy the benefits of remote work. Those who cannot should be rewarded for that and added enjoy benefits/guarantees to compensate.
This is not entirely accurate — as much as 69% of all full-time employees worked remotely during the pandemic: https://news.gallup.com/poll/355907/remote-work-persisting-t...
While we certainly do have professions that require in-person presence, it’s not every role in those professions and certainly many more people can enjoy the benefits of remote work. Those who cannot should be rewarded for that and added enjoy benefits/guarantees to compensate.
> Those who cannot should be rewarded for that and added enjoy benefits/guarantees to compensate.
This is more or less the opposite of what happens to these professionals - they are often those who are paid the least and work the longest hours under hourly contracts on multiple jobs (because, if they worked more in a single job, the company would have to give those benefits).
This is more or less the opposite of what happens to these professionals - they are often those who are paid the least and work the longest hours under hourly contracts on multiple jobs (because, if they worked more in a single job, the company would have to give those benefits).
Yeah it’s what happens, but I’m of strong opinion that this part needs to change. Unfortunately, some of the hardest jobs don’t come with enough dignity, let a long pay.
It's shameful that in the richest country in the world there are people being forced to work 12 or more hours a day just to survive.
And going to work with COVID symptoms because they can't live without payment.
And going to work with COVID symptoms because they can't live without payment.
> And going to work with COVID symptoms because they can't live without payment.
That’s a very grotesque illustration of perverse incentives. Ask anyone, I doubt they’ll tell you that it’s worth having a sick person show up to work over providing sick leave/benefits and yet, here we are.
That’s a very grotesque illustration of perverse incentives. Ask anyone, I doubt they’ll tell you that it’s worth having a sick person show up to work over providing sick leave/benefits and yet, here we are.
The point is that they aren't forced to provide sick leave unless the person works more than a certain amount of hours. If the person is desperate enough (and a LOT of people are), the "smart" choice is to never get a diagnosis and continue working.
While you see plenty of press decrying the shrinking middle class ... it still is the majority of the US! Even things like living in a detached single family home, still is something that 70% of Americans do, even if homeownership is down and rents are up. All economic trends happen at the margin, 2% here, 5% there. Big shifts, even over decades, are rarer.
The above sentiment is not altogether wrong.
Once people have certain comfort they cease to be productive and look for ways to while away their time. Sometimes its neutral, sometimes it may be a productive hobby and sometimes it's detrimental (as in they know what needs to change in the world and they will make it so).
It's also telling that at the dawn of the XX cent, the US was not a wealthy country. Per capita we were more or less on par with countries that are today still "developing". Out position isn't a foregone conclusion and needs active development to remain there.
Once people have certain comfort they cease to be productive and look for ways to while away their time. Sometimes its neutral, sometimes it may be a productive hobby and sometimes it's detrimental (as in they know what needs to change in the world and they will make it so).
It's also telling that at the dawn of the XX cent, the US was not a wealthy country. Per capita we were more or less on par with countries that are today still "developing". Out position isn't a foregone conclusion and needs active development to remain there.
What terrible phrasing is "they cease to be productive and look for ways to while away their time."
We don't live to work, we work to live. Once less work is required to live, more living can be done. Some people may 'while away their time', others do valuable things that don't produce monetary value.
We don't live to work, we work to live. Once less work is required to live, more living can be done. Some people may 'while away their time', others do valuable things that don't produce monetary value.
This is also not a new phenomena but something that has been slowly increasing over human history. Before agriculture, humans spent almost all of their time hunting and gathering. Agriculture freed up some time and every major technological revolution has in some way made society more productive and efficient allowing us for more time not working. At some point in the 19th century the concept of leisure time came around and its only been growing.
Reducing the work required by each individual to survive and support society is a natural effect of technological progression. If people are getting more work then we are regressing.
Reducing the work required by each individual to survive and support society is a natural effect of technological progression. If people are getting more work then we are regressing.
>Before agriculture, humans spent almost all of their time hunting and gathering. Agriculture freed up some time
Agriculture is more work than hunting and gathering, but it's a much more consistent food source.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/hunter-gatherer-farmer-ti...
Agriculture is more work than hunting and gathering, but it's a much more consistent food source.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/hunter-gatherer-farmer-ti...
And agriculture itself is less work than we think of. Medieval peasants worked less hours than we do.
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...
> And agriculture itself is less work than we think of.
That depends entirely upon the ratio of agriculture to other industries in a society and the level of automation.
People operating today's corporate farms in the US probably work fewer hours than their 1920s analogues, but produce far more output. People operating today's small/"family" farms are probably about on par in terms of hours worked, but still produce much more and there are far fewer of them.
That depends entirely upon the ratio of agriculture to other industries in a society and the level of automation.
People operating today's corporate farms in the US probably work fewer hours than their 1920s analogues, but produce far more output. People operating today's small/"family" farms are probably about on par in terms of hours worked, but still produce much more and there are far fewer of them.
It doesn't. People working today's farms (corporate and self operated) AFAICT put in more hours than their 1920s analogues as much more of their time is consumed by the other parts of the business rather than working the fields component.
They do create significantly more for their time, true. But this idea that exists that automation has given us more free time isn't quite borne out by the evidence.
They do create significantly more for their time, true. But this idea that exists that automation has given us more free time isn't quite borne out by the evidence.
I didn't say agriculture gave us leisure, I said it freed us up to do other things. You may spend less time hunting and gathering but everyone is a hunter and gatherer. With agriculture a smaller part of your society is dedicated to food production. This allows for specialization and civilization.
Leisure, as we understand it is a pretty modern development. In that study they are defining leisure as the opposite of labor. I wouldn't call that leisure personally. Partaking in or consuming entertainment and hobbies is leisure.
Leisure, as we understand it is a pretty modern development. In that study they are defining leisure as the opposite of labor. I wouldn't call that leisure personally. Partaking in or consuming entertainment and hobbies is leisure.
It would seem plausible to claim agriculture put demand on innovation; tools to make more efficient agriculture. Things like irrigation channels, planting tools, harvesting tools, etc.
Maybe technology developed for conflict came first but I’d guess peacetime uses also put demands on innovation.
Interestingly, I watched some video somewhere where in some part of India[1] there were people who were harvesting wheat with a curved knife (sickle) like implement rather than a scythe. So people had to bend down to harvest a field. Meaning sometimes technology doesn’t diffuse everywhere —even well known solutions.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iU0uYeO7XI
Maybe technology developed for conflict came first but I’d guess peacetime uses also put demands on innovation.
Interestingly, I watched some video somewhere where in some part of India[1] there were people who were harvesting wheat with a curved knife (sickle) like implement rather than a scythe. So people had to bend down to harvest a field. Meaning sometimes technology doesn’t diffuse everywhere —even well known solutions.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iU0uYeO7XI
Hunter gatherers worked at best 4 hours a day.
Agriculture did not free up time, it costs more time. It also has been a catastrophe for the human diet, which was superior before. Besides food, living constantly next to cattle has caused all kinds of new diseases.
Finally, agriculture established the concept of property. Almost all the negative behavior we commonly attribute to people...greed, competition, theft, envy, hoarding...come from the invention of personal property. It's not a natural occurrence of human behavior.
Agriculture did not free up time, it costs more time. It also has been a catastrophe for the human diet, which was superior before. Besides food, living constantly next to cattle has caused all kinds of new diseases.
Finally, agriculture established the concept of property. Almost all the negative behavior we commonly attribute to people...greed, competition, theft, envy, hoarding...come from the invention of personal property. It's not a natural occurrence of human behavior.
It was a catastrophe for the human diet, back when most people ate grains for 90% of their meals. Now we benefit from having basically any food available to us consistently. Hunter gatherers had better diets than their farming descendents and we know this because of their skeletons. But what farming provides is a surplus of food. Extra food means you feel comfortable enough to have a bunch of kids and all sit around inventing things like computers and Hacker News
There still are hunter gatherer societies, and they don't spend all their time hunting and gathering.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/01/5510187...
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/01/5510187...
I haven't though it through in detail, but I think it has to do with the intersection of these two things. Netflix and ice cream is pure leisure, toiling in the mines is pure work, but there's significant overlap...I'm sure for many here working on a personal coding project can be both a joy in the sense of leisure and also productive work in the sense that other people would pay for it, or it brings significant economic value to them.
So...the middle of the Venn is the important part. Insofar as leisure is both joyful and productive, good. Insofar as we continue the "opiates of the masses" arms race and make ever better Netflix + ice cream, bad.
So...the middle of the Venn is the important part. Insofar as leisure is both joyful and productive, good. Insofar as we continue the "opiates of the masses" arms race and make ever better Netflix + ice cream, bad.
[deleted]
Progress depends on people or, the economy in general, progressing. If everyone is happy where they are and want no more, there is no need to innovate and progress stops. That may be fine if we think we have achieved all we need to achieve as a society or species but most think we have a bit of a ways to go still before we can declare victory.
What about people who are made happy by innovating and progressing?
When social support for that goes away, it's only the "crazy" who would do that just because. But without societal support it's a dead-end.
There are countries with lots of people --but whose contribution to innovation is substandard. There is no societal support so innovation is stunted.
It’s like thinking justice will happen just because… No, it happens because society supports justice. Justice or innovation don’t just “happen”.
There are countries with lots of people --but whose contribution to innovation is substandard. There is no societal support so innovation is stunted.
It’s like thinking justice will happen just because… No, it happens because society supports justice. Justice or innovation don’t just “happen”.
Innovation does just happen, but only under circumstances that need it. People support it because it makes their lives easier. If it doesn't do that then honestly who cares? Don't confuse innovation in general with how many startups the country has.
There has to be some pull. If people are conditioned to be happy with say UBI + Netflix and conditioned to think that you should have a small impact on the planet (little consumption) and your daily needs met (food, shelter) innovation will go down in a generation or so.
[to answer weakfish who appears "dead": no it's not wrong to revert to a subsistence existence, but it has trade-offs. Just be aware of the trade-offs.]
[to answer weakfish who appears "dead": no it's not wrong to revert to a subsistence existence, but it has trade-offs. Just be aware of the trade-offs.]
Why should innovation lose support? It would fall under "people do what they like" so the innovators would go on innovating. And if the innovations bring even more to the society of course they will be adopted.
Let’s look at the Soviet Union to Russia transition. The state no longer had the same demand for space innovation. Their tech sector has stagnated. People didn’t carry on just because they could.
In the US a lot of people are very, very unhappy.
The lack of real political and economic agency for most of the population is one of the defining features of US capitalism.
The lack of real political and economic agency for most of the population is one of the defining features of US capitalism.
Citation needed. There are all sorts of measures of gross happiness out there.
Why bring in outside materials into this conversation? Do we lack the capacity for reason?
[deleted]
Already in 1918, shortly after World War I, when
everybody talked about peace and many international organizations
were created to secure that peace, Gesell published the following
warning in a letter to the editor of the newspaper "Zeitung am Mittag" in
Berlin:
"In spite of the holy promise of all people to banish war, once and for all, in spite of the cry of millions 'Never a war again,' in spite of all the hopes for a better future, I have this to say: If the present monetary system, based on interest and compound interest, remains in operation, I dare to predict today, that it will take less than 25 years for us to have a new and even worse war. I can foresee the coming development clearly. The present degree of technological advancement will quickly result in a record performance of industry. The build-up of capital will be rapid in spite of the enormous losses during the war, and through its over- supply will lower the interest rate. Money will then be hoarded. Economic activities will diminish and increasing numbers of unemployed persons will roam the streets; within the discontented masses wild, revolutionary ideas will arise and also the poisonous plant called "Super-Nationalism" will proliferate. No country will understand the other, and the end can only be war again. (28)"
The only good news is that our fractional reserve system is not as rigid as a gold standard. I.e. we will get a silent depression rather than a great depression.
"In spite of the holy promise of all people to banish war, once and for all, in spite of the cry of millions 'Never a war again,' in spite of all the hopes for a better future, I have this to say: If the present monetary system, based on interest and compound interest, remains in operation, I dare to predict today, that it will take less than 25 years for us to have a new and even worse war. I can foresee the coming development clearly. The present degree of technological advancement will quickly result in a record performance of industry. The build-up of capital will be rapid in spite of the enormous losses during the war, and through its over- supply will lower the interest rate. Money will then be hoarded. Economic activities will diminish and increasing numbers of unemployed persons will roam the streets; within the discontented masses wild, revolutionary ideas will arise and also the poisonous plant called "Super-Nationalism" will proliferate. No country will understand the other, and the end can only be war again. (28)"
The only good news is that our fractional reserve system is not as rigid as a gold standard. I.e. we will get a silent depression rather than a great depression.
In the context of conquering "the land" from East to West, I think the articles sentiments are spot on. The conclusion that Americans would settle long term is open to debate. The frontier discussed in the article is a physical one, conquered by hard labor and sweat. And while Americans did succeed and enjoy (physically) lighter days now, the author failed to predict we'd find a new frontier, a digital one. The hard labor is now done in the mind, even if we spend too much time binging Rick & Morty.
> Those Americans will know that it is practically certain that they will die much in the same position as the ones in which they were born. Those Americans will therefore be less enterprising and much more pleasure loving.
You can see this today with the anti-work movement and the overindulgence in tv shows, movies, porn, junk food, social media, and video games. All these things are corrupting the future generations of kids.
The corporations that create these have made them too accessible. Once kids start indulging at a young age, it's harder to control when they get older. Their lives will revolve around gaining short-term pleasures, and the world will lose out on the potential long-term creative value they could have contributed.
You can see this today with the anti-work movement and the overindulgence in tv shows, movies, porn, junk food, social media, and video games. All these things are corrupting the future generations of kids.
The corporations that create these have made them too accessible. Once kids start indulging at a young age, it's harder to control when they get older. Their lives will revolve around gaining short-term pleasures, and the world will lose out on the potential long-term creative value they could have contributed.
Alternatively people have found their own way to be happy and want to fill their lives with more experiences and less work for someone else's wealth.
Some, no doubt, will choose a less creative path, but we also have evidence in history that people, who have the privilege of not worrying about their daily bread, also choose to spend their time in pursuit of sciences, arts, etc and many things not practical for them in regular employment and that advance all people.
Those activities are fine and well. I never stated anything against those things. My point, that you missed, is that an overindulgence in modern media entertainment will lead people down a spiral of short-term pleasure seeking that can compromise their long-term creative potential.
I didn’t miss that point, just don’t agree with it. The two outcomes are not mutually exclusive and the availability of entertainment isn’t a good reason to claim people cannot (will not?) be productive if their survival no longer depends on that productivity.
In short, I think people adapt and figure out their priorities. If someone wants a life of binging Netflix, who am I to say that’s a wasted life? (So long as that person doesn’t make me live such a life.)
In short, I think people adapt and figure out their priorities. If someone wants a life of binging Netflix, who am I to say that’s a wasted life? (So long as that person doesn’t make me live such a life.)
This is a hilarious prediction.
I remember reading the same back in the 1990’s. America’s growth will flatten.
That was a terribly wrong prediction.
I don’t disagree that American’s economic expansion won’t flatten at some point. But as long as the brightest and most entrepreneurial keep going to the US, the growth will continue.
I mean where else will they go in the future? China?
I remember reading the same back in the 1990’s. America’s growth will flatten.
That was a terribly wrong prediction.
I don’t disagree that American’s economic expansion won’t flatten at some point. But as long as the brightest and most entrepreneurial keep going to the US, the growth will continue.
I mean where else will they go in the future? China?
Sounds mostly right...
>Similar reforms apply to cooking, a great deal of which will survive among old fashioned people, but a great deal more of which will probably be avoided by the use of synthetic foods.
>It is conceivable, though not certain, that in 2022 a complete meal may be taken in the shape of four pills. This is not entirely visionary; I am convinced that corned beef hash and pumpkin pie will still exist, but the pill lunch will roll by their side.
> This is very interesting especially if you think "synthetic foods" not just literally but as take out, processed products and such. I know a lot of young professional people who technically never cook. Like almost never and whatever they have at home is just snacks, if you hungry > order. There are a lot people like these.
Anecdata – I'm on of these people. I live in central Stockholm, Sweden, and almost any hour of the day I'm able to either order in or go out and buy a meal. I don't even recall last time I cooked at home. Last time anyone cooked at my place was when a friend of mine who's also a chef stopped by for a visit. My kitchen is fully equipped, there's no want for tooling or space. I more or less never go grocery shopping, and when I do shop it's for whatever snacks and fruits I might want at home. Sometimes I buy bread and other things to make sandwiches, but that's maybe once every couple of months and it's the extent to which I shop for groceries.
But when I go to my summer home on a small island with no grocery store, I cook every single day. I think it's a combination of necessity (you have to buy groceries and anything else back on the mainland, and it's a trek) and the fact that usually I'm not alone in the summer house, my brother is usually there too so I have someone to cook for.
I really enjoy cooking, I can spend hours doing it and I don't even mind the tedious tasks like peeling potatoes or chopping onions and other things. I just never do it at home, for myself. Why should I, when I can just as easily order in? That way I don't have to throw out groceries that inevitably go bad because as a single person it's hard to shop just what I need, everything is in large multi packs. Even a loaf of bread will go bad before I'm able to eat it all.
It's odd, but for me it really is very location dependent. It was the same when I lived in London, I don't think I cooked at home even once during those years.
Anecdata – I'm on of these people. I live in central Stockholm, Sweden, and almost any hour of the day I'm able to either order in or go out and buy a meal. I don't even recall last time I cooked at home. Last time anyone cooked at my place was when a friend of mine who's also a chef stopped by for a visit. My kitchen is fully equipped, there's no want for tooling or space. I more or less never go grocery shopping, and when I do shop it's for whatever snacks and fruits I might want at home. Sometimes I buy bread and other things to make sandwiches, but that's maybe once every couple of months and it's the extent to which I shop for groceries.
But when I go to my summer home on a small island with no grocery store, I cook every single day. I think it's a combination of necessity (you have to buy groceries and anything else back on the mainland, and it's a trek) and the fact that usually I'm not alone in the summer house, my brother is usually there too so I have someone to cook for.
I really enjoy cooking, I can spend hours doing it and I don't even mind the tedious tasks like peeling potatoes or chopping onions and other things. I just never do it at home, for myself. Why should I, when I can just as easily order in? That way I don't have to throw out groceries that inevitably go bad because as a single person it's hard to shop just what I need, everything is in large multi packs. Even a loaf of bread will go bad before I'm able to eat it all.
It's odd, but for me it really is very location dependent. It was the same when I lived in London, I don't think I cooked at home even once during those years.
> My kitchen is fully equipped, there's no want for tooling or space. I more or less never go grocery shopping, and when I do shop it's for whatever snacks and fruits I might want at home. Sometimes I buy bread and other things to make sandwiches, but that's maybe once every couple of months and it's the extent to which I shop for groceries.
> But when I go to my summer home on a small island with no grocery store, I cook every single day.
The incentive to cook yourself instead of ordering food is multi-factorial, but a significant part is financial. People who only cook "touristically" like you describe are people for whom daily food expenses are a rounding error, whether ordered or cooked by themselves. This could include single well compensated people or very wealthy families. This is further amplified by the fact that food consumes a smaller portion of household income than it has historically.
In contrast, when working and middle class families decide that they need to save more, the first place they usually economize is in their restaurant expenditures.
The incentive to cook yourself instead of ordering food is multi-factorial, but a significant part is financial. People who only cook "touristically" like you describe are people for whom daily food expenses are a rounding error, whether ordered or cooked by themselves. This could include single well compensated people or very wealthy families. This is further amplified by the fact that food consumes a smaller portion of household income than it has historically.
In contrast, when working and middle class families decide that they need to save more, the first place they usually economize is in their restaurant expenditures.
> Why should I, when I can just as easily order in?
Because
> I really enjoy cooking, I can spend hours doing it
?
Also if you are even just an average/mediocre cook, you can usually cook more tasty and interesting food than what you typically find on Uber eats, unless you order from a different high end restaurant every single day.
Because
> I really enjoy cooking, I can spend hours doing it
?
Also if you are even just an average/mediocre cook, you can usually cook more tasty and interesting food than what you typically find on Uber eats, unless you order from a different high end restaurant every single day.
I enjoy cooking, but I enjoy other things more, and time is not infinite. I notice that when my wife and I go on vacation we cook much more and try out new recipes because at the airbnb there are fewer competing tasks or activities. And while I can cook and bake decently, there are some dishes I don't always want to put the time in for, or I haven't quite gotten right yet, or require fresh ingredients that I can't buy within a 30min drive. But the thai restaurant a few blocks away will have fresh keffir lime leaves and lemongrass brought in in bulk every day.
I'm a reasonably good cook and this isn't terribly true for me. There are entire classes of foods I can't do as well as restaurants can. Be that because of a lack of equipment, or a lack of ingredients. I.e, I can make great pizza, but it doesnt' compare to the stuff I can get from the wood fired pizza place down the street. Same goes for India, Thai, Chinese, wings, etc, etc.
If you extend this into making/mending your own clothing, doing your own plumbing, electricity etc., suddenly all your time goes to these "maintenance" tasks.
Sure if you're growing food as well on the side so that you can sustain yourself completely, it could be a happy way of living life. But if you have to work 8 hours per day to make a living, the spare time is valuable and subject to prioritization. Some people do some of these things on the side, as a pleasant hobby, but practically no "modern person" does all of them.
Sure if you're growing food as well on the side so that you can sustain yourself completely, it could be a happy way of living life. But if you have to work 8 hours per day to make a living, the spare time is valuable and subject to prioritization. Some people do some of these things on the side, as a pleasant hobby, but practically no "modern person" does all of them.
You're right, I wasn't very clear – my apologies. What I meant to say was I really enjoy cooking for others, but cooking for myself isn't at all the same.
I feel tossing together some basic meal is so simple I can't bother to go pick anything from outside even though I live in the middle of great restaurant concentration. A bit of frozen veggies heated on pan, with pasta or couscous on the side. Takes literally ten minutes and costs less than one euro.
Or a large casserole that takes an hour to cook but gives eight portions. Quick heat-up for lunch during the week saves time too, and you stay in control of the salt intake unlike with ready meals. So cheaper, healthier, faster. Downside is that those meals are pretty basic and repetitive, but then again eating out feels a bit more special if you don't do it every day.
I do cook "real" recipes too with more steps and more flavor, but only with my partner as I don't care to do it just for myself for weekday meals.
Or a large casserole that takes an hour to cook but gives eight portions. Quick heat-up for lunch during the week saves time too, and you stay in control of the salt intake unlike with ready meals. So cheaper, healthier, faster. Downside is that those meals are pretty basic and repetitive, but then again eating out feels a bit more special if you don't do it every day.
I do cook "real" recipes too with more steps and more flavor, but only with my partner as I don't care to do it just for myself for weekday meals.
I live in a place were I could easily order / go out for every meal as well. If I cook ~2-3 times a week for myself and box up the leftovers, I get high quality meals for $2-5/meal vs $10-30/meal. This can save ~$8k per person per year just cooking 10 meals a week.
