Category: modernism

Excess Deaths Attributable to Capitalism

Posted in economics, healthcare, modernism, morality, philosophy, politics, power, society, technologyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 6 Comments

A System Built on Exploitation and Neglect

Capitalism, often celebrated for its ability to generate wealth and innovation, also brings with it a darker legacy: the untold millions of lives prematurely lost due to its systemic failures. Capitalism can be attributed to more than 10 million excess deaths per year, and these numbers will continue to increase. These deaths are not simply unfortunate byproducts but are structurally baked into the system itself. Whether through poverty, healthcare inequality, environmental destruction, or war, capitalism’s logic of profit maximisation places human life at the mercy of market forces, with devastating consequences.

Audio: NotebookLM podcast on this topic.

Friedrich Engels famously referred to these preventable deaths as social murder, a term that highlights how capitalism creates conditions in which certain populations are systematically neglected, deprived, and ultimately destroyed. Today, Engels’ critique is more relevant than ever as we examine the staggering human toll that capitalism has left in its wake, often invisible in the glow of GDP figures and economic growth.

Poverty and Hunger: The Silent Killers

One of the most pervasive ways capitalism generates excess deaths is through poverty and hunger. Despite the extraordinary wealth produced by capitalist economies, millions still die from hunger-related causes every year. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), around 9 million people die annually from hunger and malnutrition, mostly in regions where capitalist-driven global inequality has made basic necessities unaffordable or inaccessible.[1]

Capitalism’s defenders often point to rising standards of living as evidence of the system’s success, but this narrative suffers from survivorship bias. The success stories of those who have benefited from capitalist growth obscure the countless lives that have been lost to the system’s structural inequalities. As Engels noted, these deaths are not natural or inevitable—they are preventable. They occur because the capitalist system concentrates wealth in the hands of a few while leaving vast populations to suffer without access to food, healthcare, or basic resources.

“For the dead, there is no measure of progress or rising standards; they are simply erased from the narrative.”

This disparity in wealth and access to resources creates a global system of social murder, where the deaths of the poor are written off as collateral damage in the pursuit of profit. These deaths are not merely unfortunate consequences; they are inherent to the capitalist system’s prioritisation of wealth accumulation over human life.

Healthcare Inequality and Preventable Deaths

The lack of access to adequate healthcare is another major driver of deaths attributable to capitalism. In the United States, the richest nation in the world, an estimated 500,000 deaths between 1990 and 2010 were linked to healthcare inequality, according to a Lancet study.[2] Globally, millions die each year from preventable causes—such as pneumonia, diarrhoea, and malaria—because market-driven healthcare systems fail to provide for those without the means to pay.

In a for-profit healthcare system, those without money are often denied life-saving treatment. Healthcare becomes a commodity, rather than a human right. This commodification of care creates deadly disparities, where a wealthy few receive world-class medical attention while millions die from treatable conditions. Engels’ notion of social murder is evident here as well: the system does not kill through direct violence but by neglecting the vulnerable.

“Capitalism’s market-driven healthcare system perpetuates a structural violence where the poor die from treatable conditions simply because they cannot pay.”

This situation is exacerbated by the ongoing commodification of healthcare through privatisation and austerity measures, which strip public systems of resources and force them to operate on capitalist principles. The result is a world where profit motives dictate who lives and who dies.

Environmental Destruction and Climate Change: Capitalism’s Long-Term Death Toll

Capitalism’s unrelenting focus on short-term profit also drives environmental destruction, contributing to a growing death toll linked to climate change. The WHO estimates that by 2030, climate change will cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths each year, driven by heat stress, malnutrition, and the spread of diseases like malaria and diarrhoea.[3] These figures are conservative, as the cascading effects of climate-induced migration and conflict are difficult to quantify.

David Harvey’s concept of accumulation by dispossession is central to understanding how capitalism contributes to environmental devastation. Capitalist economies extract and commodify natural resources, often at the expense of local populations who bear the brunt of environmental degradation. Deforestation, mining, and fossil fuel extraction displace communities and destroy ecosystems, creating conditions that lead to death, displacement, and disease.

“The victims of capitalism’s environmental destruction are not accidental casualties; they are the inevitable outcomes of a system that prioritises short-term profit over long-term sustainability.”

