Thanks for speaking on our behalf, but I think most accelerationists know a societal collapse has consequences. We're just OK with suffering for 50 years so that future generations can prosper
We're just OK with suffering for 50 years so that future generations can prosper
Correction: You're OK with inflicting widespread suffering and death, especially on the most vulnerable, for the faith-based belief that, contrary to historical evidence, it will result in a society more aligned with your ideological utopia.
You presented no signs of deep. You're relying on logical fallacies like Survivorship bias, where you assume society will re-emerge. There is no logical reason that would force societal collapse to follow previous patterns.
You're okay with 50 years of widespread suffering to maybe have any society. But not okay with paying increased monthly taxes to guarantee a stable society.
FYI, there are accelerationists on both sides. The ones on the left are just unwitting allies of those on the right because their ideology is founded upon the belief that, contrary to all historical data, pushing society to a more miserable place will magically result in widespread class consciousness and a workers' revolution.
This is something that has never happened in any major way in recorded human history and never because of intentional suffering. Generally, the historical results have been genocide and/or centuries of oppression.
I've noticed that many of these cruel and reactionary ideologies are not based in any historical data nor science. This is used to be called hysteria.
They still haven't answered either; so I can only assume they did not realize the contradiction between accelerationism and paying more taxes. Sad times we live in.
In Europe, feudalism lasted 600 years last time, and only ended because a plague loosened up the nobility's power over peasants. Vestiges of that old system endured in some parts of Europe for another 200 years after that, too.
In some neofeudalist future, where the lords and nobles have access to incredibly invasive technology for monitoring the thoughts and actions of all people, for controlling even more links in the chain of the production of food or tools or weapons, that power structure may turn out to be even more entrenched than the last time around. It's not far fetched to say that the next time strictly inherited class comes around, it becomes a permanent feature of all societies that follow.
To add, the Junkers in Germany were the party of the old aristocrats. The last Junker to do anything of note was Von Hindenburg, who gave Hitler the chancellorship. Been completely irrelevant on both ends of Germany ever since.
Because you think you’ll ’endure the pain’ and then get to ‘build a better system’.
But better odds are you’ll just die early on, and the system you dream of will never come to pass. You have gambling brain. ‘We’ll totally win next time! Just got to start over one more time!’
It reminds me too much of these moments in RTS games, or Sim City, that time you got hit hard and you have to rebuild, but don't have resources to build, but to get more resources you need to build infrastructure. It can take so long to get out of that rut, and that's of you don't get hit by another calamity.
Sometimes I think any policy maker should play a game of old school Sim City 2000 and we can all see how they do before we vote for them.
The problem is realism. Sim City would teach you that a village of 150 people will absolutely grow into a thriving city because that's the simple premise of the game - it's a citybuilder - but that's not how real life works. They could play increasingly more complex simulation games like Democracy 3, and it would still fail to be a realistic look at the complexities of modern society.
I'd also argue the opposite lesson is usually learned from games, because most gamers don't play on "hardcore" mode - and those that do play hardcore can still always reroll or /ff to start another game or even just touch grass and stop playing the game. Playing God doesn't reinforce empathy.
Good policy needs to balance a clinical approach against empathetic concerns. My advice to policy makers would be reading books like "Cities and the Wealth of Nations" by Jane Jacobs and learning from modern experts and non-profit advocates like Strong Towns. They should be looking to peers for success stories to emulate and for failures to avoid.
Everyone is so used to consuming news not necessarily as entertainment but as background hum or as ammunition to confirm their ideology or dispel another. This isn't wrong per se, but I think the consequence of constant barrage of war, disaster, tragedy, corporate abuse, political abuse at home and abroad desensitizes people to the possibility that these things can happen to them tomorrow right outside their front door.
They're so used to the idea that theoretically the government has always been able to do whatever it wants to you they don't realize how viscerally real it is that now they can do it without making excuses or cover ups, or under any pretense, and not only will no one do anything but millions will support the regime while you're black bagged without due process. Authoritarian violence in America was always bad, but at least there had to be an excuse, a judicial system set up to defend cops who lie and say they felt threatened. Soon they will be brazen enough to snatch you up without pretense of a crime, without anyone knowing and without needing to explain themselves
They don't realize how viscerally bad it will be for them when war breaks out no matter which side of that war they are on. Accelerationists are fucking clowns and they are not prepared for the world they've been jerking off to.