This may not be worth it for some, but I've found the time savings of ordering in/carryout is marginal or actually worse than cooking and reheating leftovers. Waste and grocery trips generally sort themselves out in a couple weeks as you figure out a schedule. This obviously scales with number of people so for a family of 2-4 you'd save $16-32k/yr for little extra effort.
These sort of home economics seem to have really fallen out of favor in my sphere, even in 2+ person households where $40k+ in maintenance/service/food costs can be saved (factor in childcare/education and I image the number can get to $100k+). I don't understand why people leave so much money on the table. There aren't many ways you can make $16k/year for a <5hr/week moonlighting position.
---
> That way I don't have to throw out groceries that inevitably go bad because as a single person it's hard to shop just what I need, everything is in large multi packs. Even a loaf of bread will go bad before I'm able to eat it all.
You have to cook larger batches and eat the leftovers. I've had bad luck with bread too tbh. I might just start making my own smaller loafs, because the quality is also just bad.
EDIT: it’s also worth pointing out that savings values are post tax
This may not be worth it for some, but I've found the time savings of ordering in/carryout is marginal or actually worse than cooking and reheating leftovers. Waste and grocery trips generally sort themselves out in a couple weeks as you figure out a schedule. This obviously scales with number of people so for a family of 2-4 you'd save $16-32k/yr for little extra effort.
These sort of home economics seem to have really fallen out of favor in my sphere, even in 2+ person households where $40k+ in maintenance/service/food costs can be saved (factor in childcare/education and I image the number can get to $100k+). I don't understand why people leave so much money on the table. There aren't many ways you can make $16k/year for a <5hr/week moonlighting position.
---
> That way I don't have to throw out groceries that inevitably go bad because as a single person it's hard to shop just what I need, everything is in large multi packs. Even a loaf of bread will go bad before I'm able to eat it all.
You have to cook larger batches and eat the leftovers. I've had bad luck with bread too tbh. I might just start making my own smaller loafs, because the quality is also just bad.
EDIT: it’s also worth pointing out that savings values are post tax
I did this for a decade and gained 60lb. I've since lost it, mainly from cooking at home.
Reduced sodium probably lowered your blood pressure as well
I guess it depends on the location and wealth. Eating healthy is wayyyy more expensive than cooking healthy in some cities, even when you can buy a meal virtually everywhere.
Yeah, I cooked less when I didn't have flatmates to share with, even though I do like cooking. Cooking for yourself does feel like a chore.
The “lunch will be a pill” stuff is always funny to me. There’s a major volume issue unless you’re gonna have me eat chunks of uranium or neutron star or something.
This was my initial reaction too: it doesn't seem to pass basic conservation of mass.
But actually how much mass must you necessarily lose to stay alive each day? Most of it is probably water, so if we allow "four pills plus as much water" at a meal then it's harder to rule out the pill diet.
Maybe a better way to bound it: apparently we exhale around 1 kg of CO2 each day, which has 370g of carbon in it so unless we can radically reengineer our metabolism I guess you need a minimum of 370g daily to maintain carbon levels. 370g / 3 meals / 4 pills = 30g per pill. Even with the density of diamond that would be (picking a convenient rough number) 8 cm3 or 2x2x2cm.
Which is... a hard pill to swallow. Maybe not impossible though.
But actually how much mass must you necessarily lose to stay alive each day? Most of it is probably water, so if we allow "four pills plus as much water" at a meal then it's harder to rule out the pill diet.
Maybe a better way to bound it: apparently we exhale around 1 kg of CO2 each day, which has 370g of carbon in it so unless we can radically reengineer our metabolism I guess you need a minimum of 370g daily to maintain carbon levels. 370g / 3 meals / 4 pills = 30g per pill. Even with the density of diamond that would be (picking a convenient rough number) 8 cm3 or 2x2x2cm.
Which is... a hard pill to swallow. Maybe not impossible though.
370g of carbon required per day? That can't be. Even with a pure fat-based diet, 370g of fat (9 kcal/g) equals 3330 kcal daily - way too high for the sedentary HN requirement of 2000 kcal.
With 2000 kcal, three meals with four pills equals twelve lard pills, each in a squishy 2.7cm cube format, easy to swallow. ;-)
With 2000 kcal, three meals with four pills equals twelve lard pills, each in a squishy 2.7cm cube format, easy to swallow. ;-)
Thinking outside the box, that pill could be part of a more involved system where it triggers the release of nutrition that was consumed earlier.
It doesn't have to be a completely self-contained solution.
It doesn't have to be a completely self-contained solution.
I love where your head's at. Project: Chipmunk. Stuff those cheeks :)
If NASA[1] could have this, they would do this. They'd prefer it if they could give their *nauts pill-like nutrition delivery systems.
[1] Also armed forced with deployed troops would love this too as it makes food logistics much easier.
[1] Also armed forced with deployed troops would love this too as it makes food logistics much easier.
The closest we can get volume-wise is a cup of olive oil for about 2k calories. Stuffing any more calories into the same volume would require using materials we can't currently digest.
(NASA does not like the side-effects of an all-oil diet on space toilets, I suspect.)
(NASA does not like the side-effects of an all-oil diet on space toilets, I suspect.)
There's Soylent and similar meal replacements, but that's a diet shake for people who try to min-max their life for some reason.
I was excited about the kickstarter because while a recovering alcoholic can completely stop using alcohol, a food addict always has to eat a little. Something bland, and quick I didn't think about was a plus. But afyer the Kickstarter they replaced the fish oil with polyunsaturated vegetable oil in powder form and dropped the rice protein content for more carbs. My triglycerides shot through the roof after the first few months of that recipe.
You could try keto chow. They started with the Soylent recipe and made it carb free (if you don't count fiber as carbs).
https://www.ketochow.xyz/
https://www.ketochow.xyz/
I'm not against carbs, I just like macro ratios more like the earlier versions. Lots of carbs and polyunsaturated oils are in the literature as triglyceride boosters. If they offered a version with the fish oil back in and the old protein ratios I'd be interested, especially if the replaced the rice protein with the collagen or fish meal from the bait fish the oil came from. At least as sustainable as giant fields of rice and safflower and probably lower in heavy metals too. Rice sucks up the cadmium.
There are several other Soylent mods out there. Super Body Fuel, Huel, and Tsogo are a few others I tried. Not a drink, but Meal Squares and Greenbelly Meals are a similar idea too. No idea if any of them meet your needs. I think there was a website that had a huge list of meal replacements.
(Edit typo fix)
(Edit typo fix)
Just replacing one meal like breakfast with Soylent is probably preferred over replacing 3-4.
I thought it was goofy until I remembered that some people eat pills for lunch.
> I know a lot of young professional people who technically never cook.
I think there is a distinction here between people who buy meals-and-snacks as opposed to people who buy ingredients. When my partner and I shop, apart from the fruit and similar, there are very few things that you would directly eat. When my niece and her partner shop, there are numerous packets of biscuits and other snacks as well as prepared ready meals that can be microwaved / oven heated with no other effort required. They generate a lot more plastic waste, as well.
I think there is a distinction here between people who buy meals-and-snacks as opposed to people who buy ingredients. When my partner and I shop, apart from the fruit and similar, there are very few things that you would directly eat. When my niece and her partner shop, there are numerous packets of biscuits and other snacks as well as prepared ready meals that can be microwaved / oven heated with no other effort required. They generate a lot more plastic waste, as well.
The idea of communal kitchens is nothing new. Young unmarried professionals weren't cooking their own meals a hundred years ago either. In urban areas you'd have landladies providing supper, food carts, delivery boys, even subscription meal plans. So not much has changed in that regard.
As a person who has been exclusively on something similar to soylent for entire 2021, it is certainly possible today albeit not via 4 pills.
Out of complete curiosity: any particular reason to avoid traditional food?
It is tremendously difficult to eat a balanced, healthy diet for people who lack the motivation or desire to cook and eat subjectively boring foods. I know this will probably strike a nerve in some people that perfectly enjoy salads, chicken, and brown rice. But not every feels the same about those foods.
I have a medical condition which requires enteral nutrition.
Ok I will bite, what are you on ?
the marketing team
I know that "funny quips" are generally discouraged on HN, but this is quality content that made me chuckle.
Thanks :)
Thanks :)
Probably Huel
Isosource 1.5
It's important to remember that 77 percent of U.S. adults take dietary supplements. We all eat "corned beef hash and pumpkin pie" yet the majority of people already use supplements as pill as needed. Living in the north, everyone I know uses Vitamin D pills. This is a must to survive the winter and I can't imagine how it would be if that wasn't as available.
[deleted]
Interesting, I didn’t imagine there would be such a noticeable effect. Can I ask what sort of difference do you see if you don’t take it?
I go to work while the sun has yet to rise and when I come back home the sun is already away (at the peak of the winter, the sun is gone around 4pm). If I do go out for a walk, it's behind a heavy coat, scarf and hat. Often with sunglasses to protect against snow blindness and the wind.
This means that for about half of the year, my body does not see the sun. Glass windows will prevent vitamin D production so sitting by a window during the day will not help.
Between 70% and 97% of Canadians demonstrate vitamin D insufficiency. It's also important to highlight that people with darker skin need even more sun exposure to produce vitamin D as skin pigmentation negatively influences vitamin D synthesis.
Contrary to popular belief, vitamin D is a hormone. It impacts calcium absorption, which is the most known side effect. But it's way more than that. Many of the body's process simply cannot happen properly without vitamin D and the only way to get it naturally is from the sun.
One relevant symptoms these days is a weakening of the immune system. Many studies already show that vitamin D deficiency is one of the main factor behind the severity of covid infections.
Other symptoms are bone density loss, muscle pains, cancer risks, heart disease, nerve issues, blood pressure.
Another very important issue related to vitamin D is Seasonal Affective Disorder, which is similar (but different) to clinical depression.
---
Edit:
I was wondering when Vitamin D supplements and enriched milk came around, since the current conversation in the context of this 1992 event.
There's a nice goldmine of information here: https://timelines.issarice.com/wiki/Timeline_of_vitamin_D
"1930 - Drug launch: Vitamin D prodrug dihydrotachysterol is developed as a method of stabilizing the triene structure of one of the photoisomers of vitamin D. This represents the oldest vitamin D analog."
"1952 - Product launch: Synthetic vitamin D2 and D3 compounds start being produced."
This means that for about half of the year, my body does not see the sun. Glass windows will prevent vitamin D production so sitting by a window during the day will not help.
Between 70% and 97% of Canadians demonstrate vitamin D insufficiency. It's also important to highlight that people with darker skin need even more sun exposure to produce vitamin D as skin pigmentation negatively influences vitamin D synthesis.
Contrary to popular belief, vitamin D is a hormone. It impacts calcium absorption, which is the most known side effect. But it's way more than that. Many of the body's process simply cannot happen properly without vitamin D and the only way to get it naturally is from the sun.
One relevant symptoms these days is a weakening of the immune system. Many studies already show that vitamin D deficiency is one of the main factor behind the severity of covid infections.
Other symptoms are bone density loss, muscle pains, cancer risks, heart disease, nerve issues, blood pressure.
Another very important issue related to vitamin D is Seasonal Affective Disorder, which is similar (but different) to clinical depression.
---
Edit:
I was wondering when Vitamin D supplements and enriched milk came around, since the current conversation in the context of this 1992 event.
There's a nice goldmine of information here: https://timelines.issarice.com/wiki/Timeline_of_vitamin_D
"1930 - Drug launch: Vitamin D prodrug dihydrotachysterol is developed as a method of stabilizing the triene structure of one of the photoisomers of vitamin D. This represents the oldest vitamin D analog."
"1952 - Product launch: Synthetic vitamin D2 and D3 compounds start being produced."
Yep it's the same for me - dark when I go to work and after I finish. But I'm not taking any supplements at all so I'm just wondering if you personally notice a difference between when you do and don't take it.
Yes, I am on prescribed Vitamin D due to low results from a blood test. The difference being the dose. I do not see the sun at all for all winter. Difference is night & day (pun intended).
Just picked up some Vitamin D today. I've been feeling a little out of sorts recently so we'll see how it goes :)
I cannot edit this anymore. By 1992, I meant 1922.
> This is very interesting especially if you think "synthetic foods" not just literally but as take out, processed products and such. I know a lot of young professional people who technically never cook. Like almost never and whatever they have at home is just snacks, if you hungry > order. There are a lot people like these.
Isn't that just having servants?
Isn't that just having servants?
I think that a powdered shake is pretty similar to the pill idea. Protein or meal replacement shakes are widespread in use in 2022.
The "less cleaning due to less coal" part is not something we really think much about these days, but the older limestone buildings can really show the difference. Here's a view with the old and either pressure-washed or redone wall:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wso9gae4JPsN6NaG6 and that's on a residential side street... Imagine getting your clothes slowly covered with it every time you go out.
That was one of the most striking differences I noticed when I saw a bunch of photos from c. 1970 of my hometown (Toronto). Everything that wasn't freshly painted was grubby in a way you don't see anymore here.
1971: https://www.blogto.com/upload/2014/03/20111020-royal-alex-f0...
2009: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Royal_Al...
We phased out most coal in the 70s with the last eliminated in the early 2000s. I do not miss the vibrant orange sunsets in summer.
1971: https://www.blogto.com/upload/2014/03/20111020-royal-alex-f0...
2009: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Royal_Al...
We phased out most coal in the 70s with the last eliminated in the early 2000s. I do not miss the vibrant orange sunsets in summer.
For some reason aesthetically I prefer the coal-covered limestone buildings. They are just pleasing to look at. So in a way I find it strangely disappointing that they get pressure washed.
Before clicking on this link I was thinking "oh yeah, I know of one such example near where I used to live in Bath". And then I clicked the link... and now I'm terrified of you.
We may have met :-) It was actually hard to find a good example on street view today - the whole centre is washed now and Cheap/Westgate aren't black for over a decade.
Bath posse, represent.
I live in a suburb with a power station that was converted from coal to gas in the 70s. My older neighbours have told me that they had to careful when hanging clothes out to try, lest they got so dirty that they'd have to wash them again.
I imagine we'll see a same effect in decades, when cars no longer dominate our cities and/or are replaced with EVs.
Years ago (1986) I worked on a project for one of the bigger power stations in the UK. We created a digital display which showed which way the wind was blowing so they could choose which coal to burn. They had been getting complaints about the dirt on peoples line dried clothes.
Remember how e.g. Notre Dame de Paris looked like before they cleaned it?
That link doesn't work for me, I get an infinitely loading spinner (in the address bar, behind the overlay, it says something about intent://) and the back button doesn't work so I have to kill the browser. Probably because I'm not using official chrome or something but a foss webview browser, it pops over and disables the app I was coming from but the content never loads. Can someone translate it into a regular link, or a screenshot of the content?
Edit: it works in Firefox (Fennec), here is the content in a normal picture: https://snipboard.io/uxGWaZ.jpg
Edit: it works in Firefox (Fennec), here is the content in a normal picture: https://snipboard.io/uxGWaZ.jpg
There was a great picture of I think Manchester before and after a ban on wood / coal and a good cleanup, it went from black buildings to a place that looked pretty decent.
Now it's just an invisible polluter/killer.
When he mentions the lack of cables, he's pretty close with most of them being underground. But also he's incredible close if you consider the mess of cables that was the Stockholm telephone tower, functioning until 1913 https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/09/the-stockholm-telephon...
It is an excellent article, I agree. However, it strikes me that the author was more likely female than male. (gender deliberately obscured in the author's name, 'W.L. George', for instance.).
If a male writer, the article is even more impressive given the clear sensitivity to, and awareness of, women's issues and the likely impact of technology and social changes on women.
That said, the author was likely a person of privilege rather than someone more representative of the population of 1922. A starving writer was unlikely to have been so focused on the challenges of hiring good household staff.
If a male writer, the article is even more impressive given the clear sensitivity to, and awareness of, women's issues and the likely impact of technology and social changes on women.
That said, the author was likely a person of privilege rather than someone more representative of the population of 1922. A starving writer was unlikely to have been so focused on the challenges of hiring good household staff.
"Cautious feminist" describes himself as:
But it is unlikely that women will have an achieved equality with men. Cautious feminists such as myself realize that things go slowly and that a brief hundred years will not wipe out the effects on women of 30,000 years of slavery.
He's definitely on point 100 years later.
But it is unlikely that women will have an achieved equality with men. Cautious feminists such as myself realize that things go slowly and that a brief hundred years will not wipe out the effects on women of 30,000 years of slavery.
He's definitely on point 100 years later.
Author was male: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._George
Cool! Excellent predictions for the future, not just for technology, but also for social change from a broader perspective than just that of the lived experience of the author.
(W.L. = Walter Lionel, as revealled by a bit more searching)
(W.L. = Walter Lionel, as revealled by a bit more searching)
In the same building, downstairs, a year after the commercial launch of the telephone tower in 1887:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Allm%C3%...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Allm%C3%...
That's wild, thanks for sharing. I'd have to imagine it's served as some level of inspiration for Simon Stålenhag's work.
Ex: http://www.simonstalenhag.se/bilderbig/by_procession_1920.jp...
Ex: http://www.simonstalenhag.se/bilderbig/by_procession_1920.jp...
I agree, but some other countries are still not using the underground as a cable management system.
Going to be "that guy" and say that almost everything he accurately predicted was already commonplace or on the rise in the 1920s.
- Commercial flights had started a decade earlier. There were even successful transatlantic flights.
- The women empowerment and feminism movement was in full swing. Women had just got the right to vote. A large percentage had careers and even unions.
- Wireless radio and telegraph were established in most parts of the world.
- Cinema, with sound and color, was already a thing.
In fact he missed the mark on his actual predictions – food pills, paper mache furniture, no private dwellings, glass domed cities, nationalized industries in the US, no more opportunity in the US (funny since we are on a SV entrepreneurs forum right now).
- Commercial flights had started a decade earlier. There were even successful transatlantic flights.
- The women empowerment and feminism movement was in full swing. Women had just got the right to vote. A large percentage had careers and even unions.
- Wireless radio and telegraph were established in most parts of the world.
- Cinema, with sound and color, was already a thing.
In fact he missed the mark on his actual predictions – food pills, paper mache furniture, no private dwellings, glass domed cities, nationalized industries in the US, no more opportunity in the US (funny since we are on a SV entrepreneurs forum right now).
> paper mache furniture
Wait till you find out what that Ikea crap is made of. :)
Wait till you find out what that Ikea crap is made of. :)
I once put a stool on a coffee table to put up a few curtains and the leg of the stool went through the surface of the coffee table. That surface is more or less paper mache by my book.
Maybe the "paper" in the "mache" is not as finely ground and instead made of more granular wood chips, but its definitely made of a thin lamination of wood grounds held together by some adhesive.
Its light as a feather though, so that's pretty nice.
Maybe the "paper" in the "mache" is not as finely ground and instead made of more granular wood chips, but its definitely made of a thin lamination of wood grounds held together by some adhesive.
Its light as a feather though, so that's pretty nice.
I find IKEA's materials work remarkable - their materials are finely engineered to be light and pretty enough, and, at the same time, being sufficiently strong to bear the loads it's designed to. I'm writing this on an IKEA desk with 4 big monitors and 2 laptops, plus an assortment of external drives and docking stations.
It's certainly not designed to bear my weight on 4 small spots, however, so I wouldn't even try that. It's not made of solid wood, but the furniture-equivalent of an F-22 wing.
It's certainly not designed to bear my weight on 4 small spots, however, so I wouldn't even try that. It's not made of solid wood, but the furniture-equivalent of an F-22 wing.
I have these $5 end tables that are going on 10 years of use. They are just basic 4 post tables with square tops, but they are light enough that I can pick them up by edge with one hand while laying on the couch, but are still like 20"x20". They've all been relegated to shop use anymore, yet they are still perfect.
All of my previous ikea desks are also spending their sunset years toiling away in the shop. The oldest one is 20 years old and I use it for assembling heaving parts because nothing sticks to whatever plastic coating they use on their desktops.
Also, the obligatory note that Ikea does sell solid wood furniture. It's made of softwoods, like pine or fir, but if you put it together with wood glue, it will absolutely outlive you. I have a dresser that's survived six moves where I never bothered to unload it.
All of my previous ikea desks are also spending their sunset years toiling away in the shop. The oldest one is 20 years old and I use it for assembling heaving parts because nothing sticks to whatever plastic coating they use on their desktops.
Also, the obligatory note that Ikea does sell solid wood furniture. It's made of softwoods, like pine or fir, but if you put it together with wood glue, it will absolutely outlive you. I have a dresser that's survived six moves where I never bothered to unload it.
I haven't bought IKEA in a while; the last time I did, they used a lot of MDF, which is rather heavy for its strength...
My desk is two thin sheets of MDF with a honeycomb-like structure inside. Thicker wall-mounted shelves are more or less the same, with supports anchoring the top and bottom sheets.
I had to drill a hole for cables with a hole saw in my wife's IKEA desk. Imagine my surprise when it was basically laminate on top of corrugated cardboard strips arranged vertically with actual empty space between them!
It might even be this exact one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vNRY6natiY
It might even be this exact one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vNRY6natiY
I agree.
However, having just recently replaced a couch from a chain retailer, I can attest that they are pretty much made from paper mache.
However, having just recently replaced a couch from a chain retailer, I can attest that they are pretty much made from paper mache.
While "food pills" are obviously wrong, I think the general concept of "prepared food" vs "cooking" is decently accurate.
Paper mache furniture no but disposable furniture, yeah, kind of.
Private dwellings you could maybe stretch to make some sort of comparison to rates of renting vs owning but that is a stretch.
On nationalized industries and trust busting we seem to have gone against his prediction.
Regarding "no more opportunity" I think the possibility of The Information Age was not even in the same dimension as this guy's RADAR.
Paper mache furniture no but disposable furniture, yeah, kind of.
Private dwellings you could maybe stretch to make some sort of comparison to rates of renting vs owning but that is a stretch.
On nationalized industries and trust busting we seem to have gone against his prediction.
Regarding "no more opportunity" I think the possibility of The Information Age was not even in the same dimension as this guy's RADAR.
Well, the author does say that he's not making wild predictions, but only extrapolating trends that are already in motion and well-known to him and his 1922 audience.
It is funny that the girl in grand central station would find nyc very similar
But only now, but less so during the 80s
But only now, but less so during the 80s
The most striking to me are passages like this:
"It is practically certain that in 2022 nearly all women will have discarded the idea that they are primarily "makers of men". Most fit women will then be following an individual career."
...
"But it is unlikely that that women will have achieved equality with men."
"It is practically certain that in 2022 nearly all women will have discarded the idea that they are primarily "makers of men". Most fit women will then be following an individual career."
...
"But it is unlikely that that women will have achieved equality with men."
He definitely missed the mark about alimony or men not bearing the majority of child support
I don't think he did.
Alimony and child support do apply to women as well as men in the US, though it's obviously not equally distributed today. Even if we assume that's not because of a flawed system, I can think of several reasons it might be the case. For example, any or all of the following could cause that in a fair system:
* wage earners are still disproportionately men
* women tend to be much more likely to retain (and desire) custody of children
* women tend to be less likely to work outside the home
While I do believe the system is biased against men, I don't think it's nearly as bad as it may seem depending on your own view of things. There are plenty of stories out there of men who have been unfairly saddled with alimony and child support, and those stories get a lot of play. I think it's fair to say that the trope of "a woman left penniless, with no marketable skills, to care for a family after the man left to shirk his responsibilities" is a trope for a reason - because it is and always has been a common ocurrance.