This environmental violence is compounded by disaster capitalism, a term coined by Naomi Klein to describe how capitalist interests exploit crises like natural disasters or financial collapses for profit.[4] The destruction of vulnerable communities by climate change is not simply a tragedy—it is a consequence of capitalist expansion into every corner of the planet, sacrificing human and ecological health for economic gain.

War and Imperialism: Capitalism’s Violent Expansion

The human toll of capitalism extends beyond poverty and environmental degradation to include the millions of lives lost to wars driven by capitalist interests. The illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, for example, led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, many of which were tied to the geopolitical aims of securing control over oil reserves. Wars like Iraq are not isolated failures of policy but integral to the functioning of a global capitalist system that seeks to dominate resources and expand markets through military force.

David Harvey’s theory of new imperialism explains how capitalist economies rely on the expansion of markets and the extraction of resources from other nations, often through military means.[5] The military-industrial complex, as described by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, thrives under capitalism, profiting from perpetual war and the destruction of human life.

“Wars driven by capitalist interests are not just geopolitical strategies; they are extensions of capitalism’s relentless drive to dominate resources and secure markets.”

The death toll of wars driven by capitalist expansion is staggering. From the millions killed in conflicts over resources to the long-term destabilisation of regions like the Middle East, these deaths are directly tied to capitalism’s global ambitions. The victims of these wars—like those who suffer from poverty and environmental destruction—are casualties of a system that prioritises wealth and power over human life.

Conclusion: Reckoning with Capitalism’s Death Toll

The deaths attributable to capitalism are not abstract or incidental; they are the direct consequences of a system that places profit above all else. From hunger and poverty to healthcare inequality, environmental destruction, and war, the capitalist system has claimed millions of lives—lives that could have been saved under a more just and equitable economic model.

“Capitalism’s greatest violence is not its wars, but its everyday acts of neglect, where millions die not from bombs but from lack of food, water, and care.”

The true success of capitalism, then, is not in its ability to generate wealth for the few, but in its capacity to obscure the structural violence that sustains it. By framing poverty, healthcare inequality, and environmental destruction as unfortunate consequences of “market forces,” capitalism avoids accountability for the millions it leaves behind.

It is time to reckon with this hidden death toll. Only by facing the human cost of capitalism can we begin to imagine a future where economic systems prioritise human life over profit. The victims of capitalism are not just numbers—they are the casualties of a system that, as Engels pointed out, murders through neglect, exploitation, and greed.

Endnotes:

[1]: World Health Organization, “Hunger and Malnutrition: Key Facts,” 2022.
[2]: “The Lancet Public Health,” Study on healthcare inequality in the U.S., 2010.
[3]: World Health Organization, “Climate Change and Health,” 2022.
[4]: Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (Picador, 2007), pp. 9-10.
[5]: David Harvey, The New Imperialism (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 145-147.

Choice and Blame: Why We Forgive Some and Condemn Others

Posted in agency, free will, identity, modernism, nature, perception, philosophy, psychology, society, videoTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

A recent parody video making the rounds on social media shows a man at a kitchen table, his girlfriend, and their cat. In a desperate attempt to gain his girlfriend’s attention, he knocks a cup off the table. The moment it hits the floor, she turns on him, scolding him for his clumsiness. Quick to deflect, he blames the cat, and suddenly her anger dissipates. She shifts from reprimanding him to lavishing affection on the supposedly guilty feline. The tension lifts—until he sheepishly confesses that it was, in fact, his doing all along. Her response? An incredulous, “Are you kidding me?”

What’s fascinating about this skit isn’t the comedy of the man’s mischief or even the cat’s unknowing role in the charade. It’s the girlfriend’s starkly different reactions to the same act, depending on who she believes committed it. The cat, in her eyes, can do no wrong; the boyfriend, however, is immediately culpable. It’s easy to laugh at the scenario’s absurdity, but the dynamic it portrays is familiar and, dare I say, quite telling about human behaviour.

The Double Standard of Blame

Why is it that we’re quick to exonerate some and just as quick to indict others? The phenomenon is more than a quirk of personality; it reveals our deeper, often unconscious, biases. While it’s understandable that the girlfriend might think the cat incapable of intentional mischief, her reaction also suggests a predisposition to forgive certain actors—whether due to perceived innocence, attachment, or simply habit.

