I like that they chose microplastics and credit scores as the indicators of a failing system. I’m not entirely sure why but they seem more fitting than just about anything else despite the fact that they’re probably not the issues one would point to as the biggest problems we face. They feel relatively bland and yet overwhelming at the same time.
I feel like they point to our biggest issues, capitalism and killing the environment.
The idea that farming lead to more complex governments and consequently, greater inequality might be flawed. I recommend the book " The Dawn of Everything", which challenges this assumption.
It does make a lot of sense though.
It must be hard to form any society if all you do is hunt and gather and have no meaningful surplus.
Also I wouldn’t say that it’s a problem with inequality even if technically true. Society, centralization and teamwork of humanity has benefited our species immensely. I think that’s more important than “well technically it might be more inequality”.
Inequality is absolutely bad but we can’t simply ignore everything else that happened since.
Just because something makes sense doesn’t make it true. That is why I included the source which argues the point. Also, I am saying it might not be true. Honestly, I would more than happy to find a way to organise a govt that doesn’t involve trusting politicians or bureaucrats or dictators. The best place to find would be in the past, when the human societies might have experimented with ways to organise a govt.
Just because something makes sense doesn’t make it true. That is why I included the source which argues the point. Also, I am saying it might not be true.
Am not saying you are wrong or right, just that the commonly accepted theory makes a lot of sense.
Also it isn’t really reasonable to vaguely state something which is contrary to common knowledge and “cite”/recommend an entire 700 page book. Imo, you should at least make concrete statements which are possible to dispute and optimally include page numbers like Wikipedia most often does. But I understand that that is out of scope of a simple comment
Also I find it a bit weird when you want a government but without politicians. Doesn’t a government pretty much per definition need politicians or should the government be run like a company with a bunch of bosses or something?
But yeah it would absolutely be interesting to research how people did governments and everything else in the past. Historians
It definitely seems to me that surplus to do agriculture and industry creates all the spare time required to become a despot.
Computers and electronics are becoming advanced enough to where we can imagine what fully automating these things might look like. That we could probably get done the “the machines do everything we need for us and now we can spend our time painting or whatever” idea with what we have and know now. Hardening infrastructure will be the most fun part, making power lines and such ragnarok proof or self-repairing.
The problem is greed. While the human gene pool still contains people like Elon Musk, it will never be “the machines make everything we need so no one needs to worry,” it will be “They’re MY machines, they make things for ME, you don’t have any machines so you don’t deserve ANYTHING!” I’m sure this comment will be removed if I detail my solution to that problem.
I fucking hate farmers, man
All do is plant things on land that could be used to create perfectly good soulless housing estates, and a Lidl.