Alimony and child support do apply to women as well as men in the US, though it's obviously not equally distributed today. Even if we assume that's not because of a flawed system, I can think of several reasons it might be the case. For example, any or all of the following could cause that in a fair system:
* wage earners are still disproportionately men
* women tend to be much more likely to retain (and desire) custody of children
* women tend to be less likely to work outside the home
While I do believe the system is biased against men, I don't think it's nearly as bad as it may seem depending on your own view of things. There are plenty of stories out there of men who have been unfairly saddled with alimony and child support, and those stories get a lot of play. I think it's fair to say that the trope of "a woman left penniless, with no marketable skills, to care for a family after the man left to shirk his responsibilities" is a trope for a reason - because it is and always has been a common ocurrance.
Men pay ~95% of the dollars given/taken for child support in this country. It applies to women but only in a very very marginal way. Men going from >99% to 95% of child support costs isn't really a noteworthy change and doesn't align with a prediction that it would be meaningfully different.
[deleted]
I don't think he did. My mother paid child support to my father after the divorce. I think in most instances, it's simply more convenient for the mother to take the children in a divorce, or the kids are too young to choose, so it ends that way by default. There is no rule for it though.
The default way still being women that get the children doesn't really change that the dynamic that gender versus child support is not meaningfully any different than the 1920s. Women's share of child support has gone from, I assume, ~0% in 1922 (I didn't look it up but I imagine it was less than 1%) to around 5% in 2022 in terms of dollars paid. Men going from 99% to 95% of child support costs isn't really a noteworthy change and doesn't align with a prediction that it would be meaningfully different.
This is surprisingly accurate, reserved and balanced through the lens of society as well as science. I was expecting something more fanciful like flying horses or whatnot.
These are better than 99% of predictions because the author has a good eye for what will change (technology, transportation, consumer goods) and what won’t (human nature).
Yeah, I think he had a good understanding of the implications of the newer technology of his day.
You don't know what you don't know so there's nothing about computers here, but most of this article was really well done.
You don't know what you don't know so there's nothing about computers here, but most of this article was really well done.
Except that:
> I'm sure that technological advancement in 2022 will be amazing, but they will be nothing as amazing as the present day than it is over 100 years ago (i.e. 1822).
I don't know about that statement.
> I'm sure that technological advancement in 2022 will be amazing, but they will be nothing as amazing as the present day than it is over 100 years ago (i.e. 1822).
I don't know about that statement.
If you think about what they didn't have in 1822 that they did have in 1922:
- Radio
- Movies
- Motorized Rail Transit
- Airplanes
- Blimps
- Recorded Audio
- Electrification (esp. lighting)
- Telephony
- Cars
- Subways
- Fax
- Early Television
- Telegraph
- Skyscapers
- Underwater tunnels
- Air Conditioning
- Elevators
- Modern Hospitals
- Machine Guns, Tanks, Dreadnoughts and other tools of modern war
- Stock Tickers
- Early computing (Tabulators, IBM, etc.)
- Modern Steel Manufacturing
I would bet that the people of the 1920s would find the world of the 2020s much more recognizable than the people of the 1820s would find the world of the 1920s.
- Radio
- Movies
- Motorized Rail Transit
- Airplanes
- Blimps
- Recorded Audio
- Electrification (esp. lighting)
- Telephony
- Cars
- Subways
- Fax
- Early Television
- Telegraph
- Skyscapers
- Underwater tunnels
- Air Conditioning
- Elevators
- Modern Hospitals
- Machine Guns, Tanks, Dreadnoughts and other tools of modern war
- Stock Tickers
- Early computing (Tabulators, IBM, etc.)
- Modern Steel Manufacturing
I would bet that the people of the 1920s would find the world of the 2020s much more recognizable than the people of the 1820s would find the world of the 1920s.
> I would bet that the people of the 1920s would find the world of the 2020s much more recognizable than the people of the 1820s would find the world of the 1920s.
Let's start by explaining smartphones, then Twitter and Facebook and then on how companies used them to hijack elections and destabilize democracies in multiple countries.
Or, for an amusing time, try to explain how a cryptocurrency works.
My mom, born in 1935, doesn't understand what I do beyond that I write computer programs (which isn't even that much true anymore).
Let's start by explaining smartphones, then Twitter and Facebook and then on how companies used them to hijack elections and destabilize democracies in multiple countries.
Or, for an amusing time, try to explain how a cryptocurrency works.
My mom, born in 1935, doesn't understand what I do beyond that I write computer programs (which isn't even that much true anymore).
> Let's start by explaining smartphones
They had electric telegraphs, telephone and radio, so I'd explain it as miniaturized wireless telephones and typewriters combined, additionally with capabilities of paperless networked teleprinters of a kind. Some of the stations would be libraries with expert librarians on hand to tirelessly answer your questions.
> then Twitter and Facebook
I believe this is already covered. Anyone can now own a small personal broadcast station.
> try to explain how a cryptocurrency works.
I'd use the analogy of a network of tabulating machines with accumulators controlled by inputs according to something quite like point to point teleprinters instead of by punch cards. Records with a copy on each machine, would store on a very flexible type of automatically configurable control panel board with a special arrangement of relay circuits capable of acting as a memory, rather than in boxes of cards. Such a machine could track some quantity, addable and subtractable like a currency. I would then bring up the difficulty of protecting against liars and double spending. One solution might be to connect each machine to automatic slot machines and have them play till there was a winner who then got to broadcast an append to the record with the longest history in their collection of records. I'd also note that the more slot machines there were, the more slots were magically added to each. The idea being to make it costly for any one view to dominate the network.
Far from perfect but the gist could be communicated to anyone with a bit of imagination. Modern technologies have had a large impact on life but can be connected to 1920s tech. This is unlike the gap from the 1820s to 1920s that saw electromagnetism, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, radio broadcasting, telephone, electricity and electric engineering, atomic physics, flight, automobiles and more.
They had electric telegraphs, telephone and radio, so I'd explain it as miniaturized wireless telephones and typewriters combined, additionally with capabilities of paperless networked teleprinters of a kind. Some of the stations would be libraries with expert librarians on hand to tirelessly answer your questions.
> then Twitter and Facebook
I believe this is already covered. Anyone can now own a small personal broadcast station.
> try to explain how a cryptocurrency works.
I'd use the analogy of a network of tabulating machines with accumulators controlled by inputs according to something quite like point to point teleprinters instead of by punch cards. Records with a copy on each machine, would store on a very flexible type of automatically configurable control panel board with a special arrangement of relay circuits capable of acting as a memory, rather than in boxes of cards. Such a machine could track some quantity, addable and subtractable like a currency. I would then bring up the difficulty of protecting against liars and double spending. One solution might be to connect each machine to automatic slot machines and have them play till there was a winner who then got to broadcast an append to the record with the longest history in their collection of records. I'd also note that the more slot machines there were, the more slots were magically added to each. The idea being to make it costly for any one view to dominate the network.
Far from perfect but the gist could be communicated to anyone with a bit of imagination. Modern technologies have had a large impact on life but can be connected to 1920s tech. This is unlike the gap from the 1820s to 1920s that saw electromagnetism, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, radio broadcasting, telephone, electricity and electric engineering, atomic physics, flight, automobiles and more.
The internet is a big change. Cryptocurrency is not on the same scale. But I would be inclined to agree that the impact of even computers and internet on the recognizability of everyday life is less than that of eg. telephony and airplanes.
> I would be inclined to agree that the impact of even computers and internet on the recognizability of everyday life is less than that of eg. telephony and airplanes.
Remember when we needed to go to a payphone to tell our parents we were in the mall and to ask them to pick us up? And that they had no way to phone us while we weren't home?
Remember when we needed to go to a payphone to tell our parents we were in the mall and to ask them to pick us up? And that they had no way to phone us while we weren't home?
You're saying the ability to make a phone call from anywhere is a more significant change than the ability to make phone calls at all?
Some quantitative changes become qualitative in enabling completely different behaviors. Few people had phones, they were tied to a physical location. Now we do video calls between people in different countries while driving.
You can ask your phone what's the molecular mass of methane. Or ask it to identify a song that's playing in the restaurant.
You can ask your phone what's the molecular mass of methane. Or ask it to identify a song that's playing in the restaurant.
> Or, for an amusing time, try to explain how a cryptocurrency works.
Both Ponzi and tulip mania pre-date 1922. So, not that hard.
Also, fiat currency, cryptography, wire transfers, and banking all existed before 1922.
Both Ponzi and tulip mania pre-date 1922. So, not that hard.
Also, fiat currency, cryptography, wire transfers, and banking all existed before 1922.
What you described was the industrialization - what lacked in 1922, and would make at least a similar, inexplainable change for people of 1922 today is information revolution.
Information still traveled at human recognizable size in 1922, largely the same in 1822 (just got a bit faster over telegraph). Whereas today the first website you visit probably contained more information (bloat) sent to your phone than a person in 1922 would have came across in an entire year.
In other word, the largest transformation is not on the front end, but that doesn't make it less significant. Everyone can make a Google landing page - but it's the stuff behind it that makes it Google.
Information still traveled at human recognizable size in 1922, largely the same in 1822 (just got a bit faster over telegraph). Whereas today the first website you visit probably contained more information (bloat) sent to your phone than a person in 1922 would have came across in an entire year.
In other word, the largest transformation is not on the front end, but that doesn't make it less significant. Everyone can make a Google landing page - but it's the stuff behind it that makes it Google.
This exact prediction was made in the 1922 article.
That's what this thread is about. Parent of my comment was disputing that prediction from the article, and I presented a counter-argument.
I see! Sorry about the confusion, I misunderstood the context.
In 1822, there were no antibiotics. In 1922, people had them or were well on their way to having them be easily available. In 2022, we are looking at what may be the beginning of the end of the antibiotic era. Will mRNA replace the antibiotic and is 2022 that beginning of the mRNA era? It appears to be a strong possibility.
Cars, trains, airplanes, electricity used in consumer devices, movies, telephones, radio, instantaneous intercontinental communication, etc...
We have some cool stuff compared to 1922, but you could argue the shift was greater.
We have some cool stuff compared to 1922, but you could argue the shift was greater.
Reminds me of the Gavin Belson freakout in Silicon Valley when his holographic call started freezing and they suggested he went to audio only
"Fuck you, the audio's still working! Audio worked a hundred fucking years ago!"
I’m really unsure about this. In 1822 canning food was new technology. 1822 didn’t have electrical generators but 1922 had radios, and the TV was clearly on the horizon. 1922 has the Model-T and airplanes.
Let me ask this question: Is the 777 further from the airplanes of 1922 than the airplanes of 1922 are from the hot air balloon?
Airplanes existed in 1922. But nobody you knew flew on them. You didn't take them from the US to Europe on business trips; you took a ship. You didn't take them from New York to LA, either; you took a train. You sure didn't book flights online while sitting in your couch at home.
The same (in fundamentals) technology existed in 1922. But all the social change came after that.
Airplanes existed in 1922. But nobody you knew flew on them. You didn't take them from the US to Europe on business trips; you took a ship. You didn't take them from New York to LA, either; you took a train. You sure didn't book flights online while sitting in your couch at home.
The same (in fundamentals) technology existed in 1922. But all the social change came after that.
> The same (in fundamentals) technology existed in 1922
The first transatlantic flight by Charles Lindberg was 1927, 5 years _AFTER_ this article was written.
People were trying to do a transatlantic flight in the 1920s the same way as we are trying to make hydrogen cars, applicable artificial intelligence (self-driving?), or other "nearly true" things today.
There were many notable attempts at a transatlantic flight. As such, the article is able to point out the issues (ex: the lack of oxygen in the upper atmosphere, leading to hypoxia).
An individual pilot can do a transatlantic flight with the use of a breathing apparatus, similar to a scuba diver. But large-scale flights wouldn't be possible until the invention of pressurized cabins (used as a secret-weapon during WW2: the US Superfortress Bombers would fly so high thanks to pressurized cabins, that other airplanes couldn't reach them).
-------
Predicting a successful transatlantic flight would be like predicting a self-driving car today. We see lots of cool tech demos and people starting to understand the issues / technology... but it clearly doesn't exist yet. Not in any way that's usable.
We're probably 5 years off from a plausible tech-demo (ex: Spirit of St. Louis like attempt), and decades away from a commercial offering.
Lindberg's flight was of 33-hours. This article is suggesting an 8-hour flight time, well into the realm of science-fiction by 1922 standards. The 400+ gallons of fuel of "The Spirit of St. Louis" was manually strained and manually purified by the team, for no commercial process existed yet to make the fuel pure enough for high reliability.
A trans-atlantic flight was "inevitable", because the march of progress over the last 10 years was so dramatic, so incredible, so inspiring, that it almost certainly was going to happen. But it absolutely was still science fiction by 1922 standards.
The first transatlantic flight by Charles Lindberg was 1927, 5 years _AFTER_ this article was written.
People were trying to do a transatlantic flight in the 1920s the same way as we are trying to make hydrogen cars, applicable artificial intelligence (self-driving?), or other "nearly true" things today.
There were many notable attempts at a transatlantic flight. As such, the article is able to point out the issues (ex: the lack of oxygen in the upper atmosphere, leading to hypoxia).
An individual pilot can do a transatlantic flight with the use of a breathing apparatus, similar to a scuba diver. But large-scale flights wouldn't be possible until the invention of pressurized cabins (used as a secret-weapon during WW2: the US Superfortress Bombers would fly so high thanks to pressurized cabins, that other airplanes couldn't reach them).
-------
Predicting a successful transatlantic flight would be like predicting a self-driving car today. We see lots of cool tech demos and people starting to understand the issues / technology... but it clearly doesn't exist yet. Not in any way that's usable.
We're probably 5 years off from a plausible tech-demo (ex: Spirit of St. Louis like attempt), and decades away from a commercial offering.
Lindberg's flight was of 33-hours. This article is suggesting an 8-hour flight time, well into the realm of science-fiction by 1922 standards. The 400+ gallons of fuel of "The Spirit of St. Louis" was manually strained and manually purified by the team, for no commercial process existed yet to make the fuel pure enough for high reliability.
A trans-atlantic flight was "inevitable", because the march of progress over the last 10 years was so dramatic, so incredible, so inspiring, that it almost certainly was going to happen. But it absolutely was still science fiction by 1922 standards.
That is one of the most accurate statements of the whole article!!!
The reality is that no such projection is plausible. Could a human being living in 1903, before the Wright Brothers have predicted a moon landing only 66 years later? Could anyone in 1990 have predicted the smartphone, let alone 1922? Only one prediction is worthy of confidence - the world of technology will increase at an exponential rate...and the world will improve.
We lament progress, but few of us would choose 1922 over 2022 (I mean, the sanitation and medical care alone makes the decision trivial on my end). Even fewer would choose 2022 in 2122.
We lament progress, but few of us would choose 1922 over 2022 (I mean, the sanitation and medical care alone makes the decision trivial on my end). Even fewer would choose 2022 in 2122.
A telco executive's astute predictions
"Just what form the future telephone will take is, of course, pure speculation. Here is my prophecy: In its final development, the telephone will be carried about by the individual, perhaps as we carry a watch today. It probably will require no dial or equivalent and I think the users will be able to see each other, if they want, as they talk. Who knows but it may actually translate from one language to another?" - Mark Sullivan, April 9, 1953
"Just what form the future telephone will take is, of course, pure speculation. Here is my prophecy: In its final development, the telephone will be carried about by the individual, perhaps as we carry a watch today. It probably will require no dial or equivalent and I think the users will be able to see each other, if they want, as they talk. Who knows but it may actually translate from one language to another?" - Mark Sullivan, April 9, 1953
Of all our technology, I truly think the smartphone is one of the most impressive and futuristic things ever invented. It’s the kind of thing Star Trek thought was hundreds of years in the future and that most sci-fi failed to imagine. It is individually transformative in a way that space flight will probably never be. Our information tech is likely to continue racing forward and this current moment will look analog in comparison.
There was a great scene in Station 11 which is partially set after civilization-destroying pandemic in which one character who was born before the pandemic explains to someone who was born after how ride sharing apps worked on a cell phone. It's magic of you describe it from scratch. The tiny device has access to a detailed mail of the entire planet, knows where you are and then a car shows up to transport you to your destination without exchanging and tangible money or even talking about it.
It's also telling that older SciFi gets this all wrong. In Asimov's Lucky Starr the protagonist had a space ship that can travel through the outer layers of the sun and someone had a dwelling on an hollowed out asteroid. Tables use energy fields for easier cleaning. Yet, the ships board computer doesn't even have a display and needs to print everything.
It's also telling that older SciFi gets this all wrong. In Asimov's Lucky Starr the protagonist had a space ship that can travel through the outer layers of the sun and someone had a dwelling on an hollowed out asteroid. Tables use energy fields for easier cleaning. Yet, the ships board computer doesn't even have a display and needs to print everything.
Asimov envisioned printers on spaceships and every evening I put on a pair of goggles that lets me interact with an omnidirectional volumetric display with millimeter accurate head and hand tracking. I think we are starting to outrun our own imagination.
Someone clearly is still imaging the stuff - and then building it!
The future may be analog - if you look far enough.
We are analog.
We are analog.
Or maybe the universe is digital if you could look small enough!
Too many smart (or smart-sounding) people either here or on Reddit claim casually that some X will take hundreds of years to do. Where X may be artificial intelligence, conquest of longevity or whatever else.
The reality is that we do not know. Some things may be out of our reach forever, but contemporary world has by far the highest count of scientists ever and the talent pool is widening as countries such as Bangladesh escape their previous crushing poverty. To this comes politics. A second Cold War with China may be terrifying and yet enormously scientifically productive, much like WWII and the previous Cold War was.
I am personally not willing to make any technical/scientific predictions beyond 2030. Political even less so.
The reality is that we do not know. Some things may be out of our reach forever, but contemporary world has by far the highest count of scientists ever and the talent pool is widening as countries such as Bangladesh escape their previous crushing poverty. To this comes politics. A second Cold War with China may be terrifying and yet enormously scientifically productive, much like WWII and the previous Cold War was.
I am personally not willing to make any technical/scientific predictions beyond 2030. Political even less so.
> Too many smart (or smart-sounding) people either here or on Reddit claim casually that some X will take hundreds of years to do. Where X may be artificial intelligence, conquest of longevity or whatever else.
> The reality is that we do not know
Yeah, but it works both ways, I see a lot of people on reddit claiming aging will be solved in X years (usually in their lifetime) and it does not sound any smarter.
> The reality is that we do not know
Yeah, but it works both ways, I see a lot of people on reddit claiming aging will be solved in X years (usually in their lifetime) and it does not sound any smarter.
True, it does not sound any better, especially if you take into account the progress of other challenges in medicine.
We aren't anywhere close to, say, solving cancer, but we are conquering new territory inch by inch, with a massive difference of outcomes in last 50 years or so.
I suspect the same is going to happen in the longevity field. Dr. Gregory Fahy managed to rejuvenate the thymus in several individuals (TRIIM and TRIIM-X trials) and lower their epigenetic age. It might have well been the first baby step on that journey.
We aren't anywhere close to, say, solving cancer, but we are conquering new territory inch by inch, with a massive difference of outcomes in last 50 years or so.
I suspect the same is going to happen in the longevity field. Dr. Gregory Fahy managed to rejuvenate the thymus in several individuals (TRIIM and TRIIM-X trials) and lower their epigenetic age. It might have well been the first baby step on that journey.
I have never seen a that claim, but since 2012 I have seen not numerous upvoted posts on various forums that full self driving cars are only five years away.
I routinely saw similarly outlandish claims about AI in general.
I routinely saw similarly outlandish claims about AI in general.
> The reality is that no such projection is plausible. Could a human being living in 1903, before the Wright Brothers have predicted a moon landing only 66 years later?
I mean, Jules Verne suggested trips to the Moon earlier than that in 1965 via cannon (from the coast of Florida!). Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in 1903, rejecting cannons on technical grounds (the speed of gunpowder's gases too slow to break from Earth's gravity as well as the impractical extremes in acceleration), proposed using liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in a multistage rocket for reaching the Moon... Which is what 2 of the 3 stages of the Saturn V used, so he was pretty accurate. He also suggested the need for oxygen, CO2 scrubbers, automatic machine guidance, thrust vector control using both external fins and fins in the flow of the gases (both methods became used on rockets for early spaceflight) as well as suggesting the use of a sun sensor (star tracker) and gyroscopes for guidance. It's remarkable how many critical features of spaceflight were invented by Tsiolkovsky in that document. Granted, I don't remember an actual forecasted date for these predictions, but he foresaw most of the technical features of spaceflight correctly.
https://spacemedicineassociation.org/download/history/histor...
Projections from Nikola Tesla suggested similar things to the smartphone around that timeline.
If you look at technical pioneers using logical consequences of actual known physics and engineering, they can make pretty remarkably prescient predictions.
I mean, Jules Verne suggested trips to the Moon earlier than that in 1965 via cannon (from the coast of Florida!). Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in 1903, rejecting cannons on technical grounds (the speed of gunpowder's gases too slow to break from Earth's gravity as well as the impractical extremes in acceleration), proposed using liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in a multistage rocket for reaching the Moon... Which is what 2 of the 3 stages of the Saturn V used, so he was pretty accurate. He also suggested the need for oxygen, CO2 scrubbers, automatic machine guidance, thrust vector control using both external fins and fins in the flow of the gases (both methods became used on rockets for early spaceflight) as well as suggesting the use of a sun sensor (star tracker) and gyroscopes for guidance. It's remarkable how many critical features of spaceflight were invented by Tsiolkovsky in that document. Granted, I don't remember an actual forecasted date for these predictions, but he foresaw most of the technical features of spaceflight correctly.
https://spacemedicineassociation.org/download/history/histor...
Projections from Nikola Tesla suggested similar things to the smartphone around that timeline.
If you look at technical pioneers using logical consequences of actual known physics and engineering, they can make pretty remarkably prescient predictions.
> Could anyone in 1990 have predicted the smartphone
Yes. It was called a communicator in fiction of the day. Did they get the exact details right, or every use case (e.g. replacing flashlights and music players)? No. Some of them used holograms from watches or big old handsets with a screen instead of a keypad but still big ear cups. But a portable device that could be used for voice calls, video calls, information lookup, note taking, certainly existed in fiction prior to the 90s.
Yes. It was called a communicator in fiction of the day. Did they get the exact details right, or every use case (e.g. replacing flashlights and music players)? No. Some of them used holograms from watches or big old handsets with a screen instead of a keypad but still big ear cups. But a portable device that could be used for voice calls, video calls, information lookup, note taking, certainly existed in fiction prior to the 90s.
In the 1950s, comic book detective Dick Tracy wore a two-way wrist radio, which later included video.