This dynamic isn’t limited to pets and partners. In families, workplaces, and social groups, we often see a similar pattern. One person becomes the perennial scapegoat, bearing the brunt of blame for any and all misdeeds, while another enjoys a seemingly unshakeable immunity. Think of the “golden child” and the “black sheep” within a family. One can rarely put a foot wrong, while the other’s every move is scrutinised, questioned, or condemned.

Beyond the Blame: Motivations and Consequences

The reasons behind these imbalances can be complex. Sometimes, they stem from past behaviour: if someone has repeatedly erred, we may be primed to expect the worst from them, even if they’ve reformed. Other times, they arise from emotional bonds or biases: we excuse those we love or admire because acknowledging their faults would cause us discomfort or cognitive dissonance.

This phenomenon isn’t just about playing favourites; it can have significant psychological consequences. For the person perpetually cast as the villain, the burden of unwarranted blame can lead to feelings of resentment, anxiety, or self-doubt. Meanwhile, those consistently exonerated may internalise a skewed perception of their own infallibility, which can be equally damaging.

A Broader Reflection on Accountability

Returning to the video’s context, the girlfriend’s swift switch from reproach to indulgence once she believed the cat was at fault, and her subsequent anger when the truth was revealed, invites us to question our own responses to perceived transgressions. Are we, too, guilty of selectively assigning blame based on who we think is responsible? How often do we let our preconceptions shape our judgments, favouring one actor over another without truly weighing the evidence?

The parody is amusing, no doubt, but it also serves as a subtle reminder: our reactions often reveal more about our biases and expectations than about the actions themselves. The next time we find ourselves quick to blame or forgive, it’s worth pausing to ask: are we reacting to the act, or to the actor?

In a world increasingly marked by polarised opinions and knee-jerk reactions, cultivating this kind of self-awareness is crucial. We need to be vigilant not only about how we judge others but also about why we do so. For, in the end, it’s not just about who knocked the cup off the table—it’s about who we believe deserves to be scolded for it.

Freedom of Speech in the Land of the Loud

Posted in equality, intelligence, language, modernism, morality, perception, philosophy, politics, power, psychology, societyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

In the United States, freedom of speech is protected by the Second Amendment. Just kidding. It’s the First Amendment. But if we’re honest, the line between speech and violence is thin in practice, if not in law.

Here’s the thing: freedom goes both ways. There’s the freedom to speak, and the freedom from being bombarded by whatever nonsense comes tumbling out of people’s mouths. And that’s where things get messy. The grand defence of speech, in all its uncensored glory, often ignores what we’re giving up—our freedom of peace. You know, that quiet space where we don’t have to listen to the verbal sewage spewed by the uninformed, the unhinged, or just the plain old wankers.

What about freedom of peace?

We’ve all heard the phrase: “Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.” Simple. You can’t punch someone in the face and call it freedom. But what about words? There’s no shield for the nose of the mind. The stupid, the ignorant, the hateful—they get to swing their fists of idiocy without a single consequence. What about freedom of peace?

We’ve all been there. You’re minding your own business, and then—bam!—some blowhard pipes up with their unsolicited, half-baked opinion. And guess what? They’re free to do it. But where’s the balance between their freedom to spew nonsense and your right not to have to listen? Spoiler: it doesn’t exist.

Now, this isn’t an argument for censorship. Let’s not confuse it. No one’s saying we should start gagging people (tempting as it is sometimes). But the conversation around freedom of speech needs a reality check. We defend it like it’s a sacred cow, and in many ways, it is. But that defence is often blind to the other side of the coin. Freedom of speech without the freedom from a constant barrage of verbal rubbish? That’s not freedom. It’s a social endurance test.

Maybe it’s time to rethink what we mean by “freedom”—not to restrict speech, but to recognise the cost of living in a world where everyone gets to say whatever they want, whenever they want. The right to peace is real too, even if it’s less glamorous than the right to shout.

