Thomas on Farcaster

Content pfp

https://warpcast.com/~/channel/thomas

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Thomas pfp

@aviationdoctor.eth

Something I have noticed in the current political climate is how casually commentators and pundits frame the current direction of travel as if it was logical, natural, and ineluctable for the world in the 21st century. Under their new narrative, it becomes self-evident that policies of "might is right" (power and strength over ethics as the ultimate arbiter of morality); "the ends justify the means" (utilitarianism over deontology); authoritarianism (executive supremacy over rule of law and checks & balances); jingoism (tribalism over good-faith diplomacy and value-driven alliances); and isolationism (transactional, bilateral deals over global collaboration and open trade) — are inevitable. 1/2

4 replies

1 recast

11 reactions

Thomas pfp

@aviationdoctor.eth

I observe this in Mearsheimer blaming NATO, in Thiel bankrolling Yarvinism, and —most consequentially— in the dominant Thucydides-reminiscent collective resignation to the idea that a US-China conflict is inescapable. Nobody seems to be asking *why* such a conflict, but rather *when*, as if it was some great truth of the universe that every hegemon threatened by a rising power had to fight rather than coexist. I also notice the giddy excitement and confidence with which certain commentators peddle those views. They use haughty conversation enders such as "realpolitics" and "statecraft" to dismiss as naive the humanist view that the world needs more, not less, international cooperation in the face of common threats to humanity (climate change, biodiversity collapse, pandemics, debt/financial instability, AI risks, nuclear proliferation, etc). This, to me, is pure Moloch in action. 2/2

3 replies

1 recast

7 reactions

res ipsa ☺︎ pfp

res ipsa ☺︎

a problem with all the cited commentary is their desperate attempt to rationalize things that are not rational based on our frameworks to understand the world— rules, norms, consensus. people like Mearsheimer who have an academic reputation to protect have a tendency to try to explain things away to preserve some neutral credibility. it reminds me of when the media first had to grapple with the new extreme climate narratives and insisted on “balancing both sides”. abstracted out, these are understandable but futile attempts of self-preservation. i even feel nervous as i type this at the risk of appearing too polarized and partisan. people who’ve built their careers on understanding nuances are having a difficult time calling a spade just the simplistic spade it is.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

𒂭_𒂭 pfp

imho cooperation without skepticism is obeisance. if there are healthy checks & balances, an unabridged global forum, I would agree that international cooperation is the simplest and broadest strategy for international liabilities. but it's also Pareto optimal. are we consigned to JIT-hyperoptimized supply chains if it's self-evidently incompatible with civic fitness? do deaths of despair average out on the ledger? are we unanimous in how to address dual-use technological power like AI/nuclear? it seems like certain institutions (and epistemic trespasses) have ossified when natural cultural succession would have intervened. I think history will correct this arc, as much as Moloch has diminished in the past.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

accountless.eth pfp

accountless.eth

@accountless.eth

is mearsheimer still alive? dude must be old as fuck by now

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction