Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

loc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 659 posts

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#551

Post by verisimi »

xxpor wrote: post #481
verisimi wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery. You wouldn't think it ok if an individual forced you, or the mafia. The government is just big mafia. But that is not really the nub of it. Slavery is really a mental state - having been through the system we have been propagandised that the government is a good thing, it's the right way to manage ourselves - an…

There will always be someone more powerful than you. I prefer that I can elect the leaders of the most powerful group. This is why anarchy doesn't make any sense: The government is simply the most powerful violent group. As long as violence exists, any anarchic arrangement is inherently unstable.

"The government is simply the most powerful violent group."

100% right. But let's not lie to ourselves that this is also morally right.

You may kid yourself that you are freely doing something meaningful when you vote to be governed by someone else, but the reality is that is based in fear (of others or the government).

You don't in fact need governance when you meet family members for social occasions. This natural behaviour can scale up.

But no, I don't think we are heading towards freedom. I think government is too powerful. Government would create the anarchic situations to allow for the strong paternal government response. In fact, this is how it has so much power now! It creates the objects of fear, and proposes a responses that just happen to require more from its citizens. More money, more control, etc. Its a one-way street.

Unfortunately, you cannot comply your way out of tyranny - so we are heading towards greater slavery and greater governmental control. This is because people are unable to take responsibility for their decisions - they don't even know what right and wrong are ffs. (Do not do unto others..)

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#552

Post by LeFantome »

Manuel_D wrote: post #396
VirusNewbie wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflationary monetary policy is wealth transfer into the upper class without most people realizing it. Wealth, be it institutions or individuals, will always push for central banking as it entrenches their power.

Is this really the case? Inflation favors debtors over creditors, the upper class tends to be the latter not the former. While it is the case that the value of savings goes down, the lower class are much less likely to save.

Nobody owes more money than the rich. This is true of countries as well.

“Wealth” as most people think of it comes from power over money more than from the absolute value of net worth.

I had a lot of credit card debt in University. I was the richest person my friends knew. That money gave me access to people and opportunities I would not have had otherwise. Today, I owe a million dollars ( mostly mortgage ) but am considered quite well off I think. Don’t get me wrong, I am far from wealthy but I am probably the “richest” person in my family.

In University I used to joke that if you gave $50,000 to a penniless man with nothing, he would have $50,000 ( be doing pretty well ) whereas if you gave it to me I would be broke and it would not change my life at all. Today, I guess it would be several hundred thousand instead but otherwise still totally true.

If your average Latin American country was able to borrow as much per person as the US owes, they could build roads and factories and hospitals and universities and chip foundries and be instantly wealthy. The only problem is who is going to lend it to them?

Wealth is not what we think it is.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#554

Post by vmception »

paxys wrote: post #283

Going to be "that guy" and say that almost everything he accurately predicted was already commonplace or on the rise in the 1920s. - Commercial flights had started a decade earlier. There were even successful transatlantic flights. - The women empowerment and feminism movement was in full swing. Women had just got the right to vote. A large percentage had careers and even unions. - Wireless radio and telegraph were e…

It is funny that the girl in grand central station would find nyc very similar

But only now, but less so during the 80s

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#555

Post by rmk »

paxys wrote: post #283

Going to be "that guy" and say that almost everything he accurately predicted was already commonplace or on the rise in the 1920s. - Commercial flights had started a decade earlier. There were even successful transatlantic flights. - The women empowerment and feminism movement was in full swing. Women had just got the right to vote. A large percentage had careers and even unions. - Wireless radio and telegraph were e…

Well, the author does say that he's not making wild predictions, but only extrapolating trends that are already in motion and well-known to him and his 1922 audience.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#556

Post by throwawayyear22 »

verisimi wrote: post #547
throwawayyear22 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is a very hard conversation to have on HN." Yes because it implies there is a conspiracy requiring God-like abilities to plan the long term outcomes of a multitude of decisions and actions many of which have conflicting goals. What is more probable, that the current situation just emerged organically or that some elite group has conspired and executed flawlessly to make the world just like it is ? There are sub…

No. God-like abilities are not required. But lots of wealth and a clear long-term plan is. Do you think that those individuals that own corporations, would be interested to gain greater control and wealth? Wouldn't it be good to transform society in a way that is most beneficial to them? Do you think that those individuals would be pretty ruthless in their execution of their plans? And that they would also try to be…

"Do you think that those individuals that own corporations, would be interested..."

I can't even get my business partner to agree with me on mundane things let alone a grand plan to shape the world regardless of wealth.

Your argument hinges on this hypothetical "you" and that is like identifying the handful of termites that coordinated the building of the colony's mound.

Besides does this mindset serve you in any way ? Even if you are right, keep in mind there is a third role: sideliner. Many financially independent people are neither cattle or rancher.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#557

Post by rmk »

ghc wrote: post #198
Aperocky wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that: > I'm sure that technological advancement in 2022 will be amazing, but they will be nothing as amazing as the present day than it is over 100 years ago (i.e. 1822). I don't know about that statement.

If you think about what they didn't have in 1822 that they did have in 1922: - Radio - Movies - Motorized Rail Transit - Airplanes - Blimps - Recorded Audio - Electrification (esp. lighting) - Telephony - Cars - Subways - Fax - Early Television - Telegraph - Skyscapers - Underwater tunnels - Air Conditioning - Elevators - Modern Hospitals - Machine Guns, Tanks, Dreadnoughts and other tools of modern war - Stock Ticke…

In 1822, there were no antibiotics. In 1922, people had them or were well on their way to having them be easily available. In 2022, we are looking at what may be the beginning of the end of the antibiotic era. Will mRNA replace the antibiotic and is 2022 that beginning of the mRNA era? It appears to be a strong possibility.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#558

Post by [deleted] »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #130
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US a lot of people are very, very unhappy. The lack of real political and economic agency for most of the population is one of the defining features of US capitalism.

Citation needed. There are all sorts of measures of gross happiness out there.

[deleted]

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#559

Post by el_ravager »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #130
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US a lot of people are very, very unhappy. The lack of real political and economic agency for most of the population is one of the defining features of US capitalism.

Citation needed. There are all sorts of measures of gross happiness out there.

Why bring in outside materials into this conversation? Do we lack the capacity for reason?

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#560

Post by im3w1l »

ajmurmann wrote: post #384
easytiger wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use of the idea that now is an opportunity to be seized I think dictates that it's a desire

So, if I predict something catastrophical will happen and I make efforts to prepare for it, I'm part of the problem?

This is a great question and my answer is possibly. If you prepare so much that you stand to gain from it coming about, then it does create perverse incentives. And it could make you part of the problem.
Post reply on HN