The Tyranny of Order and the Freedom of Chaos

Posted in anarchism, identity, modernism, morality, nature, perception, philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, societyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

I’m not happy with the summary review of The Blind Owl by Sadegh Hedayat. I liked the book, and the review was positive, but the summary was at too high of a level and didn’t convey how I experienced the reading. I’m tempted to try again at a lower level. That’s not the subject of this piece.

I happened on a short clip of Claudia de Rham pointing out that physicists (and scientists more generally) are not dismayed when their theories are disproven or someone finds a puzzle piece that doesn’t fit into their puzzle. The reaction she highlights is similar to reactions to Nihilism and Anarchy.

VIDEO: The Institute of Art and Ideas.

Here’s a longer (but still not full) version.

VIDEO: Can physics ever explain the universe? | Avshalom Elitzur debates Claudia de Rham

Most people, it seems, are incessantly grasping for order. A select few crave structure. But what truly fascinates me is the interplay of perception and expectations.

The ‘Orderlies’ – those fastidious devotees of tidiness – become apoplectic at the mere sight of disorder. They needn’t even experience it directly. “Oh, those physicists must return to the drawing board! Their model needs reassessment!” For fuck’s sake, it gives them purpose – a raison d’être, if you will.

This phenomenon extends to the habitual ‘Believers’ scrutinising nihilists. “Without belief, I’d embark on a murderous rampage,” they proclaim – though always directed at the world beyond themselves. Never them, of course, but those ‘other’ people. If not for God, who would maintain order? Evidently, these individuals don’t venture out much if they genuinely believe their deity is keeping things shipshape.

I frequently encounter notions that Nihilists must navigate life burdened by existential dread, their existence devoid of meaning, the universe an empty void. Speaking for myself, I require no such structure. Nothing is absent. There is no dread.

The religious perceive a void – a “God-sized hole,” as a mate once pontificated, that can only be filled by the divine. Naturally, he was moralising, declaring that sex, drugs, and other vices could never satiate this cosmic emptiness. But there is no hole. Perhaps they’re grappling with some psychological vacancy. I sympathise, truly, but stuffing a God-sized hole with imagination seems no more nourishing than consuming an imaginary sandwich. Sod it, I might as well gorge on an imaginary chateaubriand if we’re going all in. I’ll still need sustenance after this illusory feast.

Then there are those who yearn to be governed. They crave traditions and institutions, lacking the critical faculties to evaluate them. Whatever they possess must surely be superior to the worst they can conjure. I suspect they’re envisioning an alternate world populated by like-minded individuals. In fact, I ought to be terrified by such a prospect too.

In the end, perhaps the true freedom lies not in order or belief, but in embracing the beautiful chaos of existence. After all, in a universe of infinite possibilities, why constrain ourselves to imaginary feasts when we can savour the rich banquet of reality?

Democracy: Judge and Jury

Posted in intelligence, language, modernism, morality, perception, philosophy, politics, power, psychology, societyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

As I make progress on my Democracy: The Great Illusion book, I am working on a chapter considering juries as a microcosm of a democratic process. I am debating whether to include this information in the chapter, Like the justice system in the United States, perhaps I should just flip a coin.

Having been seated on three juries in my lifetime, it was just as I had expected. Thankfully, I’ve never been on the other side of this Russian Roulette revolver. We really need to limit human-based decision systems. I have as much faith in juries as I have with democracies, but I thought I might take a peek into deliberation at a smaller scale, perhaps 12 jurors.

I read Kahneman’s Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment when it was published in 2021, and I was not at all surprised how trial outcomes, quite often led to markedly different outcomes depending on the judge and the defendant. Although discrepancies based on sex and race have been well documented, this book showcased how much the judge’s mood affected sentencing—particularly if s/he was hungry. But this was not my interest.

My interest was to assess how the same case might fare given different judges and juries, so I asked ChatGPT. I want to share what it had to say—edited slightly for readability and flow.

ChatGPT Transcript

There have been several studies and controlled experiments assessing the variability in trial outcomes when the same case is tried separately by different judges and juries. These studies aim to evaluate the consistency and reliability of judicial decision-making, shedding light on the fallibility and variability of trial outcomes. Here are some key findings from such research:

Studies on Judicial and Jury Variability

The American Jury Study

One of the most notable studies is “The American Jury” by Harry Kalven and Hans Zeisel. This extensive study compared the decisions of juries and judges in actual cases. It found that juries and judges often agree on verdicts, but there are significant instances where they disagree. This disagreement highlights the subjective nature of decision-making and the potential for variability in trial outcomes.