For the record it appeared in 1946:
https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/2-Way_Wrist_Radio
and the video in 1964:
https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/2-Way_Wrist_TV
More or less both are (fictional) "miniaturization" of existing, known technologies.
https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/2-Way_Wrist_Radio
and the video in 1964:
https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/2-Way_Wrist_TV
More or less both are (fictional) "miniaturization" of existing, known technologies.
Still waiting for them to add a camera to the Apple Watch. Then it can be a full phone replacement for low tech days.
I've been thinking this since the Apple Watch came out, but other than practical limitations (battery life) there's always this problem: have you tried to hold your arm out in front of your face and stare at your watch for a while? It's not the most comfortable position. You might have to add some extra arm/shoulder days in your exercise routine.
I think a fisheye lens plus face recognition should solve that nicely. As long as you can see the watch screen, the image could be cropped, skewed and rotated to focus on your face.
“When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain, which in fact it is, all things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole. We shall be able to communicate with one another instantly, irrespective of distance. Not only this, but through television and telephony we shall see and hear one another as perfectly as though we were face to face, despite intervening distances of thousands of miles; and the instruments through which we shall be able to do his will be amazingly simple compared with our present telephone. A man will be able to carry one in his vest pocket.” - Nicola Tesla, 1926
In none of the hard Sci-Fi I read as a child did they say "I needn't worry for light, as I had my portable cellphone"
Will you have AR displays that hide the information an make a room otherwise appear devoid of technology? Yes...because normal people don't fetishize technology and HGTV tells me it should be hidden from sight.
Will it be a display projected on your contact lenses, a mist excreted from a rod with lasers shined upon it, or a projector with a funky short throw lens? Man, I've got no clue...but all the fiction I've seen with fantastic display technology shows: We'll will it into existence.
Will you have AR displays that hide the information an make a room otherwise appear devoid of technology? Yes...because normal people don't fetishize technology and HGTV tells me it should be hidden from sight.
Will it be a display projected on your contact lenses, a mist excreted from a rod with lasers shined upon it, or a projector with a funky short throw lens? Man, I've got no clue...but all the fiction I've seen with fantastic display technology shows: We'll will it into existence.
70s and 80s scifi media frequently depict floppy disks being used well into the 22nd century and beyond, despite the fact that optical and solid state storage did exist in some form back then.
Either is is done to make the scenes relatable to the contemporary audience, or human beings really lack the abiltiy to imagine things they have no empirical experience with.
Either is is done to make the scenes relatable to the contemporary audience, or human beings really lack the abiltiy to imagine things they have no empirical experience with.
TV/Movie scifi is mostly the last place you'd look for bold imaginings of future technology. Star Trek had a few hits with communicators, PADDs, and touch screen controls, but generally designs are very much of their time.
It's very obvious with modern scifi where controls are usually holographic projections with cyan grids and twirly animations. After a while these designs become lazy tropes - like villains who wear chunky black leather.
Compare with something like Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men, which is far more adventurous about possible futures.
The background problem is that the 20th century was set up for an explosion of invention by the late 19th, with Maxwell/Heaviside leading the charge and eventually leading to game changer developments like relativity and quantum theory. In math Boolean algebra fell out almost by accident from attempts to find a theory of computability which eventually led to modern computing.
These were all bedrock insights which completely changed what was possible in the physical world.
Where's the modern equivalent? There isn't one. Insights at that level more or less stopped happening after the discovery of DNA and the creation of Shannon's Information Theory.
Quantum Gravity might be the next game changer, but it also might not, and in any case it's an unknown distance away. The rest is detail work, not ground breaking transformation.
It's very obvious with modern scifi where controls are usually holographic projections with cyan grids and twirly animations. After a while these designs become lazy tropes - like villains who wear chunky black leather.
Compare with something like Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men, which is far more adventurous about possible futures.
The background problem is that the 20th century was set up for an explosion of invention by the late 19th, with Maxwell/Heaviside leading the charge and eventually leading to game changer developments like relativity and quantum theory. In math Boolean algebra fell out almost by accident from attempts to find a theory of computability which eventually led to modern computing.
These were all bedrock insights which completely changed what was possible in the physical world.
Where's the modern equivalent? There isn't one. Insights at that level more or less stopped happening after the discovery of DNA and the creation of Shannon's Information Theory.
Quantum Gravity might be the next game changer, but it also might not, and in any case it's an unknown distance away. The rest is detail work, not ground breaking transformation.
> Where's the modern equivalent? There isn't one. Insights at that level more or less stopped happening after the discovery of DNA and the creation of Shannon's Information Theory.
I think Machine Learning today is equivalent in magnitude to the other scientific breakthroughs you mentioned. I don't know if you're overlooking it because it's mainly engineering-led.
I think Machine Learning today is equivalent in magnitude to the other scientific breakthroughs you mentioned. I don't know if you're overlooking it because it's mainly engineering-led.
The discovery of DNA may well be the Maxwell-style foundation for the next game changer. It hasn't been a century yet, and we've just deployed the first mRNA vaccines last year...
Do the details of the storage medium matter? It still stores ones and zeros - who cares how?
Yes it does. Like it all not we all subconsciously associate media format with a certain era or genre. A gramophone places a story back in the early 20th century and a minidisc surely brings up memories of the late 1990s. Having a period-specific piece media show up in depictions of the future surely breaks the veil of suspended disbelief.
Maybe those hard SciFi were set in an age where people have advanced beyond the phone.
> Only one prediction is worthy of confidence - the world of technology will increase at an exponential rate...and the world will improve.
I'm not actually very confident about that last part...
I'm not actually very confident about that last part...
> The reality is that no such projection is plausible.
It's getting increasingly difficult. The world of 1600 would be easily understandable to someone from 1500 or 1400. When I was born, no human eyes had seen the far side of the Moon (although it was reasonably sure someone would, shortly, as happened in december that year) and the closest thing to a cellphone was a prop being used by Captain Kirk on the 23rd century.
> the world of technology will increase at an exponential rate
There are physical limits to that, so the exponential factor may be reduced for a while. There is also a limit on how fast we can develop new things that will give us a hard time (at least until we develop a general enough AI, at which point all bets are off - because we are literally not smart enough to predict what happens next).
BTW, a couple years ago I had an accident that, if it happened in 1900, I'd lose my leg.
So, yeah, 2022 is good for me, but I wouldn't turn down a chance to last until 2122.
It's getting increasingly difficult. The world of 1600 would be easily understandable to someone from 1500 or 1400. When I was born, no human eyes had seen the far side of the Moon (although it was reasonably sure someone would, shortly, as happened in december that year) and the closest thing to a cellphone was a prop being used by Captain Kirk on the 23rd century.
> the world of technology will increase at an exponential rate
There are physical limits to that, so the exponential factor may be reduced for a while. There is also a limit on how fast we can develop new things that will give us a hard time (at least until we develop a general enough AI, at which point all bets are off - because we are literally not smart enough to predict what happens next).
BTW, a couple years ago I had an accident that, if it happened in 1900, I'd lose my leg.
So, yeah, 2022 is good for me, but I wouldn't turn down a chance to last until 2122.
Jules Verne did a pretty good job.
> Could anyone in 1990 have predicted the smartphone, let alone 1922?
Yes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton
Yes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton
Over the broad arc of history things have gotten better over the long term. I'm not sure that's always the case though. Exponential growth of technology, or anything else, physically can't last forever. What does it look like when it stops?
I do agree that whatever complaints we might have about the present though, it's better than any time in history save for possibly the very recent past. And I think it's a good bet that 2122 will indeed be better. I just wouldn't call it a certainty.
I do agree that whatever complaints we might have about the present though, it's better than any time in history save for possibly the very recent past. And I think it's a good bet that 2122 will indeed be better. I just wouldn't call it a certainty.
Stallman could have.
Fascinating. I guess about one third of his predictions were correct. Eye-opening moments for me:
- "white countries"
- "radial energy"
- "the servant problem"
- no smoke in the house, "perhaps not even tobacco"
- "the child is likely to be taken over by the State"
- His vision of a house filled with frequently replaced disposable surfaces
- "king of Jugo-Slavia" [will still reign]
- "the American race [will become homogenous]"
- "there will be no more opportunity [in America]" but that's a good thing
- "white countries"
- "radial energy"
- "the servant problem"
- no smoke in the house, "perhaps not even tobacco"
- "the child is likely to be taken over by the State"
- His vision of a house filled with frequently replaced disposable surfaces
- "king of Jugo-Slavia" [will still reign]
- "the American race [will become homogenous]"
- "there will be no more opportunity [in America]" but that's a good thing
I think the 'no more opportunity' point was largely correct. America is now developed in much the way England was in 1922. It does mean the limitless opportunity of 100 years ago is gone for the vast majority. But it also means the majority are far wealthier than they were. As he predicts, people only work 7-8 hours a day now, and often only 5 days a week. 50-60 hours a week was the norm in 1920. But at the same time, people do feel that lack of opportunity.
For a prediction made 100 years out, I'd call it dead accurate.
For a prediction made 100 years out, I'd call it dead accurate.
> "the child is likely to be taken over by the State"
I'd be interested what daycare and school looked like in 1922, because arguably childcare is mostly state run at this point
I'd be interested what daycare and school looked like in 1922, because arguably childcare is mostly state run at this point
In 1920,
* the high school graduation rate was around 16%. (Up from below 10% in 1910!)
* only 8 million women were in the labor force
* Child labor laws either actually or functionally did not exist (the major federal laws were not passed in the 30s.)
* The industrial revolution was in full swing, but huge swaths of the labor economy were still very agrarian.
For the working class, early childhood care was provided by mothers and beyond that daycare/schooling was provided by the factories and farm fields.
* the high school graduation rate was around 16%. (Up from below 10% in 1910!)
* only 8 million women were in the labor force
* Child labor laws either actually or functionally did not exist (the major federal laws were not passed in the 30s.)
* The industrial revolution was in full swing, but huge swaths of the labor economy were still very agrarian.
For the working class, early childhood care was provided by mothers and beyond that daycare/schooling was provided by the factories and farm fields.
I wonder how he expected the American race to be homogeneous with segregation. He was probably implicitly meaning all the new European immigrants.
It's striking that most of his true predictions were already in place in the sixties, a mere 40 years after the article was written (and some, much earlier). When we think about the distant future we simply think about tomorrow.
I think it's very easy to dismiss the creeping surge of the future...You have computers EVERYWHERE, and with the Cloud - somewhere else...but you also have access to a significant percentage of the music recorded over the last 80 years, the ability to predict future health issues by sending some spit to someone via the mail, the internet from SPACE, and a supply chain where it's easier to make a $.62 knicknack half a world away, put it in a container on a boat and it can be requested and sent to you same day, using your cellphone....while it wirelessly sends that music to your ears using devices that remove unwanted environmental noise.
> It's striking that most of his true predictions were already in place in the sixties
In first world countries, may be. Now more of them are true for more and more people all around the globe too.
In first world countries, may be. Now more of them are true for more and more people all around the globe too.
“The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed.
The Economist, December 4, 2003”
― William Gibson
The Economist, December 4, 2003”
― William Gibson
With time, I started to interpret this quote differently. It's not that one place is more in future than another; it's that even different parts of the future are unevenly distributed among the globe. Now, more than ever, different countries sometimes seem very advanced in some ways but at the same time backwards in others.
> They will have rebelled against long hours; the chances are that in 2022 few people will work more than seven hours a day, if as much
Bertrand Russell also famously predicted this. I believe I’ve read that in the 1800’s people were predicting industrialization would do away with labor. People are still predicting this today, with the advent of Machine Learning that’s good enough to automate things like driving.
Will this prediction ever come true, or is there some kind of human nature that is going to keep us grinding away no matter what we invent?
Bertrand Russell also famously predicted this. I believe I’ve read that in the 1800’s people were predicting industrialization would do away with labor. People are still predicting this today, with the advent of Machine Learning that’s good enough to automate things like driving.
Will this prediction ever come true, or is there some kind of human nature that is going to keep us grinding away no matter what we invent?
> is there some kind of human nature that is going to keep us grinding away no matter what we invent?
I once read a commenter here on HN claim that any increase in productivity is inevitably 'eaten up' by an increase in debt/credit and that this is why we don't see a corresponding decrease in time spent working. I think that is very insightful.
I once read a commenter here on HN claim that any increase in productivity is inevitably 'eaten up' by an increase in debt/credit and that this is why we don't see a corresponding decrease in time spent working. I think that is very insightful.
I’ve got to think about that one, it definitely seems worthy of consideration, thanks for adding. I have noticed in my life that my expenditure does grow to meet my income, and earning more money (getting a new job or a big raise or a bonus) never feels like that much more because it’s so easy to use up the extra. My life seems to expand and contract to match whatever money I’ve got. In that sense, the comment you read feels true.
On the other hand, it’s typically employers that generally control hours and pay, and employers that both seek and use most of the profits from productivity; employees often only get the scraps. If employers are the major force for asking people to work hard, and offering jobs and pay, how does that fit into the idea of debt eating the productivity gains? Are we talking about corporate debt here?
On the other hand, it’s typically employers that generally control hours and pay, and employers that both seek and use most of the profits from productivity; employees often only get the scraps. If employers are the major force for asking people to work hard, and offering jobs and pay, how does that fit into the idea of debt eating the productivity gains? Are we talking about corporate debt here?
I think a reasonably simple example would be the relationship between private debt and the property market.
Increased productivity -> increased income -> increased discretionary income -> increased ability to service debt -> larger mortgages -> higher property prices -> less discretionary income (which could otherwise have been used to 'buy' free time).
It's true that some of this borrowing will lead to new wealth in the form of new houses and associated infrastructure, but I suspect that a large amount - if not most - of the borrowed money is spent on driving up the prices of existing assets, in which case the winners are the lenders who have successfully captured the increase in productivity.
Increased productivity -> increased income -> increased discretionary income -> increased ability to service debt -> larger mortgages -> higher property prices -> less discretionary income (which could otherwise have been used to 'buy' free time).
It's true that some of this borrowing will lead to new wealth in the form of new houses and associated infrastructure, but I suspect that a large amount - if not most - of the borrowed money is spent on driving up the prices of existing assets, in which case the winners are the lenders who have successfully captured the increase in productivity.
"Will this prediction ever come true, or is there some kind of human nature that is going to keep us grinding away no matter what we invent?"
Seems abundantly clear to me that there indeed is something in our nature that keeps us grinding. I do hope that we at least continue to increase the freedom to choose what and when we grind
Seems abundantly clear to me that there indeed is something in our nature that keeps us grinding. I do hope that we at least continue to increase the freedom to choose what and when we grind
It's not in our nature, it's in the rewards we desire.
We desire the best mate possible. No industrial or computer advance has (yet) provided any of us with better mates. Mates are as scarce as they were hundreds and thousands of years ago.
Mates choose each other according to relative status. By definition, there is no way we can increase everyone's relative status.
So the reason people grind as hard as they used to is that they're facing the same incentives and barriers: For the mate you want, you have to grind your way up the status hierarchy (or at least enough to avoid falling). Competition is just as stiff as it was in 1950 or 1850, or 1000 BC.
Things will only truly change in this respect when we invent artificial ways to satisfy peoples' desire for mates. However, this won't happen soon. Sexbots are only a small part of it; a mate is much more.
We desire the best mate possible. No industrial or computer advance has (yet) provided any of us with better mates. Mates are as scarce as they were hundreds and thousands of years ago.
Mates choose each other according to relative status. By definition, there is no way we can increase everyone's relative status.
So the reason people grind as hard as they used to is that they're facing the same incentives and barriers: For the mate you want, you have to grind your way up the status hierarchy (or at least enough to avoid falling). Competition is just as stiff as it was in 1950 or 1850, or 1000 BC.
Things will only truly change in this respect when we invent artificial ways to satisfy peoples' desire for mates. However, this won't happen soon. Sexbots are only a small part of it; a mate is much more.
I guess the immediate question I’d have in response to that hypothesis is: if seeking a mate is what’s leading people to grind, why doesn’t that behavior taper off after marriage?
Because divorce is still a possibility
Wouldn’t you think that’s not enough? (Also note the other two plausible theories in this sub-thread.) Divorce rates aren’t 100%, and marriages typically last many years before a divorce. This means marriage should statistically be a significant drag on the hypothesis that seeing a make is what drives working long hours. (Not to mention the inherent conflict between working long hours and dating / spending time with someone.) Do you find it probable or plausible that mate-seeking is the primary and/or only reason people work hard? Is that why you do it, do you think? Of course I can’t tell why I’ve worked hard over the years, but it doesn’t really feel linked or even related to mate seeking at all. I only started working long hours after starting a long term relationship that eventually turned into a happy stable marriage. It’s highly unlikely divorce is in my future, but I feel many years of hard work left in me.
I'd argue that it's not human nature but rather our socio-economic system that keeps us grinding away. It's become obvious that for the most part automation does a disservice to workers rather than liberating them since they don't have the legal ownership of the automating forces. A typical factory or whatever if it is able to automate 20% of the current work being done will simply lay off 20% of its workforce rather than reduce everyone's workload by 20% while maintaining their wage.
Now this creates a bit of a crisis since the automated production produces things that need to be bought by the workers they displace, who now no longer have any money. The outcome as I see it is an extension of credit systems and the propagation of tedious nonsense jobs (ala Graeber's Bullshit Jobs).
In order to bring about the ideal of automation creating more free time for all without diminishing their income you'd have to transfer ownership of the automating forces to the workers they're replacing. But then I'm just a Marxist looney so what do I know.
Now this creates a bit of a crisis since the automated production produces things that need to be bought by the workers they displace, who now no longer have any money. The outcome as I see it is an extension of credit systems and the propagation of tedious nonsense jobs (ala Graeber's Bullshit Jobs).
In order to bring about the ideal of automation creating more free time for all without diminishing their income you'd have to transfer ownership of the automating forces to the workers they're replacing. But then I'm just a Marxist looney so what do I know.
This seems plausible that it has something to do with our economy and maybe capitalism specifically, and I’m kinda familiar with Marx, but I wonder if there isn’t more to it. The reason I say this is because I think I’ve worked the hardest in my life when I started a business. I’m not 100% certain, because I’ve put in a lot of long hours on my various jobs. But, it felt like it was much easier to work long hours on my startup than it did for BigCo or even for someone else’s startup. The desire to make my startup successful, and the fact that I was the owner and was responsible for anything bad that happened, that all made me work even harder, I think. Poking around on HN, it sure seems like lots of other startup founders do the same and might be working harder than the average worker bee.
The more things change the they stay the same.
It's really interesting to read this, genuinely prescient, starkly logical analysis that seems quite liberal and self-aware while also deeply soaked in un-acknowledged bias.
The time this was written was around the peak of the suffrage movement a couple years after the 19th amendment. That, perhaps, contributes to the placating tone in the author's description of how little progress the movement will have made by 2022.
I think especially noteworthy is the apparent blind spot towards the speed of information. He spends a lot of space articulating the physical characteristics of a City of Tomorrow but no consideration of what it might mean to quickly and easily read anything that has ever been published.
Really interesting article.
EDIT: Another note regarding his whole segment on work, production and leisure: he seems to only conceive of work as labor. Where, for example, an additional hour spent shoveling coal means another hour's worth of shoveled coal while forgetting to consider the possibility of "critical thinking" production where an additional hour spent working does not necessarily mean an additional hour spent being productive. A good prediction here would have touched on what careers in more "creative" production might look like.
It's really interesting to read this, genuinely prescient, starkly logical analysis that seems quite liberal and self-aware while also deeply soaked in un-acknowledged bias.
The time this was written was around the peak of the suffrage movement a couple years after the 19th amendment. That, perhaps, contributes to the placating tone in the author's description of how little progress the movement will have made by 2022.
I think especially noteworthy is the apparent blind spot towards the speed of information. He spends a lot of space articulating the physical characteristics of a City of Tomorrow but no consideration of what it might mean to quickly and easily read anything that has ever been published.
Really interesting article.
EDIT: Another note regarding his whole segment on work, production and leisure: he seems to only conceive of work as labor. Where, for example, an additional hour spent shoveling coal means another hour's worth of shoveled coal while forgetting to consider the possibility of "critical thinking" production where an additional hour spent working does not necessarily mean an additional hour spent being productive. A good prediction here would have touched on what careers in more "creative" production might look like.
This is one of the most insightful articles I've ever read when it comes to predicting the future. If you are on the fence of whether or not to read this article I highly recommend you read it.
And in almost one hundred years, we still haven’t made much progress on the fundamental questions in quantum mechanics, other than perhaps Bell’s theorem in the 60s.
I wonder if Einstein, Dirac, et al. would have thought in the early 1930s that the measurement problem would remain unresolved and that there would still not be a consistent theory for QM and GR almost a century later.
I wonder if Einstein, Dirac, et al. would have thought in the early 1930s that the measurement problem would remain unresolved and that there would still not be a consistent theory for QM and GR almost a century later.
His comments about the slowing pace of scientific advancement really struck me. I have felt the same thing, often. That in 1922, we were actually somewhat close to the end of discovering all the really interesting things about physics: that is, those things which really shook up our understanding of the universe, but were still somehow comprehensible to our little human brains. I'm beginning to think that it wasn't just overenthusiasm that led me to be pretty disappointed when I went to get a PhD in science - it's that I grew up reading about the results of the most interesting period, scientifically, that man has ever had, which is now over.
Scientific progress has slowed, but engineering progress is only just beginning. For instance, the electronic transport chain of respiration/photosynthesis, is a series of quantum tunnels. Man has barely scratched the surface of quantum-level control which nature already exhibits.
The number of transistors produced in 2021 is a bit mind boggling if you do the math. These are nanotechnology produced at a rate by humans that rivals any large physics number. By my calculation, Apple alone via TSMC produces something like 1x10^18 transistors per year. Add up Intel, Samsung and the rest of TSMC's customers and the number goes far higher. We are so used to it, we don't boggle at the concept any more but we should.
The only thing I wish to see before I die is at least a way to communicate faster than light. Something instant like quantum entanglement would be ideal or if that is too much to ask at least warp like communication.
I'm currently doing software engineering but when I retire I'll dedicate all my free time for this. If at least 1% of the population follow this route someone will come up with a solution eventually.
Imaging exploring the near galaxies with a probe that is capable of displaying real time video of whatever is out there :)
I'm currently doing software engineering but when I retire I'll dedicate all my free time for this. If at least 1% of the population follow this route someone will come up with a solution eventually.
Imaging exploring the near galaxies with a probe that is capable of displaying real time video of whatever is out there :)
He got a lot of things right but, like everyone else, they didn't predict the internet and its consequences.
Does anyone know of a proper prediction of the internet? And I don't mean predicting handheld devices or wireless networking. Predicting the decentralized communication part that makes distance irellevant and upgrades point to point communication to group.
And its consequence that it's very easy now to find a group that shares your biases :)
Does anyone know of a proper prediction of the internet? And I don't mean predicting handheld devices or wireless networking. Predicting the decentralized communication part that makes distance irellevant and upgrades point to point communication to group.
