[ExI] Meta question

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Sun Aug 21 00:52:52 UTC 2016

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016  Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​
> Somewhere over
>> half way into the movie (which hit number one in Germany) Hitler has a
>> flash of insight where he says if it wasn't me it would have happened
>> anyway with someone else.

I'm afraid ​I'll have to disagree with Hitler about that. I think if Hitler
had never been born WW2 would not have happened, or at least the European
part wouldn't have.The general population was enthusiastic when German
troops marched into the Rhineland in 1936 and they approved the annexation
of Austria in 1938 so those things probably would probably happened even
without Hitler. But the German people were far less enthusiastic about
occupying Czechoslovakia in 1939 and even less so about marching into
Poland 6 months later. Hitler really had to push for those last two and
that's what started the War and I don't think that would have happened
without him.

​> ​
> The problem is much wider than Germans or Americans.  It's humanity
> wide that the perception of a bleak future (relative to the past and
> present) flips a population wide behavioral switch that puts the
> population on the way to war.

​But In Germany in the late 1930s the country was in a clear economic
upswing, hyperinflation was long over, people had jobs and they were doing
pretty well and there was every reason to believe their children would do
even better, but ​that's when Germany started a World War because Germany
was being lead by a madman. Economics certainly plays a important part in
history, but so do individuals.

> ​> ​
> A rational view is that (on average) you loose
>> wars half the time.

​If it's a nuclear was you loose 100% ​
​of the time. And the Allies won WW2 but other than stopping a madman it's
not clear exactly what they won. ​

>  In 2016 the richest 62 people on the planet
>>>>  had as much money as the poorest 3.5 billion people, as recently as 2014
>> it
>> ​ t
>> ook 13 more, back then it took 85 people to equal the poorest half of the
>>>> human population. I think it's fair to say that one way or another this
>>>>  trend will NOT continue. If I was one of those 62 hyper rich people and
>> had
>>>> a brain in my head I'd try to close that huge gap or at least slow its
>> rate
>>>> of growth, and I'd do it even if I didn't give a damn about other people
>> and
>>>> was only interested in myself because I'd know if I didn't it would only
>> be
>>>> a matter of time before I'd lose my head.
> ​> ​
> It would help if the very rich decided it was in their interest for
> the bulk of the population to see that they have a bright future, but
> directly redistributing their wealth will not fix the problem, they
> don't have enough to do it.

​There is not less wealth in the world today than there was 30 years ago
there is considerably more, but it is being distributed into far fewer
hands. ​


 John K Clark​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160820/c901635d/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list