Faith in mass democracy has little basis in history. The term "ship of state" is well know; the origin is not. It's Plato's criticism of mass democracy.
Paraphrasing: "Democracy is like the crew of a ship, who having mutinied and locked the Captain in his cabin, is now fighting over who has control of the tiller, despite none of them having the slightest navigational training."
The founders of the country were equally disdainful of mass democracy, opting to enfranchise only white, male, landowners. That's an oligarchy.
"I’m going to experiment with putting some random thoughts into a comment on the post.... I’m curious to know if you think that’s where they belong. Or if I should create another section “Interesting Bits” or something like that for my reviews. Or if they should be a footnote or something else."
From an exposure point of view, they belong in a note that links to the main post. That seems to be a good way to get exposure here.
Actually, you can make a comment also share to notes; there's your ticket.
"Once you can accumulate resources, you have the potential for inequality, because one person can have more resources stored than another. Kemp argues that this creates the potential for dominance hierarchies, as greater resources translates into greater power, which allows you to get more resources, and even more power, and so on, spiraling upward."
Yeah, but you can also survive winter.
"And perhaps it’s possible to mobilize on the scale of World War II in such a way that inequality is reduced, but without needing an existential threat. But that’s not the way to bet."
There's always the Ozymandias gambit, eh? (From the comic Watchmen, where a superhero concocts an existential crisis to bring the world together)
But I like the "Kaynes vs Hayek" rap battle rebuttal: "If every citizen was employed in the army and fleet, we'd have full employment, but nothing to eat." For me, inequality is much less important than what I have, and I don't care to drag anyone down below my level even if some fall further.
Indeed, storable resources could be looted, but they also allowed a lot of things that would be difficult to do otherwise. It's a complicated situation.
Ever since William James people have been trying to get the benefits of war without its downsides through the "moral equivalent" of war (e.g. Peace Corps) so far it has been hard to do, but maybe something like the Ozymandias plan would work.
Perhaps if people were more religious, they would be less invested in secular wealth (material wealth and societal advantage) and wouldn't care as much about inequality. Does Kemp talk about religion in this role?
Kemp views religion as a something that increases inequality when times when the civilization is on it's way up, and a way of creating resilience during times of collapse. So I would say mostly he doesn't think religion plays the role you envision for it.
Should democratic methods work to reduce inequality Kemp has some ideas for the kinds of laws the people might pass. These include things like capping wealth at $10 million, capping salaries at 5x the lowest salary in a company, a comprehensive debt jubilee, and a tax rate of 90%.
Speaking of the 90% tax rate he mentions that from 1944 to 1963 “The US had an income tax of above 90 per cent on the highest earners”. (He should say the highest bracket was 90%). This is a frequent talking point of people with a socialist bent, and it’s designed to be misleading, because the effective tax, once you account for deductions and other methods of mitigation, was not that much higher than it is now. Perhaps he knew this and decided to leave it out, but it makes me question much of the rest of what he says.
He offers many examples in support of the idea that democracy is going to be better at solving problems. One is the wisdom of the crowds idea, that when asked to estimate the weight of an ox or the number of jellybeans in a jar, that people are remarkably accurate. I’m not sure that transfers as well to solving the existential problems of civilizations as you think. He also asserts that if the jury of the public had been in charge of deciding whether to conduct the Trinity Test, they might have decided it the other way. Instead it was decided by the scientists (who stand in for technocrats) who despite the very slight danger of setting the atmosphere on fire, went ahead with it anyway.
Faith in mass democracy has little basis in history. The term "ship of state" is well know; the origin is not. It's Plato's criticism of mass democracy.
Paraphrasing: "Democracy is like the crew of a ship, who having mutinied and locked the Captain in his cabin, is now fighting over who has control of the tiller, despite none of them having the slightest navigational training."
The founders of the country were equally disdainful of mass democracy, opting to enfranchise only white, male, landowners. That's an oligarchy.
"I’m going to experiment with putting some random thoughts into a comment on the post.... I’m curious to know if you think that’s where they belong. Or if I should create another section “Interesting Bits” or something like that for my reviews. Or if they should be a footnote or something else."
From an exposure point of view, they belong in a note that links to the main post. That seems to be a good way to get exposure here.
Actually, you can make a comment also share to notes; there's your ticket.
Two birds with one stone. That's a good idea.
"Once you can accumulate resources, you have the potential for inequality, because one person can have more resources stored than another. Kemp argues that this creates the potential for dominance hierarchies, as greater resources translates into greater power, which allows you to get more resources, and even more power, and so on, spiraling upward."
Yeah, but you can also survive winter.
"And perhaps it’s possible to mobilize on the scale of World War II in such a way that inequality is reduced, but without needing an existential threat. But that’s not the way to bet."
There's always the Ozymandias gambit, eh? (From the comic Watchmen, where a superhero concocts an existential crisis to bring the world together)
But I like the "Kaynes vs Hayek" rap battle rebuttal: "If every citizen was employed in the army and fleet, we'd have full employment, but nothing to eat." For me, inequality is much less important than what I have, and I don't care to drag anyone down below my level even if some fall further.
Indeed, storable resources could be looted, but they also allowed a lot of things that would be difficult to do otherwise. It's a complicated situation.
Ever since William James people have been trying to get the benefits of war without its downsides through the "moral equivalent" of war (e.g. Peace Corps) so far it has been hard to do, but maybe something like the Ozymandias plan would work.
Perhaps if people were more religious, they would be less invested in secular wealth (material wealth and societal advantage) and wouldn't care as much about inequality. Does Kemp talk about religion in this role?
Kemp views religion as a something that increases inequality when times when the civilization is on it's way up, and a way of creating resilience during times of collapse. So I would say mostly he doesn't think religion plays the role you envision for it.
Should democratic methods work to reduce inequality Kemp has some ideas for the kinds of laws the people might pass. These include things like capping wealth at $10 million, capping salaries at 5x the lowest salary in a company, a comprehensive debt jubilee, and a tax rate of 90%.
Speaking of the 90% tax rate he mentions that from 1944 to 1963 “The US had an income tax of above 90 per cent on the highest earners”. (He should say the highest bracket was 90%). This is a frequent talking point of people with a socialist bent, and it’s designed to be misleading, because the effective tax, once you account for deductions and other methods of mitigation, was not that much higher than it is now. Perhaps he knew this and decided to leave it out, but it makes me question much of the rest of what he says.
He’s one of the few authors in this subject area who mentions that Fermi’s Paradox is evidence that collapse is ubiquitous. Of course he has also fallen for the erroneous idea that the Paradox has been dissolved. (It has not, see this post: https://www.wearenotsaved.com/p/fermis-paradox-mistake-of-dramatic-timing-and-other-errors)
He offers many examples in support of the idea that democracy is going to be better at solving problems. One is the wisdom of the crowds idea, that when asked to estimate the weight of an ox or the number of jellybeans in a jar, that people are remarkably accurate. I’m not sure that transfers as well to solving the existential problems of civilizations as you think. He also asserts that if the jury of the public had been in charge of deciding whether to conduct the Trinity Test, they might have decided it the other way. Instead it was decided by the scientists (who stand in for technocrats) who despite the very slight danger of setting the atmosphere on fire, went ahead with it anyway.