And its consequence that it's very easy now to find a group that shares your biases :)
> like everyone else, they didn't predict the internet
Nor the computer, personal or otherwise; nor robotics. It's funny to see how he could predict, sometimes with surprising accuracy, the trajectory of development of technologies that were already in place, but could not fathom what had not yet been discovered and thus had not yet entered the public discourse.
Nor the computer, personal or otherwise; nor robotics. It's funny to see how he could predict, sometimes with surprising accuracy, the trajectory of development of technologies that were already in place, but could not fathom what had not yet been discovered and thus had not yet entered the public discourse.
Not exactly a prediction, but The Victorian Internet is a good read: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/victorian-internet-97816355739...
That revolution was more about the speed that information travels than who has access to it.
That revolution was more about the speed that information travels than who has access to it.
Yep -- check out Marshall McLuhan & the Global Village, which he put out in the 60s. Very prescient.
Hmm I read him long ago, but I vaguely recollect he didn't catch the decentralization much? If he did I must reread.
Edit. Oh oops. Read the summary for Gutenberg Galaxy on wikipedia. Turns out i MUST reread.
Edit. Oh oops. Read the summary for Gutenberg Galaxy on wikipedia. Turns out i MUST reread.
1950's America had online shopping.[0]. This may be the closest thing to today's websites.
[0]https://www.messynessychic.com/2016/01/14/online-shopping-in...
[0]https://www.messynessychic.com/2016/01/14/online-shopping-in...
Not necessarily what you're looking for, but I always found The Shockwave Rider to be impressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider
1975 though, so quite recent.
1975 though, so quite recent.
If we're talking Brunner, Stand on Zanzibar is even more prescient socially. Not 100 years ago though.
In that sense, I really wonder what will be there in 50 or 100 years, and that we are now completely unable to predict.
This is accurate enough that midway through the article I started wondering if it was a prank written recently.
" A sight of the world today would surprise President Jefferson much more, I suspect, than the world of 2022 would surprise the little girl who sells candies at Grand Central Station. For Jefferson knew nothing of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, automobiles, aeroplanes, gramophones, movies, radium, &c.; he did not even know hot and cold bathrooms."
I wonder what we would show the girl of 1922? Space travel and obviously the internet & computers come to mind. Antibiotics, DNA? Anything else?
I wonder what we would show the girl of 1922? Space travel and obviously the internet & computers come to mind. Antibiotics, DNA? Anything else?
Internet and computers are the most different from what existed before 1922, but already then everybody was familiar with telegraphy, telephony and wireless communications and various fiction works about intelligent robots had existed for millennia (starting with the Iliad).
Space travel was also present in many fiction works, the best known being several novels of Jules Verne and of H. G. Wells.
Antibiotics were a huge progress, but the concept would not have been a surprise for anyone, because searching for substances that one would ingest to kill the parasites causing various diseases was already a well understood method in medicine, e.g. like using quinine against the protozoan that causes malaria or organo-arsenic compounds against the bacteria that cause syphilis.
Even if already in antiquity some have supposed that many diseases are caused by very small invisible parasites, only during the 19th century the causes for most common infectious diseases have been identified. So also in this domain the differences between 1922 and 1822 are much larger than between 1922 and 2022.
By 1922, genetics was much better understood than in 1822 even if it was not known yet that it is based on information encoded in the molecules of nucleic acids.
I cannot find any domain of science and technology where the difference between 1922 and 1822 is not much larger than between 2022 and 1922.
On the other hand, in 1922 there was still a very large part of the human population whose life had not been affected yet by the progresses of the 19th century, e.g. who had never used a telephone, an automobile or a train, much less an airplane or a computing machine or a washing machine.
The main difference between 1922 and 2022 is that all the technologies that in 1922 existed only in extremely expensive devices or in experimental devices now exist in cheap devices that are used by most people and such devices have sizes and energy consumptions that are many orders of magnitude less than what could have been done with the technologies from 100 years ago.
The main progress during the last 100 years has been in practical engineering, with much less progress in basic science.
Space travel was also present in many fiction works, the best known being several novels of Jules Verne and of H. G. Wells.
Antibiotics were a huge progress, but the concept would not have been a surprise for anyone, because searching for substances that one would ingest to kill the parasites causing various diseases was already a well understood method in medicine, e.g. like using quinine against the protozoan that causes malaria or organo-arsenic compounds against the bacteria that cause syphilis.
Even if already in antiquity some have supposed that many diseases are caused by very small invisible parasites, only during the 19th century the causes for most common infectious diseases have been identified. So also in this domain the differences between 1922 and 1822 are much larger than between 1922 and 2022.
By 1922, genetics was much better understood than in 1822 even if it was not known yet that it is based on information encoded in the molecules of nucleic acids.
I cannot find any domain of science and technology where the difference between 1922 and 1822 is not much larger than between 2022 and 1922.
On the other hand, in 1922 there was still a very large part of the human population whose life had not been affected yet by the progresses of the 19th century, e.g. who had never used a telephone, an automobile or a train, much less an airplane or a computing machine or a washing machine.
The main difference between 1922 and 2022 is that all the technologies that in 1922 existed only in extremely expensive devices or in experimental devices now exist in cheap devices that are used by most people and such devices have sizes and energy consumptions that are many orders of magnitude less than what could have been done with the technologies from 100 years ago.
The main progress during the last 100 years has been in practical engineering, with much less progress in basic science.
I genuinely can't wrap my head around your perspective on genetics. Literally everything we know about genetics was learned after 1922. What we knew in 1920 might get you through the first half of a one or two week high school lesson on genetics.
> The main progress during the last 100 years has been in practical engineering, with much less progress in basic science.
I actually think the situation is entirely reversed.
The progress from 1822 to 1922 was largely engineering. The industrial revolution cause a violent and visceral change in the way that people experienced everyday life.
Take genetics. In 1922 we didn't know that DNA existed. Or, we kind of has a vague sense. Since then, we: discovered the structure of DNA, sequenced the first human genome, and now for less than a month's wages & a vial of spit you can get a whole genome fastq. And that's just genetic sequencing. We have also learned a mind-boggling amount about how DNA interacts with other biological processes. And that's just genetics. Proteins. Neuroscience. The vascular system. The list goes on and on. Just in life sciences.
And the (bio)engineering implications of that vast amount of scientific discovery are immense. More impactful but not as visceral as a railroad or an airplane.
Scientifically, the progress from 1922 to 2022 is incredible compared to the progress from 1822 to 1922, but the engineering progress of 1822 to 1922 was much more visceral. Not even more significant in terms of lived experience. Just more visceral.
> The main progress during the last 100 years has been in practical engineering, with much less progress in basic science.
I actually think the situation is entirely reversed.
The progress from 1822 to 1922 was largely engineering. The industrial revolution cause a violent and visceral change in the way that people experienced everyday life.
Take genetics. In 1922 we didn't know that DNA existed. Or, we kind of has a vague sense. Since then, we: discovered the structure of DNA, sequenced the first human genome, and now for less than a month's wages & a vial of spit you can get a whole genome fastq. And that's just genetic sequencing. We have also learned a mind-boggling amount about how DNA interacts with other biological processes. And that's just genetics. Proteins. Neuroscience. The vascular system. The list goes on and on. Just in life sciences.
And the (bio)engineering implications of that vast amount of scientific discovery are immense. More impactful but not as visceral as a railroad or an airplane.
Scientifically, the progress from 1922 to 2022 is incredible compared to the progress from 1822 to 1922, but the engineering progress of 1822 to 1922 was much more visceral. Not even more significant in terms of lived experience. Just more visceral.
I'd think somewhere like Times Square, the strip in Vegas, or Shinjuku in Tokyo at night would be mindblowing. Then probably show her VR, and a modern action movie in 3D.
VR still blows the minds of everyone I show it to. I can't imagine what kind of reaction someone from 1922 would give.
VR still blows the minds of everyone I show it to. I can't imagine what kind of reaction someone from 1922 would give.
> I wonder what we would show the [candy selling] girl of 1922?
1. One of the banks of vending machines found in the train station where she used to work.
2. A high school classroom, as the alternative to her life of child labor.
You might also show her Spotify, Netflix, and take her on a two week flight around the world. But I feel that a machine which does her old job and a bookish life for working class youth would be the most likely to blow her mind.
1. One of the banks of vending machines found in the train station where she used to work.
2. A high school classroom, as the alternative to her life of child labor.
You might also show her Spotify, Netflix, and take her on a two week flight around the world. But I feel that a machine which does her old job and a bookish life for working class youth would be the most likely to blow her mind.
The problem is Thomas Jefferson lived most of his life more than a hundred years prior to when this was written. Although still alive in 1822, he would have already seen much of the progress that would be foreign to his younger self. Such as the first steam engines. The author compares the perspective of a young girl looking 100 years into the future with that of an old man.
I wonder what we would show the girl of 1922
She can sell those candles on Etsy instead of standing around a train station all day. She will not, however, understand the enormous amount of change that took place in order to make that possible. It will give her a practical understanding of what those changes brought about, though.
She can sell those candles on Etsy instead of standing around a train station all day. She will not, however, understand the enormous amount of change that took place in order to make that possible. It will give her a practical understanding of what those changes brought about, though.
Worldstarhiphop.com
What I understood from this article is that science and technology may be more accurately projected than society and politics; I would imagine because those seem to be more chaotic processes, but also more easily carry the bias of the writer.
The article also highlights some shortcomings of the 1922 zeitgeist as there does not seem to be much thought about the positive or negative environmental impacts of technology, other than on air quality, or any talk on climate change.
The article also highlights some shortcomings of the 1922 zeitgeist as there does not seem to be much thought about the positive or negative environmental impacts of technology, other than on air quality, or any talk on climate change.
Well some of it is what your current standard is. Replacing the horse, which puts feces on the road (albeit less smelly than human feces, still really bad in the quantity of a city's traffic), with the automobile, was actually a great improvement in the environment. We don't think of it as such, because we never saw horses in the quantity that a modern city has of automobiles. But what kind of toxic sludge we would have gotten from that much horse manure in a city is difficult for the modern mind to imagine.
Similarly, the environmental impact of coal, when it was the dominant method of heating a home, was not in some decades-off global warming, it was in things like the London Fog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_soup_fog), a pretty horrific environmental situation. Moving to non-coal methods of heating the home (which he mentions) is a big environmental improvement.
Similarly, the environmental impact of coal, when it was the dominant method of heating a home, was not in some decades-off global warming, it was in things like the London Fog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_soup_fog), a pretty horrific environmental situation. Moving to non-coal methods of heating the home (which he mentions) is a big environmental improvement.
Pigou had just published the economics of welfare two years earlier.
The tragedy of the commons would only be published in 1968.
I wonder how much externalities were a commonly known concept in 1922.
Resource exhaustion of oil he got more right than club of Rome even in 1972.
Resource exhaustion of oil he got more right than club of Rome even in 1972.
Is there a text version of this? I’m having trouble navigating the pdf with one hand on my phone from this hospital bed.
There's a button called "Show Text". https://i.imgur.com/sf7ztjZ.png
Top. Thanks!
Off-topic but: is "Top" in this context a Dutchism? I only know it from Dutch people
Australian. Short for “top notch”.
> The people of 2022 will probably never see a wire outlined against the sky...
Haha, so wrong. All I see is power lines everywhere, and I can't unsee them. SO ugly.
Haha, so wrong. All I see is power lines everywhere, and I can't unsee them. SO ugly.
Total tangent, but I too hate wires and was pleasantly surprised how easy https://cleanup.pictures/ makes it to remove them from any and all photos. I'm not affiliated in any way and sorry for the random. :)
You always know when you see an American film because of all the powerlines, and I always wonder why they are not put underground.
It's expensive, no one wants to pay for it, and our general political leadership is inept at best and corrupt at worst and is incapable of managing reasonable infrastructure projects.
Serious question: what are the benefits of burying cables? Purely aesthetic? Losing power less than once a year due to a downed line really just isn't a big enough deal to justify the expenditure. Even low-prob/high-risk event justifications aren't particularly compelling (there are much more important ways to harden the grid). If this went up for a vote in my muni, I'd probably be a "no". So many better ways to spend the money, even if we scope to just electricity transmission.
My read on this has always been that the US has above-ground cables mostly because it wasn't bombed to hell at any point after the discovery that it's nice to bury power cables.
My read on this has always been that the US has above-ground cables mostly because it wasn't bombed to hell at any point after the discovery that it's nice to bury power cables.
Underground is safer, less prone to accidents (trees falling), take less space, reduces deaths and injuries by car accident (cars hitting poles), less maintenance due to not being exposed to elements, and of course the aesthetic aspect.
Honestly the aesthetic aspect alone should be enough. We care about the aesthetics of everything else around us and a lot of it is also fairly well regulated. Wires are absolutely hideous and it's perfectly feasible to bury them in most cases
Honestly the aesthetic aspect alone should be enough. We care about the aesthetics of everything else around us and a lot of it is also fairly well regulated. Wires are absolutely hideous and it's perfectly feasible to bury them in most cases
Personally I find it so ugly that it ruins the look of everything. It makes me think that nobody gives a damn, and it makes me also not give a damn. Like if all the houses on my house had broken windows, I'd feel like I lived in a dump, and I'd be right. It's like nobody likes to look at things.
I know, I grew up in the US, moved to Germany, and moved back. There are so many. It doesn't look like a modern country at all.
Actually he may have been right - they're still there, but I never notice them because they just blend into the background now.
Are you from US? In Europe you see wires only outside of big cities.
I was surprised on my recent road trip across US that you've got wires in urban/suburban neighborhoods - even the richer ones like Palo Alto.
I was surprised on my recent road trip across US that you've got wires in urban/suburban neighborhoods - even the richer ones like Palo Alto.
From what I've observed, wires outside almost entirely depend on how new the city is. Old cities have wires outside, new cities don't, that's really it; nothing to do with how rich they are. Palo Alto is an old city. I live in a suburb in Greater Sacramento that's a newer city and it's most certainly not as wealthy as Palo Alto -- not even as wealthy as some of the other towns in Sac -- we got no wires outside.
Pretty common in Japan too, despite all the money spent on infrastructure.
Article is pretty good and gets a lot of things right. So what will the world be like in 2122? Climate catastrophe? Will AI have taken over? Will democracy survive? Will people still travel or just interact virtually/remotely?
Yes, the prediction is incredibly accurate.
So my question would be: Is this a case of selection bias (survival bias)?
Did we cherry picked one accurate prediction (at the right time) out of many different predictions made about the future?
So my question would be: Is this a case of selection bias (survival bias)?
Did we cherry picked one accurate prediction (at the right time) out of many different predictions made about the future?
That only seems relevant if the author of this had a vast number of predictions.
Overall, yeah, there were tons. That doesn't detract from how accurate this particular piece was.
Overall, yeah, there were tons. That doesn't detract from how accurate this particular piece was.
I’m unsure, unless the author is of especially high renown.
If there was two dozen “What life will be like in 100 years” articles published per year in decently sized newspapers we will have 240 such articles to choose from this decade. Surely we would only see the most accurate of these predictions, and that is survival bias.
Of course, maybe there was not a large variance between predictions, or everyone is accurate to a similar level of degree. In that case some other method of selecting which old predictions we read will be at play, perhaps based on which publications were better archived or random chance.
If there was two dozen “What life will be like in 100 years” articles published per year in decently sized newspapers we will have 240 such articles to choose from this decade. Surely we would only see the most accurate of these predictions, and that is survival bias.
Of course, maybe there was not a large variance between predictions, or everyone is accurate to a similar level of degree. In that case some other method of selecting which old predictions we read will be at play, perhaps based on which publications were better archived or random chance.
It depends if we're judging the overall predictions of everyone, or this specific author's predictions. I always tend to look at it at the author-level, because otherwise the infinite monkeys theorem applies anyway.
I think this author should be given credit for the accuracy. He can't control what everyone else is writing and how accurate or inaccurate they were. He can only control his own predictions, and they were very good.
I think this author should be given credit for the accuracy. He can't control what everyone else is writing and how accurate or inaccurate they were. He can only control his own predictions, and they were very good.
I don’t think we can look at this at the author level. Imagine if we had 1 million different authors making predictions, certainly some of them in the population will be very accurate and in retrospect they’ll look like geniuses.
[deleted]
It's always interesting to read these. Everyone assumes that technological progress will continue along the exact same lines as before. And nobody really anticipates the social progress and changes that truly set us apart from 1922. If we assume 2122 will just be the same world with better electronics, that probably wouldn't be very accurate.
One thing the author didn't foresee: the persistence of cat memes https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83045774/1922-05-07/ed-1/?sp=...
Regarding flying:
"The problem is mainly one of artificial heating and ventilation to enable the aeronauts to survive."
And indeed, ventilation is the primary concern among air passengers in 2022.
"The problem is mainly one of artificial heating and ventilation to enable the aeronauts to survive."
And indeed, ventilation is the primary concern among air passengers in 2022.
Another fragment from 1922 (found with https://www.locserendipity.com/Google.html):
A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW Mary A. Ford
O mighty human brotherhood! why fiercely war and strive,
While God's great world has ample space for everything alive?
Broad fields uncultured and unclaimed, are waiting for the plow
Of progress that shall make them bloom, a hundred years from now.
Why should we try so earnestly in life's short, narrow span,
On golden stairs to climb so high above our brother man?
Why blindly at an earthly shrine in slavish homage bow?
Our gold will rust, ourselves be dust, a hundred years from now.
Why prize so much the world's applause? Why dread so much its blame?
A fleeting echo is its voice of censure or of fame;
The praise that thrills the heart, the scorn that dyes with shame the brow,
Will be a long-forgotten dream, a hundred years from now.
O patient hearts, that meekly bear your weary load of wrong!
O earnest hearts, that bravely dare, and, striving, grow more strong!
Press on till perfect peace is won; you'll never dream of how
You struggled o'er life's thorny road, a hundred years from now.
Grand, lofty souls, who live and toil that freedom, right, and truth
Alone may rule the universe, for you is endless youth!
When 'mid the blest with God you rest, the grateful land shall bow
Above your clay in reverent love, a hundred years from now.
Source: https://www.locserendipity.com/full/platformpiece00hawn_djvu... (written in 1922)
A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW Mary A. Ford
O mighty human brotherhood! why fiercely war and strive,
While God's great world has ample space for everything alive?
Broad fields uncultured and unclaimed, are waiting for the plow
Of progress that shall make them bloom, a hundred years from now.
Why should we try so earnestly in life's short, narrow span,
On golden stairs to climb so high above our brother man?
Why blindly at an earthly shrine in slavish homage bow?
Our gold will rust, ourselves be dust, a hundred years from now.
Why prize so much the world's applause? Why dread so much its blame?
A fleeting echo is its voice of censure or of fame;
The praise that thrills the heart, the scorn that dyes with shame the brow,
Will be a long-forgotten dream, a hundred years from now.
O patient hearts, that meekly bear your weary load of wrong!
O earnest hearts, that bravely dare, and, striving, grow more strong!
Press on till perfect peace is won; you'll never dream of how
You struggled o'er life's thorny road, a hundred years from now.
Grand, lofty souls, who live and toil that freedom, right, and truth
Alone may rule the universe, for you is endless youth!
When 'mid the blest with God you rest, the grateful land shall bow
Above your clay in reverent love, a hundred years from now.
Source: https://www.locserendipity.com/full/platformpiece00hawn_djvu... (written in 1922)
"There was a time when the mistress of the house, having given instructions to the servants, need do nothing at all. Of course, the servants had to slave, day in and day out."
Doordash. Uber. Grubhub. TaskRabbit. All require an underclass. Is this progress?
Doordash. Uber. Grubhub. TaskRabbit. All require an underclass. Is this progress?
Interesting that the author here made the assumption opposite of WaitButWhy's Tim Urban in his AI article (see below). Author asserted pretty early that future progress wouldn't advance as quickly as past progress has. Or at least that's how I interpreted it.
(https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revol...)
"Imagine taking a time machine back to 1750—a time when the world was in a permanent power outage, long-distance communication meant either yelling loudly or firing a cannon in the air, and all transportation ran on hay. When you get there, you retrieve a dude, bring him to 2015, and then walk him around and watch him react to everything. It’s impossible for us to understand what it would be like for him to see shiny capsules racing by on a highway, talk to people who had been on the other side of the ocean earlier in the day, watch sports that were being played 1,000 miles away, hear a musical performance that happened 50 years ago, and play with my magical wizard rectangle that he could use to capture a real-life image or record a living moment, generate a map with a paranormal moving blue dot that shows him where he is, look at someone’s face and chat with them even though they’re on the other side of the country, and worlds of other inconceivable sorcery. This is all before you show him the internet or explain things like the International Space Station, the Large Hadron Collider, nuclear weapons, or general relativity.
This experience for him wouldn’t be surprising or shocking or even mind-blowing—those words aren’t big enough. He might actually die.
But here’s the interesting thing—if he then went back to 1750 and got jealous that we got to see his reaction and decided he wanted to try the same thing, he’d take the time machine and go back the same distance, get someone from around the year 1500, bring him to 1750, and show him everything. And the 1500 guy would be shocked by a lot of things—but he wouldn’t die. It would be far less of an insane experience for him, because while 1500 and 1750 were very different, they were much less different than 1750 to 2015. The 1500 guy would learn some mind-bending shit about space and physics, he’d be impressed with how committed Europe turned out to be with that new imperialism fad, and he’d have to do some major revisions of his world map conception. But watching everyday life go by in 1750—transportation, communication, etc.—definitely wouldn’t make him die."
(https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revol...)
"Imagine taking a time machine back to 1750—a time when the world was in a permanent power outage, long-distance communication meant either yelling loudly or firing a cannon in the air, and all transportation ran on hay. When you get there, you retrieve a dude, bring him to 2015, and then walk him around and watch him react to everything. It’s impossible for us to understand what it would be like for him to see shiny capsules racing by on a highway, talk to people who had been on the other side of the ocean earlier in the day, watch sports that were being played 1,000 miles away, hear a musical performance that happened 50 years ago, and play with my magical wizard rectangle that he could use to capture a real-life image or record a living moment, generate a map with a paranormal moving blue dot that shows him where he is, look at someone’s face and chat with them even though they’re on the other side of the country, and worlds of other inconceivable sorcery. This is all before you show him the internet or explain things like the International Space Station, the Large Hadron Collider, nuclear weapons, or general relativity.
This experience for him wouldn’t be surprising or shocking or even mind-blowing—those words aren’t big enough. He might actually die.
But here’s the interesting thing—if he then went back to 1750 and got jealous that we got to see his reaction and decided he wanted to try the same thing, he’d take the time machine and go back the same distance, get someone from around the year 1500, bring him to 1750, and show him everything. And the 1500 guy would be shocked by a lot of things—but he wouldn’t die. It would be far less of an insane experience for him, because while 1500 and 1750 were very different, they were much less different than 1750 to 2015. The 1500 guy would learn some mind-bending shit about space and physics, he’d be impressed with how committed Europe turned out to be with that new imperialism fad, and he’d have to do some major revisions of his world map conception. But watching everyday life go by in 1750—transportation, communication, etc.—definitely wouldn’t make him die."