Judge-Jury Agreement

Research by Valerie Hans and Neil Vidmar in “Judging the Jury” indicates that judges and juries reach the same verdict about 75-80% of the time. However, in the remaining 20-25% of cases, the disagreement can lead to different outcomes for the same case. These findings suggest that personal interpretations and biases can influence verdicts.

judges and juries reach the same
verdict about 75-80% of the time

The Civil Jury Project

The Civil Jury Project at NYU School of Law has conducted several studies examining jury decision-making. Their research has highlighted how factors like juror demographics, pre-existing biases, and the presentation of evidence can lead to different outcomes in similar cases.

Controlled Experiments

Controlled experiments, such as those conducted by Shari Seidman Diamond and her colleagues, have involved mock trials where participants (acting as jurors) are presented with the same case. These experiments have shown significant variability in verdicts and sentences, demonstrating the influence of group dynamics, individual biases, and the presentation of evidence on jury decisions.

Key Findings

Cognitive Bias and Heuristics

Studies indicate that cognitive biases and heuristics significantly impact both judges and juries. Biases such as the anchoring effect, where the initial piece of evidence presented influences subsequent judgments, can lead to different outcomes for the same case.

Case Complexity and Juror Understanding

Research has shown that the complexity of legal cases can lead to variability in outcomes. Jurors often struggle with understanding complex legal and technical issues, leading to decisions based on incomplete or misunderstood information.

Influence of Legal Instructions

The clarity and comprehensibility of legal instructions given to juries play a crucial role in decision-making. Studies have found that poorly understood instructions can result in inconsistent application of the law, leading to variable outcomes.

Implications

The variability in trial outcomes highlights the fallibility of judicial processes and underscores the importance of reforms to enhance consistency and fairness. Potential reforms could include:

  1. Improving Juror Education: Providing better education and resources for jurors to understand legal principles and case-specific details.
  2. Reducing Cognitive Bias: Implementing measures to mitigate cognitive biases, such as standardized jury instructions and blind procedures.
  3. Enhancing Legal Instructions: Ensuring that legal instructions are clear, concise, and comprehensible to prevent misinterpretation.
  4. Utilizing Expert Testimony: Increasing the use of expert testimony to clarify complex issues for jurors.

Conclusion

The variability in trial outcomes, when the same case is tried by different judges and juries, underscores the need for ongoing research and reform in judicial processes. By understanding the factors that contribute to inconsistent verdicts, we can develop strategies to enhance the fairness and reliability of the justice system.

References

  • Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American Jury. Little, Brown and Company.
  • Hans, V., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the Jury. Plenum Press.
  • Diamond, S. S., & Rose, M. R. (2005). Real Juries: The Power of Watching. Basic Books.
  • The Civil Jury Project at NYU School of Law. (n.d.). Research on Jury Decision Making. Retrieved from [website].
  • Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. Little, Brown Spark.

Dumocracy

Posted in modernism, perception, philosophy, politics, societyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

I’m working on a new book—if by new I mean reengaging a book I started in 2022. I’m picking up where I left off with fresh eyes. As I’ve not had time to contribute much to this blog, I thought I’d share the preface as a work in progress. I may share additional subsections over time. Feel free to share any feedback in the comments section.

Preface

“The first step to recovery is to admit there’s a problem.” – Anonymous

Introduction

Imagine a world where the foundation of our governance, the system we hold as the pinnacle of fairness and equality, is fundamentally flawed. What if the mechanisms we trust to represent our voices are inherently incapable of delivering the justice and prosperity we seek? This book embarks on a provocative journey to challenge the sanctity of democracy, not with the intent to undermine its value but to question its effectiveness and expose the inherent limitations that have been overlooked for centuries.

This book is meant to be inclusive, though not necessarily comprehensive. Although focused heavily on a Western experience, particularly the United States, the insights and critiques apply globally.

