New here. I’m glad to see more people talking about scale/scope. Erik, I recommend you read up on Elinor and Vincent Ostrom and their work on Polycentricity. I find them increasingly prescient.
What if the cost of energy approaches close to zero (in the future) and AI begins to generate and execute ideas and improvements at an non-human rate? Do you think this perspective on balance and how to achieve it would shift. Do we then need the delicate balance of pushing people for excellence (so we get progress today) while not letting down large swatches of people?
Agreed. It was a bad sentence, and my thought was that he was inferring a relationship between the ethic of “love your neighbor as yourself” and the communitarian nature of the early church, with Soviet style communism, which killed 100 million people in its 65 year lifespan. A sloppy sentence in an otherwise compelling article.
Erik - I think you said it best: “ We don’t want to go back to a pre-Christian society: A society that only cares about strength is terrible for most of its people. “ My thought is that Christianity flourished in the Roman Empire, because until then, society was organized around power, and strength and enforced by state violence. Individual identities were subsumed by their group membership and defined them for life. Christianity was an idea based on love, the worth of the individual and the centrality of the person outside of their group membership. As Paul said, “There is neither slave or free person” in the Christian worldview. Both are sinners in need of grace. This was egalitarianism held together by a common bond of love. People chose to opt into this tribe, which was inlaid with a powerful set of values and principles that they organized around. This is probably not the best way to organize a nation, but at the tribal and family level, a potent combination.
“ However, we also don't want a society that runs entirely on Christian ethics. The Soviets tried that. Didn't work. ”.. not sure I’m getting this one. Which Christian ethics did they run on?
The same Christian ethics as the Levelers in England or the myriad of Christian movements and groups that have spouted up since the church began insisting on some form of essentially communism and usually end up being enforced by some authoritarian power.
You can call all of these heresies and I won't disagree, but its a pattern.
But social insurance only works in societies that are relatively homogenous and egalitarian (of ability).
I think that "broaden the franchise and human rights" was pretty much always the correct play in the western world for basically a millennia in terms of strengthening society, the people, and the state, but that it reached diminishing returns sometime after WW2 and especially when you consider globalization.
New here. I’m glad to see more people talking about scale/scope. Erik, I recommend you read up on Elinor and Vincent Ostrom and their work on Polycentricity. I find them increasingly prescient.
What if the cost of energy approaches close to zero (in the future) and AI begins to generate and execute ideas and improvements at an non-human rate? Do you think this perspective on balance and how to achieve it would shift. Do we then need the delicate balance of pushing people for excellence (so we get progress today) while not letting down large swatches of people?
"a society that runs entirely on Christian ethics. The Soviets tried that". What?? No, they didn't. Not even close.
Agreed. It was a bad sentence, and my thought was that he was inferring a relationship between the ethic of “love your neighbor as yourself” and the communitarian nature of the early church, with Soviet style communism, which killed 100 million people in its 65 year lifespan. A sloppy sentence in an otherwise compelling article.
Yes Josh that's what I meant, and I agree it was sloppy. I explain the logic here towards the end: https://eriktorenberg.substack.com/p/were-more-christian-than-we-know. Of course it was a bastardization of Christian ethics, not the original thing.
Erik - I think you said it best: “ We don’t want to go back to a pre-Christian society: A society that only cares about strength is terrible for most of its people. “ My thought is that Christianity flourished in the Roman Empire, because until then, society was organized around power, and strength and enforced by state violence. Individual identities were subsumed by their group membership and defined them for life. Christianity was an idea based on love, the worth of the individual and the centrality of the person outside of their group membership. As Paul said, “There is neither slave or free person” in the Christian worldview. Both are sinners in need of grace. This was egalitarianism held together by a common bond of love. People chose to opt into this tribe, which was inlaid with a powerful set of values and principles that they organized around. This is probably not the best way to organize a nation, but at the tribal and family level, a potent combination.
“ However, we also don't want a society that runs entirely on Christian ethics. The Soviets tried that. Didn't work. ”.. not sure I’m getting this one. Which Christian ethics did they run on?
The same Christian ethics as the Levelers in England or the myriad of Christian movements and groups that have spouted up since the church began insisting on some form of essentially communism and usually end up being enforced by some authoritarian power.
You can call all of these heresies and I won't disagree, but its a pattern.
People like social insurance but not welfare.
But social insurance only works in societies that are relatively homogenous and egalitarian (of ability).
I think that "broaden the franchise and human rights" was pretty much always the correct play in the western world for basically a millennia in terms of strengthening society, the people, and the state, but that it reached diminishing returns sometime after WW2 and especially when you consider globalization.