I expected to see a bunch of failed predictions but most of the stuff is surprisingly accurate. I see some commenters remark that these were conservative predictions and that most of the technologies existed in some form in 1922.
But that such incremental advancement is more representative of progress than disruptive changes. I feel the short term disruptive development post WWII has clouded our perception of long term technical progress due to recency bias. I suppose that is why most of the Sci-fi predictions post 1960 feels wildly inaccurate about the current decade than predictions from 100 years ago.
But that such incremental advancement is more representative of progress than disruptive changes. I feel the short term disruptive development post WWII has clouded our perception of long term technical progress due to recency bias. I suppose that is why most of the Sci-fi predictions post 1960 feels wildly inaccurate about the current decade than predictions from 100 years ago.
I wish the quality of prose as well as underlying journalism of today’s mainstream media and newspapers matched those of yesteryear. When reading the posted article, the decline in quality is shown to be immense.
Average quality, yes.
Total, and even max quality? Not so clear.
In number of articles/ books that are above a given quality bar? I wouldn't bet on 1922.
Total, and even max quality? Not so clear.
In number of articles/ books that are above a given quality bar? I wouldn't bet on 1922.
> I am convinced that corned beef hash and pumpkin pie will still exist, but the pill lunch will roll by their side.
"There will still be republics and monarchies; possibly, in 2022, the Spanish, Italian, Dutch and Norwegian kings may have fallen, but for a variety of reasons, either lack of advancement or practical inconvenience, we may expect still to find kings in Sweden, Jugo-Slavia, Greece, Rumania and Great Britain."
Funny how among reasonable predictions this one is almost completely wrong, only 3/9 guessed right.
Funny how among reasonable predictions this one is almost completely wrong, only 3/9 guessed right.
[deleted]
Impressively thought-out article, but given the publication date I'm also surprised there's no mention of the impacts of the flu pandemic of 1918-1920. So much ink is currently being spilled about how so many things will change thanks to the COVID pandemic, whether architecture or remote work or medical breakthroughs. I guess once the flu pandemic subsided it was no longer at the forefront of thought?
The Spanish flu largely overlapped with the WW1, and since its 2nd wave had a high toll among people with strong immune system (ex. young male) the perception was to a large degree mixed with the perception of war and its casualties, at least in Europe.
The name 'spanish flu' itself also stems from the fact that most countries involved in the war didn't want to talk too much about the Flu, while Spain retained neutrality and didn't have incentives to keep it in the dark - this could also be a reason that people were putting the aftermath of the pandemic in the same bucket as the outcome of the Great War imo.
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/1918-flu-pandemic
The name 'spanish flu' itself also stems from the fact that most countries involved in the war didn't want to talk too much about the Flu, while Spain retained neutrality and didn't have incentives to keep it in the dark - this could also be a reason that people were putting the aftermath of the pandemic in the same bucket as the outcome of the Great War imo.
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/1918-flu-pandemic
Some predictions were super accurate (i.e. Europe to America in 8 hours), some failed (lunch in 4 pills), but, due to immense optimism of human nature, one just couldn't envision the most influencing events of XX century - the rise of totalitarianism resulting in World War II and all its disasters. Something I can't escape thinking about when reading modern predictions.
There's a lovely ad for malt extract tonic (wink wink) on page 19
https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83045774/1922-05-07/ed-1/?sp=...
Totally not beer!
https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83045774/1922-05-07/ed-1/?sp=...
Totally not beer!
I have always had a strong almost visceral dislike of people attempting to predict the future with even a hint of confidence, so I really appreciate this author starting off by saying "don't worry guys, this is just for fun".
He landed everything except the peeling furniture (kudos for the Ikea prediction) and labor conditions. Interesting how labor hasn't advanced much except for women in the workplace (he nailed that perfectly).
I like how the author predicted that a hundred years wouldn't be enough to ensure gender equality.
I was fascinated to read about the predictions of communal-living skyscrapers with their own management, etc. Eerily similar to the Hab Blocks of Mega City 1
I then came to horrifying realisation that 1977 (when Judge Dredd first appeared) is only 55 years after the article, and now 45 years behind us(!!!). More or less halfway. Totally reasonable for them to have read this article, and still been far enough away from now to assume that this will still happen. This could easily have been the inspiration for Blocks.
I then came to horrifying realisation that 1977 (when Judge Dredd first appeared) is only 55 years after the article, and now 45 years behind us(!!!). More or less halfway. Totally reasonable for them to have read this article, and still been far enough away from now to assume that this will still happen. This could easily have been the inspiration for Blocks.
And now we have Charlie Munger gleefully making faceless, windowless monoliths a reality.
this is pretty cool to see how he predicted some things pretty good
good cherry picking to find someone who was correct about quite a few things among an ocean of wrong predictors/predictions :-)
True, but also how outlandish certain ideas were about peeling your house clean and replacing meals with pills...
> how outlandish certain ideas were about peeling your house clean
Not that outlandish. My shower glass is covered in high tech hydrophobic substance which keeps it clean, but I have to replace it every couple of years. My kid's high chair is covered in easily washable rubber surface that I can literally peel off after a meal, rinse, and replace.
So overall, practical idea that is partially applied.
Not that outlandish. My shower glass is covered in high tech hydrophobic substance which keeps it clean, but I have to replace it every couple of years. My kid's high chair is covered in easily washable rubber surface that I can literally peel off after a meal, rinse, and replace.
So overall, practical idea that is partially applied.
Hell, my house has vinyl siding. No repainting every 5-10 years and you can pressure wash it in an hour or two. Close enough!
Huel?
That's a funny one since Huel and Soylent kinda came about because of the 1920s meme idea that pills would replace meals in the future. A lot of these might just be self fulfilling prophecies.
That's generally how things work. Sci-fi and stuff influences the thoughts of others to help make the ideas turn into creations. I think they even made a documentary about all the Star Trek props that became a reality, but I don't remember.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/world/gallery/science-fiction...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/world/gallery/science-fiction...
You might like this book:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dreams_Our_Stuff_Is_Made...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dreams_Our_Stuff_Is_Made...
Huel / Soylent for nutrition, psyllium pills for filling / bowel operation, pretty much that yeah lol
I can't read the text. Does it say everyone will be overweight, inactive, neurotic, trapped in their houses and living lives devoid of in-person social interaction?
I vividly remember reading this book as a 90s kid with predictions about what the home would look like in 2020:
https://y2kaestheticinstitute.tumblr.com/post/143836250779/v...
https://y2kaestheticinstitute.tumblr.com/post/143836250779/v...
If you're curious about the writer, W. L. George, he was hired by the Herald to write a daily column in the Women's Page:
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/24655109/new-york-herald/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/24655109/new-york-herald/
What I find fascinating about these predictions is that a lot of them came to pass around 1970 and then fell back. For example nationalisation of utilities and railways (here in the UK), communal living (tower blocks), and so on.
Not to mention "a great liberalism of mind and the freedom to say anything"....
Not to mention "a great liberalism of mind and the freedom to say anything"....
That idea about 'tower blocks in gardens' reminds me what happened 11 years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Charter
>"It is easier to bring about a revolutionary
scientific discovery such as that of the
X-ray than to alter in the least degree
the quality of emotion that arises between
a man and a maid. There will probably
be many new rays in 2022, but the people
whom they illumine will be much the same."
Nailed it.
Nailed it.
The popular culture in those days and may be even a few decades after that always predicted food intake to minimized to pills. Has there ever been attempt to do so? I mean any company or university attempting to deliver the same nutrients and satisfaction in a much reduced form factor?
Kind of, but still much larger than pills: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(meal_replacement)
This is amazingly accurate. It contains several predictions that would have been very difficult when extrapolating based on life experience at the time.
Consider how difficult it would be to predict how the world will look in 2122. I don’t think I’d be this close to the mark.
Consider how difficult it would be to predict how the world will look in 2122. I don’t think I’d be this close to the mark.
If anyone else is interested in the author who exerted such prescience, Wikipedia has an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._George
The author, W.L. George, passed away in 1926, so he wouldn't live long enough to revisit his predictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._George
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._George
I was just laughing at the idea of glassed in cities with all our gas powered cars with my wife, but then I realized that if the cities were well ventilated/filtered that could result in an air quality improvement for a lot of places
> It does not follow that, scientifically, the year 2022 should fail to be amazing.
Well... About that...
Well... About that...
They didn't predict that I wouldn't be able read their article on my phone.
the two preceding pages...situations wanted and help wanted
https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83045774/1922-05-07/ed-1/?sp=...
https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83045774/1922-05-07/ed-1/?sp=...
https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83045774/1922-05-07/ed-1/?sp=...
https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83045774/1922-05-07/ed-1/?sp=...
> It is easier to bring about a revolutionary scientific discovery such as that of the
X-ray than to alter in the least degree the quality of emotion that arises between
a man and a maid.
The relationship between a man and a maid is a core characteristic of a society.
The complexity of changing such relationships is attested to by TFA, and yet, in many places, over a hundred years, we see (hard fought) change.
A hundred years ago, or even fifty years ago, the downfalls of Dominic Strauss-Kahn, Jeffrey Epstein, and Harvey Weinstein were inconceivable.
So was #MeToo.
But there’s as much tech in the hash tag as there is in the x-ray, or more if you just count the investment dollars.
Technology and social relations define and redefine each other in long epicycles.
The relationship between a man and a maid is a core characteristic of a society.
The complexity of changing such relationships is attested to by TFA, and yet, in many places, over a hundred years, we see (hard fought) change.
A hundred years ago, or even fifty years ago, the downfalls of Dominic Strauss-Kahn, Jeffrey Epstein, and Harvey Weinstein were inconceivable.
So was #MeToo.
But there’s as much tech in the hash tag as there is in the x-ray, or more if you just count the investment dollars.
Technology and social relations define and redefine each other in long epicycles.
I have a vision of walls, paper and hangings made of more or less compressed papier mache, bound with brass or taping along the edges.
Hah, he basically predicted Ikea!
Hah, he basically predicted Ikea!
Who's up for writing about what 2122 will look like?
Surprisingly good predictions on a number of fronts.
This is so accurate it seems almost fake.
Who has written something similar about the next 100 years?
Preferably with as much positivity and wisdom as this gentleman had.
Who has written something similar about the next 100 years?
Preferably with as much positivity and wisdom as this gentleman had.
[deleted]
From a quick reading of the entire article, I came away impressed with how much was quite accurate.
Note that many of the predictions which didn’t happen proved doable but were a bad idea.
So to the interesting question, what will the world be like in 2122?
More importantly, what FONTS will be in vogue in 100 years???
You know what they call a quarter pounder in France?
oh man, had he predicted that a lot of people would be going nuts on digital stamps that might be copied for free, that'd be hilarious...
Dude is describing tenements in Hong Kong…
Where's the flying cars, dammit! We were promised flying cars! Jail somebody, the future is all rigged.
What stands out to me is the prescience in the speed and penetration of technological advancements juxtaposed with an apparent blind spot for the advancements in social change. Even the most dire or utopian science fiction of the early to mid 20th century seems to reasonably accurately predict technological changes but somehow expects that future social structures will somehow fall into place or adapt to the technology. They imagine these wild technological advancements and bludgeon them into their current-day social mores.
Thinking about today, where the topic of the day is distributed trustless computing and so on, it's easy to imagine now the cat's out of the bag that in 100 years, old institutions like banks, notaries, record-keeping (Hansards etc) could be obsolete, knowledge becomes distributed and every human commands one or more nodes in a constant system of cross-referencing - clients and servers cease to be relevant as a concept, information is just a pool you dip into as needed (with helpful AI assistants to bring things to your attention and/or demand your attention). It could be so pervasive it wouldn't garner a second's thought in the mind of a 2122 individual. Information is just there, always, forever, and always cross-checked for correctness. Duh. (not saying this is even an ideal future, or likely, but it's a trend that's easily extrapolated)
But if that did come to pass, how does that change the fabric of society in 2122? Does the relationship between society and the products it demands and produces change significantly? Does the status-quo stay more or less the same between the workers and the organisers? Do we find a way to deal with cultural differences globally or adopt the "metaverse" and slowly fragment into virtual islands of relative ideological same-ness? These are much harder things to predict, just how in 1922 the idea of not having servants at home to do the bidding of the family matriarch seemed so far-fetched that even an imagined hundred years of progress couldn't fully erase the notion; what concepts do we see as being so firmly entrenched in our culture(s) today that no upheaval of technology could convince us they'd also be on the way out, if not obsolete, in 100 years.
I love seeing these old predictions as much for what they got right as for what they missed. I showed my 12 year old daughter this article and we had a light-hearted conversation about it but she said something that struck me; "society probably won't even be here in 100 years" - I hope that isn't true, it's not something I've directly taught her to believe, but we're surrounded on all fronts by media filled with dire predictions of humanity's collapse and self-destruction on a daily basis, so I'm going to have to work to instil some hope. I am heartened slightly as historically it seems we're really bad at predicting how society as a whole will change long-term, so I do hope we're wrong on the old boiled frogs / status-quo inertia analogies, and that our species makes some giant leaps in terms of collective environmental and social responsibility in the next 100 years.
Nothing really profound I know just a dad pondering his kids futures, fingers crossed we figure some things out.
Thinking about today, where the topic of the day is distributed trustless computing and so on, it's easy to imagine now the cat's out of the bag that in 100 years, old institutions like banks, notaries, record-keeping (Hansards etc) could be obsolete, knowledge becomes distributed and every human commands one or more nodes in a constant system of cross-referencing - clients and servers cease to be relevant as a concept, information is just a pool you dip into as needed (with helpful AI assistants to bring things to your attention and/or demand your attention). It could be so pervasive it wouldn't garner a second's thought in the mind of a 2122 individual. Information is just there, always, forever, and always cross-checked for correctness. Duh. (not saying this is even an ideal future, or likely, but it's a trend that's easily extrapolated)
But if that did come to pass, how does that change the fabric of society in 2122? Does the relationship between society and the products it demands and produces change significantly? Does the status-quo stay more or less the same between the workers and the organisers? Do we find a way to deal with cultural differences globally or adopt the "metaverse" and slowly fragment into virtual islands of relative ideological same-ness? These are much harder things to predict, just how in 1922 the idea of not having servants at home to do the bidding of the family matriarch seemed so far-fetched that even an imagined hundred years of progress couldn't fully erase the notion; what concepts do we see as being so firmly entrenched in our culture(s) today that no upheaval of technology could convince us they'd also be on the way out, if not obsolete, in 100 years.
I love seeing these old predictions as much for what they got right as for what they missed. I showed my 12 year old daughter this article and we had a light-hearted conversation about it but she said something that struck me; "society probably won't even be here in 100 years" - I hope that isn't true, it's not something I've directly taught her to believe, but we're surrounded on all fronts by media filled with dire predictions of humanity's collapse and self-destruction on a daily basis, so I'm going to have to work to instil some hope. I am heartened slightly as historically it seems we're really bad at predicting how society as a whole will change long-term, so I do hope we're wrong on the old boiled frogs / status-quo inertia analogies, and that our species makes some giant leaps in terms of collective environmental and social responsibility in the next 100 years.
Nothing really profound I know just a dad pondering his kids futures, fingers crossed we figure some things out.
> where the topic of the day is distributed trustless computing
No one in my circles talks about those things. Even the vast majority of crypto investors don't give a shit about "distributed" or "trustless" or "computing".
The topics of the day are:
1. climate change
2. automation (especially logistics and war)
3. the tension between nationalism and globalization (both with respect to communication, commodity extraction, manufacturing, knowledge production, ...).
Flip the ordering of 1 and 3 if you'd like.
> old institutions like banks, notaries, record-keeping (Hansards etc) could be obsolete
I can't think of a single less exciting thing to say about the future.
The average person uses a notary perhaps a few times in their life.
The average bank provides the average person with a nearly flawless UX. Anything that replaces a bank will look like a digital bank account and behave like a digital bank account and probably also be regulated like a digital bank account. For almost all people, this is literally equivalent to staying "by 2122 the IBM COBOL mainframes powering banks will have been replaced with Java running on commodity hardware". Even if it's true... who cares?
> knowledge becomes distributed and every human commands one or more nodes in a constant system of cross-referencing - clients and servers cease to be relevant as a concept, information is just a pool you dip into as needed (with helpful AI assistants to bring things to your attention and/or demand your attention).
It's not 1999 anymore; we know how the WWW turned out.
No one in my circles talks about those things. Even the vast majority of crypto investors don't give a shit about "distributed" or "trustless" or "computing".
The topics of the day are:
1. climate change
2. automation (especially logistics and war)
3. the tension between nationalism and globalization (both with respect to communication, commodity extraction, manufacturing, knowledge production, ...).
Flip the ordering of 1 and 3 if you'd like.
> old institutions like banks, notaries, record-keeping (Hansards etc) could be obsolete
I can't think of a single less exciting thing to say about the future.
The average person uses a notary perhaps a few times in their life.
The average bank provides the average person with a nearly flawless UX. Anything that replaces a bank will look like a digital bank account and behave like a digital bank account and probably also be regulated like a digital bank account. For almost all people, this is literally equivalent to staying "by 2122 the IBM COBOL mainframes powering banks will have been replaced with Java running on commodity hardware". Even if it's true... who cares?
> knowledge becomes distributed and every human commands one or more nodes in a constant system of cross-referencing - clients and servers cease to be relevant as a concept, information is just a pool you dip into as needed (with helpful AI assistants to bring things to your attention and/or demand your attention).
It's not 1999 anymore; we know how the WWW turned out.
I feel like you just wanted to go on the attack for the examples I gave, I can definitely see where you're coming from. My point was that you can pick a tech, extrapolate a few decades, and you'll probably get a few wins. You wanted to attack my example of banks, notaries, parliamentary records etc becoming obsolete, since it's "not exciting". Sadly these boring things are the bedrock of civilisation, so exciting or not, if they become obsolete, then the technological and social fabric of society is impacted in some way or another. The boring changes are sometimes the most meaningful long-term.
Certain things the author got completely wrong (rise of racial politics, actual liberalism of thought), but his level-headed approach got him 75% of the way there.
Though culturally he was eerily correct re: State-as-family.
Though culturally he was eerily correct re: State-as-family.
> Though culturally he was eerily correct re: State-as-family
That's not particularly surprising as it was one of the key philosophies of the age: the Russian revolution was only a few years old (and didn't spring from nowhere) while some of the competing philosophies, like anarchism and bimetallism, had burned out.
That's not particularly surprising as it was one of the key philosophies of the age: the Russian revolution was only a few years old (and didn't spring from nowhere) while some of the competing philosophies, like anarchism and bimetallism, had burned out.