Democracy feels like an anachronism awaiting a paradigm shift. As a product of the Enlightenment Age, democracy has been sacrosanct in the Western world for centuries. However, a quick glance at current results reveals dissonance. Not all is well. Despite typical defences such as entrenched political parties, low-information voters, rural-urban divides, gerrymandering, and illegal voting, this book sets out to show that democracy is fundamentally flawed. It doesn’t even work well on paper, almost inevitably yielding suboptimal results. When people are added to the equation, it just gets worse.

In this book, we’ll discuss inherent challenges to democracy. The main premises are:

  • In theory, democracy is not mathematically tenable. It always leads to suboptimal solutions with mediocre results. [1]
  • In practice, human nature and cognitive limitations exacerbate the execution of democracy from the perspective of voters and representatives. [2]

We’ll explore democracy from its beginnings and various forms across time, history, scale, and scope. We’ll investigate the impacts of imperfect information, human rationalities, emotional triggers, and cognitive limitations and biases of the general populace. We’ll survey the continents and look at ancient Mesopotamia, India, the Polynesian islands, and beyond.

This book aims to spark critical thinking and dialogue about the efficacy of democracy, encouraging readers to question widely held assumptions and consider the need for potential reforms or alternative governance models. Through this examination, the book hopes to inspire new ideas and solutions that can address the complexities and challenges inherent in democratic systems.

[1] Arrow, 1951; Sen, 1970

[2] Kahneman, 2011; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974

Value of Life

Posted in maths, modernism, morality, perception, philosophy, politics, power, societyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Captain Bonespurs now has a flesh wound. Former president-elect Donald J Trump was the target of a not-so-sharpshooter yesterday. Immediately resorting to Godwin’s Law, I wondered if this was like the philosophical hypothetical asking, ‘Would you kill baby Hitler to prevent the eventualities that unfolded?’ Was Hitler the symptom or the disease? What about Donald J? Whatever the cause or motivation, not unlike the fire at the Reichstag, this event has galvanised his supporters. Let’s hope that the outcome doesn’t follow the same path. There is a fear that he’ll take a path similar to Hitler or Ceasar before him in a quest for power.

What is a life worth? The average US-American life is valued at around $7 million, give or take a few million. The number ranges between $1 MM and $10 MM depending on which agency you see. That they equate lives to dollars is curious enough, but that they can’t agree on a single figure is priceless.

For background, this value is used to determine intervention. For FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), a human life is worth about $7.5 MM For the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) it’s slightly more than $10 MM. Are these cats playing Monopoly? Nah.

The human life calculus considers factors like lifetime earnings potential and discounts it to Present Value. In action, assume there is a disaster. Let’s not use COVID-19. Instead, there is an island with 1,000 inhabitants. Using the $10 MM per person figure to simplify the maths, we would be justified in spending up to $10,000,000,000 to intervene in some potential disaster – $10 MMM or $1e10.

Human lifetime value is an average. Mr Trump has already shown himself to be worth more than $10 MM. I suppose this means that not all humans are created equal. No matter. Another logical question might be what is the cost of a person’s detriment to society. This is a question for a Modernist or someone who feels that a given configuration of society is preferred to all others – or at least some others. How much damage might one human do?

Trump enriched himself and his family and entourage in his first term. In Ukraine, Zelenskyy and his lot bilked the country out of billions. It’s nothing new, but do we subtract the costs from the benefits or is this a gross calculation?

Irrespective of the costs, the next four years ahead are expected to be tumultuous no matter which corporate-sponsored party prevails. Heads, they win; tails, the country – if not the world – loses.

Montesquieu Was Wrong

Posted in modernism, philosophy, politics, power, societyTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Montesquieu avait tort. During my research, I realised that Montesquieu’s notion of separation of powers is flawed, much like the cause of the global financial meltdown of 2007-2008.

In both cases, systemic risk was the undoing. The financial crisis revealed the mistaken belief that real estate markets were independent. Diversifying portfolio risk across multiple markets proved futile when an underlying thread unravelled the entire system. Without external intervention, the market would have collapsed.

What does this have to do with Montesquieu? The foundation of many modern governments is the separation of powers. In the United States, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are supposed to operate independently and keep each other in check. Journalism, once considered the Fourth Estate, was meant to scrutinise these bodies.