Geez, is this really the best OCR we have in 2022? This is the text generated by the OCR on that site:
'p========r^ SECTION SEVEN CL By W. L. George THERE is a good old rule which bids us never prophesy unless we know, but, all the same, when one cannot prophesy one may guess, especially if one is sure of being out of the way when the reckoning comes. Therefore it is without anxiety, that I suggest a picture of this world a hundred years hence, and venture as my first guess thrt the world at that time would be remarkable to one of our ghosts, not so much because it was so different as because it was so similar. In the main the changes which we may expect must be brought about by science. It is easier to bring about a revolutionary scientific discovery such as that of the X-ray than to alter in the least degree the quality of emotion that arises between a man and a maid. There will probably be many new rays in 2022, but the people whom they illumine will be much the same. From which the reader may conclude that I do not expect anything startling in the way of scientific discoverv. That is not the case; I am convinced that in 2022 the advancement of science will be amazing, but it will be nothing like so amazing as is the present day in relation to a hundred years ago. A sight of the world today would surprise President Jefferson much more, I suspect, than the world of 2022 would surprise the little girl who sells candies at Grand Central Station. For Jefferson knew nothing of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, automobiles, aeroplanes, gramophones, movies, radium, &c.; he did not even know hot and cold bathrooms. The-little girl at Grand Central is a blase child; to her these things are commonplace; the year 2022 would have to produce something very startling to interest her ghost. The sad thing about discovery is that it works toward its own extinction, and that the more- we discover the less there is left. % w It does not follow that, scientifically, the year 2022 should fail to be amazing. I suspect that commercial flying will have become entirely commonplace. The passenger steamer will survive on the coasts. but it will have disappeared on the main routes, and will have been replaced by flying convoys, which should cover the distance between London and New York in about twelve hours. As I am anxious that the reader should not look upon me as a visionary, I would point out that in an airplane collision which happened recently a British passenger plane was traveling at 180 miles an hour, which speed would have brought it across the Atlantic in eighteen hours. It is therefore quite conceivable that America may become separated from Europe by only eight hours. The problem is mainly one of artificial heating and ventilation to enable the aeronauts to survive. The same cause will affect the railroads, which at that time will probably have ceased to carry passengers except for suburban traffic. Railroads may continue to handle freight, but it may be that even this will be taken from them by road traffic, because the automobile does not have to carry the enormous overhead charges of tracks. Certainly food, mails and all light goods will be taken over from the railroads by road trucks. As for the horse, it will probably no longer be bred In white countries. The people of the year 2022 will probably never see a wire outlined against the sky: it Is practically certain that wireless telegraphy and wireless telephones will have crushed the cable system long before the century is done. Possibly, too, power may travel through the air when means are found to prevent enormous voltages being suddenly discharged in the wrong place. Coal will not be exhausted, but our reserves will be seriously depleted, and so will those of oil. One of the world dangers a century hence will be a shortage of fuel, but It is likely that by that time a ureal ueai 01 power win ue ooiHineo irom tides, from the sun, probably from radium and other forms of radial energy, while It may also be that atomic energy will be harnessed. If It is true that matter Is kept together by forces known as electrons. It Is possible that we shall know how to dls< ?perse matter so as to release the electron as a force. This force would last as long as matter, thefofore as long as the earth itself. I The movies will be more attractive, as long before 2022 they will have been re* i THE I P ma
V ' placed by the kinephone, which now exists only in the laboratory. That is the figures on the screen will not only move, but they will have their natural colors and spaak with ordinary voices. Thus, the stage as we know it to-day may entirely disappear, which does not mean the doom of art, since the movie actress of 2022 will not only not need to know how to smile but also how to talk. Hna mttrVif AvianH i ? A ? fi ? i i ?1 vr nn tKa V/UO "HftUt V<AtVUU 1UUC nunc 1J uu tuo number of inventions which ought to exist and will exist, but the reader can think of them for himself, and it is more interesting to ask ourselves what will be the appearance of our cities a hundred years hence. To my mind they will offer a mixed outlook, because mankind never tears anything down completely to build up something else; it erects the new while retaining the old; thus, many buildings now standing will be preserved. It is conceivable that the Capitol at Washington, many of the universities and churches will be standing a hundred yearB hence, and that they will, almost unaltered, be preserved by tradition. Also, many private dwellings will survive and will be inhabited by Individual families. I think that they will have passed through the cooperative stage, which may be expected fifty or sixty years nence, wnen ine servant pruoiem nas oecome completely unmanageable and when private dwellings organize themselves to engage staffs to cook, clean, and mend for the groups. That cooperative stage will be the last kick of the private mistress who wants to retain in her household some sort of slave. In 2022 she will have been bent by circumstances, but sh'e will have recovered her private dwelling, being served for seven hours a day by an orderly. The woman who becomes an orderly will be as well paid as If she were a stenographer, will wear her own clothes, be called "Miss," belong to her trade union and work under union rulea. Naturally the work of the household, which is being reduced day by day, will in 2022 be a great deal lighter. I believe that most of the cleaning required to-day in a house will have been done away with. In the first place, through the disappearance of coal in all places where electricity is not made there will be no more smoke, perhaps not even that of tobacco. In the second place I have a vision of walls, furniture and hangings made of more or less compressed papier mache, bound with brass or taping along the edges. Thus, instead of \ VEW YO GAZINE NEW YORK, SUNDAY, Witt^L bB
'p========r^ SECTION SEVEN CL By W. L. George THERE is a good old rule which bids us never prophesy unless we know, but, all the same, when one cannot prophesy one may guess, especially if one is sure of being out of the way when the reckoning comes. Therefore it is without anxiety, that I suggest a picture of this world a hundred years hence, and venture as my first guess thrt the world at that time would be remarkable to one of our ghosts, not so much because it was so different as because it was so similar. In the main the changes which we may expect must be brought about by science. It is easier to bring about a revolutionary scientific discovery such as that of the X-ray than to alter in the least degree the quality of emotion that arises between a man and a maid. There will probably be many new rays in 2022, but the people whom they illumine will be much the same. From which the reader may conclude that I do not expect anything startling in the way of scientific discoverv. That is not the case; I am convinced that in 2022 the advancement of science will be amazing, but it will be nothing like so amazing as is the present day in relation to a hundred years ago. A sight of the world today would surprise President Jefferson much more, I suspect, than the world of 2022 would surprise the little girl who sells candies at Grand Central Station. For Jefferson knew nothing of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, automobiles, aeroplanes, gramophones, movies, radium, &c.; he did not even know hot and cold bathrooms. The-little girl at Grand Central is a blase child; to her these things are commonplace; the year 2022 would have to produce something very startling to interest her ghost. The sad thing about discovery is that it works toward its own extinction, and that the more- we discover the less there is left. % w It does not follow that, scientifically, the year 2022 should fail to be amazing. I suspect that commercial flying will have become entirely commonplace. The passenger steamer will survive on the coasts. but it will have disappeared on the main routes, and will have been replaced by flying convoys, which should cover the distance between London and New York in about twelve hours. As I am anxious that the reader should not look upon me as a visionary, I would point out that in an airplane collision which happened recently a British passenger plane was traveling at 180 miles an hour, which speed would have brought it across the Atlantic in eighteen hours. It is therefore quite conceivable that America may become separated from Europe by only eight hours. The problem is mainly one of artificial heating and ventilation to enable the aeronauts to survive. The same cause will affect the railroads, which at that time will probably have ceased to carry passengers except for suburban traffic. Railroads may continue to handle freight, but it may be that even this will be taken from them by road traffic, because the automobile does not have to carry the enormous overhead charges of tracks. Certainly food, mails and all light goods will be taken over from the railroads by road trucks. As for the horse, it will probably no longer be bred In white countries. The people of the year 2022 will probably never see a wire outlined against the sky: it Is practically certain that wireless telegraphy and wireless telephones will have crushed the cable system long before the century is done. Possibly, too, power may travel through the air when means are found to prevent enormous voltages being suddenly discharged in the wrong place. Coal will not be exhausted, but our reserves will be seriously depleted, and so will those of oil. One of the world dangers a century hence will be a shortage of fuel, but It is likely that by that time a ureal ueai 01 power win ue ooiHineo irom tides, from the sun, probably from radium and other forms of radial energy, while It may also be that atomic energy will be harnessed. If It is true that matter Is kept together by forces known as electrons. It Is possible that we shall know how to dls< ?perse matter so as to release the electron as a force. This force would last as long as matter, thefofore as long as the earth itself. I The movies will be more attractive, as long before 2022 they will have been re* i THE I P ma
V ' placed by the kinephone, which now exists only in the laboratory. That is the figures on the screen will not only move, but they will have their natural colors and spaak with ordinary voices. Thus, the stage as we know it to-day may entirely disappear, which does not mean the doom of art, since the movie actress of 2022 will not only not need to know how to smile but also how to talk. Hna mttrVif AvianH i ? A ? fi ? i i ?1 vr nn tKa V/UO "HftUt V<AtVUU 1UUC nunc 1J uu tuo number of inventions which ought to exist and will exist, but the reader can think of them for himself, and it is more interesting to ask ourselves what will be the appearance of our cities a hundred years hence. To my mind they will offer a mixed outlook, because mankind never tears anything down completely to build up something else; it erects the new while retaining the old; thus, many buildings now standing will be preserved. It is conceivable that the Capitol at Washington, many of the universities and churches will be standing a hundred yearB hence, and that they will, almost unaltered, be preserved by tradition. Also, many private dwellings will survive and will be inhabited by Individual families. I think that they will have passed through the cooperative stage, which may be expected fifty or sixty years nence, wnen ine servant pruoiem nas oecome completely unmanageable and when private dwellings organize themselves to engage staffs to cook, clean, and mend for the groups. That cooperative stage will be the last kick of the private mistress who wants to retain in her household some sort of slave. In 2022 she will have been bent by circumstances, but sh'e will have recovered her private dwelling, being served for seven hours a day by an orderly. The woman who becomes an orderly will be as well paid as If she were a stenographer, will wear her own clothes, be called "Miss," belong to her trade union and work under union rulea. Naturally the work of the household, which is being reduced day by day, will in 2022 be a great deal lighter. I believe that most of the cleaning required to-day in a house will have been done away with. In the first place, through the disappearance of coal in all places where electricity is not made there will be no more smoke, perhaps not even that of tobacco. In the second place I have a vision of walls, furniture and hangings made of more or less compressed papier mache, bound with brass or taping along the edges. Thus, instead of \ VEW YO GAZINE NEW YORK, SUNDAY, Witt^L bB
Continued:
scrubbing Its floors, t^e year 2022 will unscrew the brass edges or unstitch the tapes and peel off the dirty surface of the floor or curtains. Then I every year a new floor board will be J laid. One may hope that standard B chairs, tables, carpets, will be peeled in the same way. SB Similar reforms apply to cooking, a ^B great deal of which will survive ^B among old fashioned people, but a SB great deal more of which will prob- ^B ably be avoided by the use of syn- ^fl thetic foods. It is conceivable, though not certain, that in 2022 a H complete meal may be taken in the m shape of four pills. This is not en- ^ tirely visionary; I am convinced that corned ^eef hash and pumpkin pie will still exist, but the pill lunch will ?roll by their side. But at that time few private dwellings will be built: in their stenH will rise the community dwellings, where the majority of mankind will be living. They will probably be located in garden Bpaces and rise to forty or fifty floors, housing easily four or five thousand families. This is not exaggerated, since in one New York hotel to-day three thousand people sleep i every night. It would mean also that each ( block would have a local authority of its < own. I imagine these dwellings as afford- 1 ing one room to each adult of the family | and one room for common use. Such cook- l ing as then exists will be conducted by the < local authority of the block, which will also i undertake laundry, mending, cleaning and will provide a complete nursery for the i children of the tenants. i Perhaps at that time we shall have at- j tained a dream which I often nurse, name- 1 ly, the city roofed with glass. That city < would be a complete unit, with accommoda- | Hons for houses, offices, factories and open j spaces, all this carefully allocated. The | root would completely do away with < weather and would maintain an even tern- ; perature to be fixed by the taste of the ( period. Artificial ventilation would sup- ] press wind. As for the open spaces, if the temperature were warm they would ex- l hibit a continual show of flowers, which < would be emancipated from wlifter and i summer; In other words, winter would not t come however long the descendants of Mr. l Hutchinson might wait. t The family would still exist, even though ] it is not doing very well to-day. It Is in- , conceivable that some sort of feeling be* r RK HE] SECTl MAY 7, 1922. nT/*A T<^ jo 1
,cF ' w^f^i JBPpl|p^^jMi W. L. GEORGE, the distinguished British autt tween parents and children should not persist, though I am of course unable to tell what that feeling will be. I Imagine that the link will be thinner than it Is to-day, because the child is likely to be taken over by the State, not only schooled but fed and ?lad, and at the end of Its training placed In a post suitable to Its abilities. This may be affected by birth control, which In 2022 will be legal all over the world. There will be stages: the first results of birth control will be to reduce the birth rate; then the State will step in. as it loes in France, and make it worth peo pie's while to have more children; then the State will discover that it has made things too easy and that people are having children recklessly; finally some sort of balince will establish Itself between the State lemand for children and the national supply. Largely the condition of the family will le governed by the position of woman, be -ause woman is the family, while man is nerely Its supporter. It is practically cer ;ain that In 2022 nearly all women will lave discarded the idea that they are prlnarily "makers of men." Most fit women *111 then he following an individual career. Ml positions will he open to them and a ;reat many women will have risen high, rhe year 2022 will probably see a large RALD I [ n J11Z 38 th 8U
y number of women in Con^ - a press, a great many on the judicial bench, many m . in civil service posts and is perhaps some in the mi President's Cabinet. But it is unlikely that ^ women will have an ^ achieved equality with T1 i.|" men. Cautious feminists At EsS Bk such as myself realize ^f | that things go slowly and ^ that a brief hundred tf,i r years win noi wipe out im the effects on women of m< 30,000 years of slavery. rr1 ar Women will work, partly m( heeausc they want to and partly because they will so be able to. Thus women w' tin will pay their share in the upkeep of home and t)o family. The above sug- bu gestion of community no buildings, where all the household work will be u' ca; done by professionals, will liberate the average trj wife and enable her out of her wages to pay her ^ share of the household work which she dis- nr1 likes. an Marriage will still exist much as it is Ati to-day, for mankind has an Inveterate taste faf for the institution, but divorce will prob- nn ag ably be as easy everywhere as it Is in Nevada. In view, however, of the lm- Hti proved position of woman and her earning Th power, she will not only cease to be entitled to alimony, but she will be expected, ^ after the divorce, to pay her share of the thl maintenance of her children. or As regards the politics of 2022, I should lsr expect the form of the State to be much / th< the same. A few rearrangements may a8 have taken pla^e on the lines of self-de- or termination; for ?Instance, Austria may Bu have united with Germany, the South pu American republics may have federated, pil Ac., but I do not believe that there will be 1 i a superstate. There will still be republics an and monarchies; possibly, In 2022, the It Spanish, Italian, Dutch and Norwegian tin kings may have fallen, but for a variety of tal reasons, either lack of advancement or oci inni titu riiim nii'iup, we may export silll vir to And kings in Sweden, .lugo-Slavia, gw Greece, Rumania and Great Britain. on On the inside, these States may have kli slightly changed, for th9ro prevails a ten- an dency to socialization which has nothing to do with socialism. Most of the Euro- tht pean governments are unconsciously na- dif tionalizing a number of industries, and a l TWELVE PAGES
scrubbing Its floors, t^e year 2022 will unscrew the brass edges or unstitch the tapes and peel off the dirty surface of the floor or curtains. Then I every year a new floor board will be J laid. One may hope that standard B chairs, tables, carpets, will be peeled in the same way. SB Similar reforms apply to cooking, a ^B great deal of which will survive ^B among old fashioned people, but a SB great deal more of which will prob- ^B ably be avoided by the use of syn- ^fl thetic foods. It is conceivable, though not certain, that in 2022 a H complete meal may be taken in the m shape of four pills. This is not en- ^ tirely visionary; I am convinced that corned ^eef hash and pumpkin pie will still exist, but the pill lunch will ?roll by their side. But at that time few private dwellings will be built: in their stenH will rise the community dwellings, where the majority of mankind will be living. They will probably be located in garden Bpaces and rise to forty or fifty floors, housing easily four or five thousand families. This is not exaggerated, since in one New York hotel to-day three thousand people sleep i every night. It would mean also that each ( block would have a local authority of its < own. I imagine these dwellings as afford- 1 ing one room to each adult of the family | and one room for common use. Such cook- l ing as then exists will be conducted by the < local authority of the block, which will also i undertake laundry, mending, cleaning and will provide a complete nursery for the i children of the tenants. i Perhaps at that time we shall have at- j tained a dream which I often nurse, name- 1 ly, the city roofed with glass. That city < would be a complete unit, with accommoda- | Hons for houses, offices, factories and open j spaces, all this carefully allocated. The | root would completely do away with < weather and would maintain an even tern- ; perature to be fixed by the taste of the ( period. Artificial ventilation would sup- ] press wind. As for the open spaces, if the temperature were warm they would ex- l hibit a continual show of flowers, which < would be emancipated from wlifter and i summer; In other words, winter would not t come however long the descendants of Mr. l Hutchinson might wait. t The family would still exist, even though ] it is not doing very well to-day. It Is in- , conceivable that some sort of feeling be* r RK HE] SECTl MAY 7, 1922. nT/*A T<^ jo 1
,cF ' w^f^i JBPpl|p^^jMi W. L. GEORGE, the distinguished British autt tween parents and children should not persist, though I am of course unable to tell what that feeling will be. I Imagine that the link will be thinner than it Is to-day, because the child is likely to be taken over by the State, not only schooled but fed and ?lad, and at the end of Its training placed In a post suitable to Its abilities. This may be affected by birth control, which In 2022 will be legal all over the world. There will be stages: the first results of birth control will be to reduce the birth rate; then the State will step in. as it loes in France, and make it worth peo pie's while to have more children; then the State will discover that it has made things too easy and that people are having children recklessly; finally some sort of balince will establish Itself between the State lemand for children and the national supply. Largely the condition of the family will le governed by the position of woman, be -ause woman is the family, while man is nerely Its supporter. It is practically cer ;ain that In 2022 nearly all women will lave discarded the idea that they are prlnarily "makers of men." Most fit women *111 then he following an individual career. Ml positions will he open to them and a ;reat many women will have risen high, rhe year 2022 will probably see a large RALD I [ n J11Z 38 th 8U
y number of women in Con^ - a press, a great many on the judicial bench, many m . in civil service posts and is perhaps some in the mi President's Cabinet. But it is unlikely that ^ women will have an ^ achieved equality with T1 i.|" men. Cautious feminists At EsS Bk such as myself realize ^f | that things go slowly and ^ that a brief hundred tf,i r years win noi wipe out im the effects on women of m< 30,000 years of slavery. rr1 ar Women will work, partly m( heeausc they want to and partly because they will so be able to. Thus women w' tin will pay their share in the upkeep of home and t)o family. The above sug- bu gestion of community no buildings, where all the household work will be u' ca; done by professionals, will liberate the average trj wife and enable her out of her wages to pay her ^ share of the household work which she dis- nr1 likes. an Marriage will still exist much as it is Ati to-day, for mankind has an Inveterate taste faf for the institution, but divorce will prob- nn ag ably be as easy everywhere as it Is in Nevada. In view, however, of the lm- Hti proved position of woman and her earning Th power, she will not only cease to be entitled to alimony, but she will be expected, ^ after the divorce, to pay her share of the thl maintenance of her children. or As regards the politics of 2022, I should lsr expect the form of the State to be much / th< the same. A few rearrangements may a8 have taken pla^e on the lines of self-de- or termination; for ?Instance, Austria may Bu have united with Germany, the South pu American republics may have federated, pil Ac., but I do not believe that there will be 1 i a superstate. There will still be republics an and monarchies; possibly, In 2022, the It Spanish, Italian, Dutch and Norwegian tin kings may have fallen, but for a variety of tal reasons, either lack of advancement or oci inni titu riiim nii'iup, we may export silll vir to And kings in Sweden, .lugo-Slavia, gw Greece, Rumania and Great Britain. on On the inside, these States may have kli slightly changed, for th9ro prevails a ten- an dency to socialization which has nothing to do with socialism. Most of the Euro- tht pean governments are unconsciously na- dif tionalizing a number of industries, and a l TWELVE PAGES
Continued:
t i ti wJ Is will go on. One may therefore preme that in 2022 most States will have tionalized railways, telegraphs, teleones, canals, docks, water supply, gas \ ' any) and electricity. Other industries 11 exist much as they do to-day, but it likely that the State will be inclined to ntrol them, to limit their profits, and to bitrate between them and the workers, e find a hint of this in America in the ti-trust acts; a hundred years hence e tendency will be much stronger. It is >rth noting as an international factor at b/that time purely national Industries 11 almost have disappeared, and that the >rk of the world will be in the hands of ntrolled combines governing the supply a commodity from China to Peru. Unfortunately these international relains through trade are not likely to have ected political conditions. There will ill be war. The wars of that period may a little less frequent than they are toy, and be limited by arrangements such the Pacific agreement, the agreement tween Canada and the United States of rierica to leave their frontier unfortified, ., but it will still be there. I suspect at those wars to come will be made horle beyond my conception by new poison ses, inextinguishable flames and light>of smoke clouds. In those wars the airane bomb will seem as out of date as is clay tne hatchet. War may ultimately sappear, but this lies beyond the limits this article and even beyond those of f mind. \s regards the United States in particu, it is likely that the country will have me to a complete settlement, with a popition of about 240,000,000. The idea of rth and South, East and West, will have noet disappeared; by that time the Amerin race will have taken so definite a form it immigration will not affect it. The nfirican from Key West and the Amerin from Seattle will be much the same nd of mic. That is to say as regards race, but I feel at mentally the American of 2022 will ve enormously changed. He is to-day e most enterprising creature in the orld, and is driven by a continual urge to se, to make money. That is because the odern American lives in a country that only partly developed, and where imense wealth still lies ready for him to ke. In 2022 that will be as finished as s to-day in England. American wealth 11 then he eithe.- developed or known, d all of it will belong to somebody, lere will he no more opportunity in nerica than there is in England to-day. lose Americans will know that it is actically certain that they will die much the same position as the one in which ey were born. Those Americans will erefore be less enterprising and much ire pleasure loving. They will have belled against long hours: the chances e that in 2022 few people will work >re than seven hours a day, if as much. The effect of this, which I am sure unds regrettable to many of my readers 11. in my opinion, be good. It was essen1 that the American race should be cable of intense labor and intense ambin if it was to develop its vast country, t one result has been haste, overwork, ise, all of which is bad for the nerves. 2022 America will have made her forae and will he enjoying it as well as she n. I think that she will be a happier counr than she is to-day. The appeal of alth will be less because wealth II be difficult to attain, so those aericans to come will be producing in t and literature infinitely more than they e producing to-day. To-day, in fiction, ? aerlca leads the world by sincerity, tli and fearlessness, hut the American vel of significance is a novel of revolt alnst the thralls of money, of convenn anrl of puritanism. In 2022 Ameriran srature will be a literature of culture, e battle will he over and the muzzle There will be no more things one n't say, and things one can't think No ubt there will be In 2022 people who nk as they would have thought in 1022, even a little earlier, but a great liberaln of mind will prevail, rt is not my business to corgrat ilat" > future, and I have no desire to do so. It Is impossible to say a thing Is good bad; all one can say is that it exists, it in case some of my readers feel relsion when they contemplate my lunch Is or my nationalized railroads, to those vould say that they are perhaps unduly xious. The world takes care of Itself; has been doing so for hundreds of cen ries nnri is still spinning; tne worm win te care of Itsplf In 2022: that Is Its chlpf r-upatlon. Morp than that. I fppl conlcpd that though thp world may Iosp icps, It will dpvolop othpr grarps, that the wholp. and as timp goes on. man id grows more intelligent, more amiable d more honpst. rhp fnturp will bp difficult: what dops it mattpr? So was thp past difficult: flcultlps did not prevent Its turning into tolerable preser^.
t i ti wJ Is will go on. One may therefore preme that in 2022 most States will have tionalized railways, telegraphs, teleones, canals, docks, water supply, gas \ ' any) and electricity. Other industries 11 exist much as they do to-day, but it likely that the State will be inclined to ntrol them, to limit their profits, and to bitrate between them and the workers, e find a hint of this in America in the ti-trust acts; a hundred years hence e tendency will be much stronger. It is >rth noting as an international factor at b/that time purely national Industries 11 almost have disappeared, and that the >rk of the world will be in the hands of ntrolled combines governing the supply a commodity from China to Peru. Unfortunately these international relains through trade are not likely to have ected political conditions. There will ill be war. The wars of that period may a little less frequent than they are toy, and be limited by arrangements such the Pacific agreement, the agreement tween Canada and the United States of rierica to leave their frontier unfortified, ., but it will still be there. I suspect at those wars to come will be made horle beyond my conception by new poison ses, inextinguishable flames and light>of smoke clouds. In those wars the airane bomb will seem as out of date as is clay tne hatchet. War may ultimately sappear, but this lies beyond the limits this article and even beyond those of f mind. \s regards the United States in particu, it is likely that the country will have me to a complete settlement, with a popition of about 240,000,000. The idea of rth and South, East and West, will have noet disappeared; by that time the Amerin race will have taken so definite a form it immigration will not affect it. The nfirican from Key West and the Amerin from Seattle will be much the same nd of mic. That is to say as regards race, but I feel at mentally the American of 2022 will ve enormously changed. He is to-day e most enterprising creature in the orld, and is driven by a continual urge to se, to make money. That is because the odern American lives in a country that only partly developed, and where imense wealth still lies ready for him to ke. In 2022 that will be as finished as s to-day in England. American wealth 11 then he eithe.- developed or known, d all of it will belong to somebody, lere will he no more opportunity in nerica than there is in England to-day. lose Americans will know that it is actically certain that they will die much the same position as the one in which ey were born. Those Americans will erefore be less enterprising and much ire pleasure loving. They will have belled against long hours: the chances e that in 2022 few people will work >re than seven hours a day, if as much. The effect of this, which I am sure unds regrettable to many of my readers 11. in my opinion, be good. It was essen1 that the American race should be cable of intense labor and intense ambin if it was to develop its vast country, t one result has been haste, overwork, ise, all of which is bad for the nerves. 2022 America will have made her forae and will he enjoying it as well as she n. I think that she will be a happier counr than she is to-day. The appeal of alth will be less because wealth II be difficult to attain, so those aericans to come will be producing in t and literature infinitely more than they e producing to-day. To-day, in fiction, ? aerlca leads the world by sincerity, tli and fearlessness, hut the American vel of significance is a novel of revolt alnst the thralls of money, of convenn anrl of puritanism. In 2022 Ameriran srature will be a literature of culture, e battle will he over and the muzzle There will be no more things one n't say, and things one can't think No ubt there will be In 2022 people who nk as they would have thought in 1022, even a little earlier, but a great liberaln of mind will prevail, rt is not my business to corgrat ilat" > future, and I have no desire to do so. It Is impossible to say a thing Is good bad; all one can say is that it exists, it in case some of my readers feel relsion when they contemplate my lunch Is or my nationalized railroads, to those vould say that they are perhaps unduly xious. The world takes care of Itself; has been doing so for hundreds of cen ries nnri is still spinning; tne worm win te care of Itsplf In 2022: that Is Its chlpf r-upatlon. Morp than that. I fppl conlcpd that though thp world may Iosp icps, It will dpvolop othpr grarps, that the wholp. and as timp goes on. man id grows more intelligent, more amiable d more honpst. rhp fnturp will bp difficult: what dops it mattpr? So was thp past difficult: flcultlps did not prevent Its turning into tolerable preser^.