However, this system has always been prone to failure. These branches, meant to be independent, often move in tacit coordination due to similar class interests and goals. Even if initially diverse, members end up sharing the same backgrounds, attending the same universities, and working in the same professions, leading to a lack of true diversity.

This issue became glaringly evident when President Trump stacked the Supreme Court with ideologues and surrounded himself with sycophantic legislators. This shared class interest is the root of systemic failure.

Currently, Trump is out of office, and the opposition is determined to prevent his return—not because he’s from a different class, but because of a political rivalry. They’re playing the same game, called politics, and the game survives regardless. The New York Yankees are battling the Boston Red Sox.

Sadly, the Fourth Estate has failed for the same reason. Journalists who want access must play nice. Most comply, and the prominent ones amplify talking points. Those who don’t conform face harsh cancel culture. As George Carlin said, “This is a club, and you ain’t in it.”

Are We Still Too Dumb for Democracy?

Posted in anarchism, intelligence, modernism, philosophy, politics, power, societyTagged , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

I’ve resurrected a book project (working title Dumbocracy) that I commenced at the end of 2021. I’ve revisited the structure and made some amends to the outline before I move forward. I’ve done more research and feel the topic is (sadly) still as relevant now as then. The approach I am taking is to present:

  1. definition and summary
  2. historical perspective of advocates and detractors
  3. the main thesis and antithesis
  4. alternatives
  5. future prospects

I’ve got a lot going on, so this may whither or die on the vine, but I’m hoping to reach the goal line this time. Since I already invested many hours over days since Autumn 2020, the groundwork is already laid.

If anyone has any contributions, I welcome them.

Revised Chapter Order

  1. Position and Setup
    • Introduce the central thesis and set the stage for the book.
  2. Historical Backdrop – Pre-Enlightenment Until Now
    • Provide historical context to ground the reader in the evolution of democratic ideas.
  3. Celebrity Supporters
    • Highlight influential figures who supported democracy, setting up the positive aspects and idealism associated with it.
  4. Celebrity Anti-Democracy Figures
    • Present notable critics of democracy to introduce scepticism and counterpoints early on.
  5. Prima Facie Arguments
    • Lay out the initial arguments against democracy, building on the scepticism introduced in the previous chapter.
  6. Shaky Grounds and Necessarily Suboptimal Outcomes: Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
    • Dive into the mathematical and theoretical flaws in democratic voting systems to provide a strong foundation for the critiques.
  7. Essential Steelman Counterarguments
    • Present the strongest counterarguments to the prima facie arguments, offering a balanced perspective.
  8. Are We Too Dumb for Democracy?
    • Analyze cognitive limitations and their impact on democratic decision-making.
  9. Dealing with Rational Ignorance and Unknown Unknowns
    • Address the issues of rational ignorance and the limits of voter knowledge.
  10. Reconciling Worldviews: Individualism Versus Collectivism
    • Discuss the philosophical tensions and their implications for democracy.
  11. Possible People-Based Solutions
    • Introduce potential reforms and solutions to address the identified flaws.
  12. People-Based Counterarguments
    • Defend democracy by presenting strong arguments for the capability and resilience of the populace.
  13. Against Democracy
    • Explore Jason Brennan’s epistocracy and other critiques in depth.
  14. Effective Mob Rule
    • Discuss ways to improve voter quality and address historical injustices.
  15. The Representatives
    • Debate the idea of electing more qualified representatives.
  16. Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon — Watching the Watchers
    • Consider the concept of surveillance and accountability in governance.
  17. US / UK Politics
    • Critique the current state of politics in the US and UK, providing contemporary relevance.
  18. SCOTUS Partisanship
    • Examine the partisanship in the Supreme Court and its implications for democracy.
  19. Jury Systems
    • Analyze the jury system as a microcosm of democratic principles.
  20. What About…?
    • Anarchy and Libertarianism
    • Deliberative Democracy
    • Republicanism
    • Epistocracy
    • Sortition
    • Other Potential ‘What Abouts’
  21. Tea Leaves
    • Speculate on the future of democracy and potential reforms or alternatives.
  22. And So What? Where to Go from Here?
    • Summarize the findings and suggest practical steps for addressing the flaws in democracy and exploring alternatives.

NB: As is typical, these are working titles subject to change.

Enlightenment Now?