Somehow ironically the writer of that article, W L George, died 4 years later aged 43 on "pneumonia and heart failure" and "had been ill from the last twelve months" [0].
It reads like a high-school assignment in which "100 years from now" is entirely used as a narrative device and the author with his literary skill set kind of seemed bored with it and wants to just get over with.
He basically mirrows the sentiment of his time by extrapolating - with hardly any spin of his own - the low hanging fruits: new rays, wireless technology, movies with sound & color, ease of housework (compressed papier mache: Ikea?), community dwellings, "servant problem", everything you need in a pill, city roofed with glass (his own spin?) ...
His view that 1822 (Jefferson) is more dissimilar to 1922 than 2022 will be to 1922 (for a little girl) is weirdly off. He does not go into detail as to why and in which fundamental ways.
"The more we discover the less is left" seems even more absurd and goes contrary to the open-endedness of the scientific inquiry (which he praised beforehand): "the more we discover the more questions arise".
Finally when turning to political issues his narrating device serves only to illuminate his own (political/societal) views: emanicaption of women (from 20.000 years of slavery), tendency for socializations (not socialism!), (unconscious) nationalizing of important industries, "Anti-Trust Acts" in which the State limits profits and arbitrages between industries and workers, international trade in the hands of "controlled combines" (globalization) as a pacifying force, political conditions (nations) as a driver for war. Well, as a witness to WWI, WWII surely had to be "horrible beyond my conception".
The potential of America to immense wealth ("most enterprising creature") away from a euro-centric (and partly his feminist views) are imho his most refreshing views.
As a necessary flattery for the reader he goes on to predict an american flowering in literature and arts ("infinitely more than they are producing today" sounds more like an insult by an Englishman ;)).
And by ending with "there will be no more things one can't say and things one can't think" and "a great liberalism of mind will prevail" I can only reply 100 years later with Goethe's 200 years old Wahlverwandschaften[1] and one prominent slogan of Occupy Wall Street: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
("Niemand ist mehr Sklave, als der sich für frei hält, ohne es zu sein")
[0]http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS19260408.2.125...
[1]http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Goethe,+Johann+Wolfgang/Roma...
It reads like a high-school assignment in which "100 years from now" is entirely used as a narrative device and the author with his literary skill set kind of seemed bored with it and wants to just get over with.
He basically mirrows the sentiment of his time by extrapolating - with hardly any spin of his own - the low hanging fruits: new rays, wireless technology, movies with sound & color, ease of housework (compressed papier mache: Ikea?), community dwellings, "servant problem", everything you need in a pill, city roofed with glass (his own spin?) ...
His view that 1822 (Jefferson) is more dissimilar to 1922 than 2022 will be to 1922 (for a little girl) is weirdly off. He does not go into detail as to why and in which fundamental ways.
"The more we discover the less is left" seems even more absurd and goes contrary to the open-endedness of the scientific inquiry (which he praised beforehand): "the more we discover the more questions arise".
Finally when turning to political issues his narrating device serves only to illuminate his own (political/societal) views: emanicaption of women (from 20.000 years of slavery), tendency for socializations (not socialism!), (unconscious) nationalizing of important industries, "Anti-Trust Acts" in which the State limits profits and arbitrages between industries and workers, international trade in the hands of "controlled combines" (globalization) as a pacifying force, political conditions (nations) as a driver for war. Well, as a witness to WWI, WWII surely had to be "horrible beyond my conception".
The potential of America to immense wealth ("most enterprising creature") away from a euro-centric (and partly his feminist views) are imho his most refreshing views.
As a necessary flattery for the reader he goes on to predict an american flowering in literature and arts ("infinitely more than they are producing today" sounds more like an insult by an Englishman ;)).
And by ending with "there will be no more things one can't say and things one can't think" and "a great liberalism of mind will prevail" I can only reply 100 years later with Goethe's 200 years old Wahlverwandschaften[1] and one prominent slogan of Occupy Wall Street: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
("Niemand ist mehr Sklave, als der sich für frei hält, ohne es zu sein")
[0]http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS19260408.2.125...
[1]http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Goethe,+Johann+Wolfgang/Roma...
[deleted]
I am convinced that in 2022 the advancement of science will be
amazing, but it will be nothing like so amazing as is the
present day in relation to a hundred years ago.
A sight of the world today would surprise President Jefferson
much more, I suspect, than the world of 2022 would surprise
the little girl who sells candies at Grand Central Station.
From a technological perspective, I'm not sure they're wrong? 1922 had railways and cars and mass transit which had already started increasing urbanisation vs 1822, skyscrapers were already being built, passenger air travel was a go, telephones and electricity existed in cities.
The internet and computing is certainly a big shift, but from a visible changes to the world perspective I think 2022 is more alike 1922 than 1922 was alike 1822.
The internet and computing is certainly a big shift, but from a visible changes to the world perspective I think 2022 is more alike 1922 than 1922 was alike 1822.
> The internet and computing is certainly a big shift, but from a visible changes to the world perspective I think 2022 is more alike 1922 than 1922 was alike 1822.
Lolwat? Handheld devices that have the power to process millions of calculations a sec, to record Ultra HD videos, to establish a video conference instantaniously with anyone in the whole world.
Thousands of satellites that orbit the earth constantly. Space missions that are already flying past the limits of our galaxy.
Bio-mechanical organs, giving the crippled back the ability to walk, the blind the ability to see, the deaf to hear.
Welp, I do think that technological progress has been growing at a logarithmic rate, and it's probably keep growing at that pace...
I think the one point in which the author was super correct is, when he says that the progress will be made on technology, rather than the "emotion that arises between a man and a maid" - as I understand it, emotional intelligence - , which will remain stagnant.
Lolwat? Handheld devices that have the power to process millions of calculations a sec, to record Ultra HD videos, to establish a video conference instantaniously with anyone in the whole world.
Thousands of satellites that orbit the earth constantly. Space missions that are already flying past the limits of our galaxy.
Bio-mechanical organs, giving the crippled back the ability to walk, the blind the ability to see, the deaf to hear.
Welp, I do think that technological progress has been growing at a logarithmic rate, and it's probably keep growing at that pace...
I think the one point in which the author was super correct is, when he says that the progress will be made on technology, rather than the "emotion that arises between a man and a maid" - as I understand it, emotional intelligence - , which will remain stagnant.
They had radio and video cameras in 1922, I don't think facetime would be all that shocking. 1822 had neither telephone nor electric light. Steam trains were just getting started; by 1922 they were running regular service at over 100 mph.
Evidently its debatable which century saw more change, from sailboats to Titanic, or gunpowder rockets to Apollo... certainly there have always been cynics and dreamers...
edit: GPS would be pretty shocking to either, I expect
Evidently its debatable which century saw more change, from sailboats to Titanic, or gunpowder rockets to Apollo... certainly there have always been cynics and dreamers...
edit: GPS would be pretty shocking to either, I expect
> Lolwat? Handheld devices that have the power to process millions of calculations a sec, to record Ultra HD videos, to establish a video conference instantaniously with anyone in the whole world.
These are a different in quality more so than a different in kind. In 1922 you could already talk to someone 100s of miles away via the telephone. In 1822 you couldn't. And getting there was going to take weeks. So you basically couldn't talk to people long distance unless you were rich or important.
> Thousands of satellites that orbit the earth constantly. Space missions that are already flying past the limits of our galaxy.
Means rather than an end here. Google Maps is neat and convenient, but again, you _could_ use paper maps for much of what people use google maps for. And large paper mapping schemes (e.g. ordnance survey maps in countries of the british empire) were carried out in the 19th century and WW1. Communications could also be done, albeit more expensively. Space missions are still currently in the scientific curiosity stage, rather than impacting people's lives, but who knows maybe commercial near earth space missions end up being the one people get to to talk about for 2022-2122.
> Bio-mechanical organs, giving the crippled back the ability to walk, the blind the ability to see, the deaf to hear.
These are technically more accomplished achievements for sure, but I'm not sure they have the same sort of societal impacts as initiatives against cholera and tubercolosis of the late 19th century. Vaccination is probably the 20th century achievement to call out here.
These are a different in quality more so than a different in kind. In 1922 you could already talk to someone 100s of miles away via the telephone. In 1822 you couldn't. And getting there was going to take weeks. So you basically couldn't talk to people long distance unless you were rich or important.
> Thousands of satellites that orbit the earth constantly. Space missions that are already flying past the limits of our galaxy.
Means rather than an end here. Google Maps is neat and convenient, but again, you _could_ use paper maps for much of what people use google maps for. And large paper mapping schemes (e.g. ordnance survey maps in countries of the british empire) were carried out in the 19th century and WW1. Communications could also be done, albeit more expensively. Space missions are still currently in the scientific curiosity stage, rather than impacting people's lives, but who knows maybe commercial near earth space missions end up being the one people get to to talk about for 2022-2122.
> Bio-mechanical organs, giving the crippled back the ability to walk, the blind the ability to see, the deaf to hear.
These are technically more accomplished achievements for sure, but I'm not sure they have the same sort of societal impacts as initiatives against cholera and tubercolosis of the late 19th century. Vaccination is probably the 20th century achievement to call out here.
> These are a different in quality more so than a different in kind.
Sometimes the difference in quality is smaller. Communication by mail could have a cadence reminiscent of email, for example:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/24089/victorian-mail-del...
Sometimes the difference in quality is smaller. Communication by mail could have a cadence reminiscent of email, for example:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/24089/victorian-mail-del...
The keyword here is “visible”; for most of these things, though the change is real, it is also easily missed, with the exception of, as you say, thousands of satellites that orbit the earth constantly (space missions are not however already flying past the limits of our galaxy, they’re just about reaching the heliopause; even just leaving the plane of the Galaxy is 200,000 times further than that, while leaving the rim of the Galaxy is about 12 million times further).
Video conferencing worldwide? If you draw attention to it, I suspect it would’ve surprised 1922 people that anyone richer than a literal subsistence farmer would also have a device of their own for the other end of the call, but the existence of the technology itself would not be surprising.
For visible changes between 1922 and 2022? New materials, new lighting, new fashion, drones, the public acceptability of same-sex relationships, race relations (in particular attitudes to those of pre-Colombian, African, and Chinese descent), and possibly also visible might be the absence of disfiguring illnesses that we have now vaccinated against.
But those are likely less than the changes from 1822 to 1922.
(The Blue Marble, or the photos of astronauts walking on the moon… I don’t know if those would’ve been shocking or not. Jules Verne died in 1905).
Video conferencing worldwide? If you draw attention to it, I suspect it would’ve surprised 1922 people that anyone richer than a literal subsistence farmer would also have a device of their own for the other end of the call, but the existence of the technology itself would not be surprising.
For visible changes between 1922 and 2022? New materials, new lighting, new fashion, drones, the public acceptability of same-sex relationships, race relations (in particular attitudes to those of pre-Colombian, African, and Chinese descent), and possibly also visible might be the absence of disfiguring illnesses that we have now vaccinated against.
But those are likely less than the changes from 1822 to 1922.
(The Blue Marble, or the photos of astronauts walking on the moon… I don’t know if those would’ve been shocking or not. Jules Verne died in 1905).
Hubris? I think he was right, and that the world of 1822 was more different from 1922 than 1922 is to now. Computers seem to be the primary novel invention in the last hundred years, but long-distance data transfer was normal - and the fax machine sending pictures was overseas was just two years away (1924).
1822 was a horse-drawn, gas-lit world that was in many ways the same as it had been for millennia. 1922 was a world where rapid transportation (planes , trains, and automobiles),recorded images and sounds, electric light, radio broadcasts and instantaneous intercontinental communication.
1822 was a horse-drawn, gas-lit world that was in many ways the same as it had been for millennia. 1922 was a world where rapid transportation (planes , trains, and automobiles),recorded images and sounds, electric light, radio broadcasts and instantaneous intercontinental communication.
Of all the science fiction things that I knew when I was a kid in the 90s, only one actually happened, and that's handheld devices with touchscreens with all the world's information accessible through them.
Many others, like humanoid robots (that can do actual stuff like independently clean a home), general AI, actual real space travel (where people live on different planets or giant space wheels), flying cars, replicators, fusion energy, self driving cars (those are near though), brain uploads, nanobots, curing many diseases, etc... didn't happen and won't any time soon, and of course some are physically impossible like FTL travel, teleportation, time travel, ...
It's at least nice to have seen one science fiction fantasy come true so far :)
Many others, like humanoid robots (that can do actual stuff like independently clean a home), general AI, actual real space travel (where people live on different planets or giant space wheels), flying cars, replicators, fusion energy, self driving cars (those are near though), brain uploads, nanobots, curing many diseases, etc... didn't happen and won't any time soon, and of course some are physically impossible like FTL travel, teleportation, time travel, ...
It's at least nice to have seen one science fiction fantasy come true so far :)
As always, when this kind of things come up, I'd like to mention "Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit" (2012), by the late David Graeber. There's a reason late 20th and early 21st century technological development went the way it did, rather than the way it looked like it would from the mid 20th century.
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declini...
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declini...
"1822 was a horse-drawn, gas-lit world"
In fact, gas light was bleeding edge tech in 1822 - confined to a few parts of cities like London and Baltimore. The New York City gas company was only chartered in 1823. Chicago didn't get gas light until 1850.
Whale oil was still a significant source of illumination right through the 19th century, especially in the US.
In fact, gas light was bleeding edge tech in 1822 - confined to a few parts of cities like London and Baltimore. The New York City gas company was only chartered in 1823. Chicago didn't get gas light until 1850.
Whale oil was still a significant source of illumination right through the 19th century, especially in the US.
> but long-distance data transfer was normal - and the fax machine sending pictures was overseas was just two years away (1924).
"Quantity has a quality all its own"
-Joseph Stalin
Saying the fax let us move information long distance is like saying global trade was around in the middle ages because Macro Polo. The quantity difference is so big it becomes a qualitative difference.
I can arrange to have an arbitrary industrial doodad show up on my doorstep from literally the other side of the world while taking a shit. I can stream 1080p to/from damn near anywhere on the planet. In 30sec I can get answers to specific technical questions that would have taken hours for the president of the US to get an answer to in 1990. The list goes on. Communication and information are just so much more abundant than they were even 75yr ago.
"Quantity has a quality all its own"
-Joseph Stalin
Saying the fax let us move information long distance is like saying global trade was around in the middle ages because Macro Polo. The quantity difference is so big it becomes a qualitative difference.
I can arrange to have an arbitrary industrial doodad show up on my doorstep from literally the other side of the world while taking a shit. I can stream 1080p to/from damn near anywhere on the planet. In 30sec I can get answers to specific technical questions that would have taken hours for the president of the US to get an answer to in 1990. The list goes on. Communication and information are just so much more abundant than they were even 75yr ago.
I get what you're saying, but I think I disagree. Ordering on Amazon from your phone is a much faster experience that reaches more products, but it is an analogue to mailing in an order from the Sears catalog. I don't think there's an 1822 analogue to the Sears catalog.
And the quote was about "surprise". I don't think it'd be a complete shock to see that the world got more connected, ordering became easier, deliveries became faster. In 1822 the railroad was very much still in its early stages; the Erie Canal had just been completed, the Pony Express and the telegraph were still almost 40 years away.
Put differently, a lot of "0 to 1" stuff had happened by 1922.
And the quote was about "surprise". I don't think it'd be a complete shock to see that the world got more connected, ordering became easier, deliveries became faster. In 1822 the railroad was very much still in its early stages; the Erie Canal had just been completed, the Pony Express and the telegraph were still almost 40 years away.
Put differently, a lot of "0 to 1" stuff had happened by 1922.
>Put differently, a lot of "0 to 1" stuff had happened by 1922.
How much of that 0-1 is stuff that existed in some niche or experimental capacity prior to 1822 but simply became possible at scale?
We had writing for millennia but the printing press changed the world.
We've had steel for millennia but the Bessemer process changed the world.
We've always been able to send information long distances but digital communications changed the world.
You can always pick whatever specific innovations you want as the 0-1 transition point but it's the widespread availability of something that changes the world.
How much of that 0-1 is stuff that existed in some niche or experimental capacity prior to 1822 but simply became possible at scale?
We had writing for millennia but the printing press changed the world.
We've had steel for millennia but the Bessemer process changed the world.
We've always been able to send information long distances but digital communications changed the world.
You can always pick whatever specific innovations you want as the 0-1 transition point but it's the widespread availability of something that changes the world.
I don't think I disagree with your point, I just think that your point doesn't speak to the "who would be more surprised" question. And, thinking about it, maybe 0-1 wasn't a good way for me to make that case.
To order something from Amazon from your toilet, you need
- indoor plumbing
- computing
- electricity
- industrialized mass production
- global connectivity
- global transportation network
Someone in 1922 could imagine a telephone in a bathroom that could be used to contact a Sears-like company to order a mass-produced product and have it delivered from a faraway place.
In 1822 you barely have the idea of industrialization and electricity, let alone anything else. "Write a letter from your cesspit to have a product from St. Louis delivered to New York, but your letter is instantly delivered instead of taking six weeks, production is faster and cheaper than your local craftsman (it's not being made to order!), and instead of taking six weeks to ship it, it takes two days (2022) or a week(?) (1922)." It's not just that the same kind of thing is happening at a grander scale, it requires a fundamental reorientation of how you'd think about consuming products.
So yeah, Amazon's scale in 2022 is astronomically greater than Sears's in 1922 and that is significant, but they share way more fundamentals than 1822 and 1922 did.
To order something from Amazon from your toilet, you need
- indoor plumbing
- computing
- electricity
- industrialized mass production
- global connectivity
- global transportation network
Someone in 1922 could imagine a telephone in a bathroom that could be used to contact a Sears-like company to order a mass-produced product and have it delivered from a faraway place.
In 1822 you barely have the idea of industrialization and electricity, let alone anything else. "Write a letter from your cesspit to have a product from St. Louis delivered to New York, but your letter is instantly delivered instead of taking six weeks, production is faster and cheaper than your local craftsman (it's not being made to order!), and instead of taking six weeks to ship it, it takes two days (2022) or a week(?) (1922)." It's not just that the same kind of thing is happening at a grander scale, it requires a fundamental reorientation of how you'd think about consuming products.
So yeah, Amazon's scale in 2022 is astronomically greater than Sears's in 1922 and that is significant, but they share way more fundamentals than 1822 and 1922 did.
Hubris yes, but perhaps not wrong. I'm not sure if the progress between 1922-2022 was as significant as the progress between 1822-1922. These are two 100-year periods of immense progress.
Have in mind that he's referring to the 100 yr period that brought us cars, airplanes, railroads, telephones, light bulbs, electricity, electromagnetism, relativity, evolution, etc.
Have in mind that he's referring to the 100 yr period that brought us cars, airplanes, railroads, telephones, light bulbs, electricity, electromagnetism, relativity, evolution, etc.
Yep.
Penicilin,
Heart transplants,
Supersonic travel.
Nuclear power,
Nuclear weapons,
Nuclear naval propulsion.
Space exploration.
Artificial Satellites,
GPS,
Succesful cancer treatments,
NMR and other imaging diagnostic tools.
Wireless bi-directional personal television (the 20's name for making a zoom call from your phone).
And the list goes on.
Do any of those even come close to 1822-1922 changes of aviation, global telecommumications, ubiquitous electricity, cars, Quantum Mechanics, and so on? Space exploration, nuclear propulsion and satellites are great, but their impact on people’s daily lives is far smaller than the above, imo.
I think the author was largely correct.
I think the author was largely correct.
How not? Penicilin alone has a giant impact on the lives of people. What about anti-conceptionals too.
So did (even to a greater effect) the doctors washing their hands. Between 1822-1922, only in Physics humanity discovered/developed, the laws of Electromagnetism, the laws of Thermodynamics and their microscopic extension: Statistical Mechanics, the special theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and the General theory of relativity.
The last 100 years have been about doing things in large quantities in a cheaper, faster way. Of course there has been great progress (the era of the PC/Internet by far the most important one) but the rate is significantly lower.
The last 100 years have been about doing things in large quantities in a cheaper, faster way. Of course there has been great progress (the era of the PC/Internet by far the most important one) but the rate is significantly lower.
Personal Computers (and smartphones, etc) are the largest change by far.
They are definitely the biggest change in the past century and on par with those big innovations I mentioned, so I wouldn’t want to undersell them as they’ve been a major disruptive change to most / all fields.
However, they wouldn’t exactly be incomprehensible to someone from the early 1900’s, since they already had the telegraph, telephony, and fax machines which could send pictures over a long distance came very soon after this article was written.
Whereas I think a person from the early 1800’s would genuinely struggle with understanding the modern world.
However, they wouldn’t exactly be incomprehensible to someone from the early 1900’s, since they already had the telegraph, telephony, and fax machines which could send pictures over a long distance came very soon after this article was written.
Whereas I think a person from the early 1800’s would genuinely struggle with understanding the modern world.
In my earlier reply to GP, I had forgotten about space exploration, and I think that is a major technological advancement that would amaze someone from 1922. However, I still think that someone from 1922 would expect such things of 2022 in a way that someone from 1822 would not expect of 1922. 1822 - 1922 is the difference between being a barely-technological world to being a fully-blown one, in many, many fields.
Modern medicin would be nothing short of miraculous from the eyes of someone from 1920.
Ditto 1922 medicine compared to 1822.
I wouldn't call it hubris but lack of universal knowledge of the exponential nature of development. That was before I saw the universal lack of just this comprehension in the comments.
What people may mean is that a jump from 10^5 to 10^6 can feel bigger than a jump from 10^6 to 10^7? And that we are more surprised by large things than by some small piece of 'magical paper' which can completely change its display at will.
What people may mean is that a jump from 10^5 to 10^6 can feel bigger than a jump from 10^6 to 10^7? And that we are more surprised by large things than by some small piece of 'magical paper' which can completely change its display at will.
[deleted]
I kinda feel like this will be true in the next 100 years though (2122).
Yep, bet on an unchanging human nature,keeping things from the past around, some social progress in certain areas but not as fast as you would like it and that the world of 2122 will be less alien to a 2022 person than the 2022 world to a 1922 person.
Especially with regards to this passage::
"In 2022 [economic development] will be as finished as it is to-day in England. American wealth will then be either developed or known, and all of it will belong to somebody. There will be no more opportunity in America than there is in England to-day. Those Americans will know that it is practically certain that they will die much in the same position as the ones in which they were born. Those Americans will therefore be less enterprising and much more pleasure loving. They will have rebelled against long hours; the chances are that in 2022 few people will work more than seven hours a day, if as much.
The effects of this, which I am sure sounds regrettable to many of my readers, will, in my opinion, be good. It was essential that the American race should be capable of intense labor and intense ambition if it was to develop its vast country. But one result has been haste, overwork, noise, all of which is bad for the nerves. In 2022 America will have made her fortune and will be enjoying it as well as she can."