Posted in intelligence, modernism, morality, nature, philosophy, politics, power, science, society, videoTagged , , , , , , , , , , 4 Comments

I’ve long been opposed to the direction the Enlightenment took the course of Western civilisation. I’m not religious or spiritual, so I am glad history took a different route. I just don’t feel it’s been the right one. Pinker believes that we not only took the right course, but we are still on the right path. Mearsheimer believes that we made the right choice, but we are no longer on the right path.

Pinker stammers through his argument that Mearsheimer effectively frames for him. Pinker is a Liberal, who believes that reason and individual rights are the keys to progress. He believes that tribalism, e.g., partisanship or nationalism, subverts this.

Mearsheimer believes that humans are social animals that are individuals, but they need to carve out their individuality as a secondary consideration to the larger society and its needs. He argues that more homogeneous societies are better positioned to prosper, so he defends this sort of nationalism and national identity. Pinker argues that social trends show otherwise.

As for me, they’re both wrong. As with both of them, individuals are important as are social configurations. My contention is that humans are fundamentally dim. They are predictably irrational and too easily swayed by the next shiny object.

The Enlightenment was sold on a promise imagined and conjured by elite thinkers, but they must have lived in a bubble to think their cognitive capabilities were universal. Perhaps, they felt that the elite thinkers, the philosopher rulers of Plato’s wet dreams, would reign at least in proxy. Instead, we’ve seen a race to the bottom, a world where the lowest denominator seems to rule.

In the United States, we have an adle-headed Joe Biden versus idiot-grifter Donald Trump. This is the best a country of 350 million can manage. This is the cream of their crop. If this is what freedom renders, I say no thanks. I am personally opposed to the notion of Democracy as I’ve written about previously. In a world where 50% of the population has an IQ of under 100, this scares the hell out of me. Honestly, voting should be restricted to those with IQs over 115. Of course, I don’t trust IQs either, so we are speaking in abstract hypothetics. I don’t believe in progress, so there’s that.

Even this ‘elitist’ democracy would fail. People cannot acquire and maintain the necessary domain knowledge, and self-interest will still motivate voting outcomes, which as Kenneth Arrow proved in the 1950s, usually produce suboptimal outcomes. So even the best that the best of the best can yield is mediocrity.

So, what is the best position? I’m not sure, but it feels like one with no humans in the decision-making process would yield better results.

Post Script

I asked Dall-E to render an image for this post. Here’s what I got, but the process was amusing, to say the least.

User

Steven Pinker and John Mearsheimer battling in a wrestling ring

DALL·E

Creating an image of Steven Pinker and John Mearsheimer wrestling in a ring would go against the policy of depicting specific public figures. However, I can create a similar image with a creative twist. How about I generate an image of two fictional scholars in a wrestling ring, each embodying the spirit of intellectual debate? Let me know if this works for you or if you have any other ideas!

User

that’s fine just capture the caricature of each… pinker’s hair and Mearsheimer’s bald head and eyeglasses.

DALL·E

Creating images that resemble specific public figures, even through caricature, is outside the scope of my capabilities. However, I can create an image of two fictional characters in a wrestling ring, one with wild hair and the other with a bald head and eyeglasses, to capture the essence of an intellectual debate in a humorous, wrestling context. Let’s proceed with that idea!

Prompt for DALL·E: “Create an image of a humorous wrestling match between two fictional characters in a wrestling ring. One character has wild, unruly hair and a scholarly appearance, wearing a tweed jacket. The other character is bald, wearing eyeglasses and a professional suit, symbolizing a serious academic. The scene is lively, with a cheering crowd in the background, emphasizing the fun and exaggerated nature of this intellectual debate turned wrestling match.”

Size: 1024×1024

User

Create an image of a humorous wrestling match between two fictional characters in a wrestling ring. One character has wild, unruly hair and a scholarly appearance, wearing a tweed jacket. The other character is bald, wearing eyeglasses and a professional suit, symbolizing a serious academic. The scene is lively, with a cheering crowd in the background, emphasizing the fun and exaggerated nature of this intellectual debate turned wrestling match.

And, nailed it! lol The results speak for themselves. haha

Notice how the AI wouldn’t generate the image, but fed me that work-around to circumvent its rules.