asking "why do planets and moons spin?"
and the answer was an appeal to statistics - there are a ton more items in a random distribution of momentums that equate to "spinning" than equate to "not spinning".
It's a bitter pill to give up your childhood faith in the Myth of 1776. Moldbug warned us that the pill slits open and the sodium core burns as it goes down.
...but it makes perfect sense that an elite will always be in power
I remember reading a brief article 20 or 30 yrs ago
asking "why do planets and moons spin?"
and the answer was an appeal to statistics - there are a ton more items in a random distribution of momentums that equate to "spinning" than equate to "not spinning".
Planets and moons are formed by the coallescence, under gravitation, of various small bits.
Things falling in from infinity, basically.
Depending on the random assortment of starting locations of those infalling bits, you get torque applied to the accumulating mass core.
In order to end up with a planet with absolutely no spin, you need a PERFECT balance of starting locations of all of the constituent bits before they start their fall in.
This is possible, but is an insanely small subset of all possible starting configurations.
Governments and societies form from the coalescence of individuals.
We could imagine a society where Everyone Was Perfectly Equal ... but that would require a starting universe where all people were born with equal talents.
...and the result was never once perturbed by random events (also effectively impossible).
In the real world, some people are "ten X-ers" on sociopathy, or social skills, or persuasive speech, or making friends, or threatening enemies, or...
These people will aways form an elite.
A MORAL elite? no
An INTELLECTUAL elite? no
Just a ruling elite.
The definition is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Those who rule are the type who rule.
I'm smart, introvert, nice. I HATE that the Darwinian nature of the universe
But just because you dislike (a) the distribution of talents, (b) the way that the universe responds to that unequal distribution, (c) the moral worth of the traits that selection seems to prioritize
...is no reason to deny the evidence. We are not science deniers here!
More or less in keeping with Nozick's "Wilt Chamberlain" argument re unequal results in market economies, we've got a "Kennedy / Biden" argument re unequal results in political exchange.
The Kennedies etc will always rise to the top, like toilet paper in a septic tank.
You can stir a septic tank, but as soon as you put down the paddle, the solid matter settles back to the bottom and the TP floats to the top again.
So too with politics and revolutions.
You can hate the Gini coefficient of power distribution, but you can't really change it
It IS cheerful.
I'm giving you permission to stop spending your time stirring a septic tank, and go read a book or learn glassblowing or take up piano.
That's the most useful thing you'll hear this year.
https://t.co/qOxVgl39K4
Cheerful.
— Bronwyn Williams (@bronwynwilliams) January 7, 2021
ok, let's test theories with an experiment
you do ... whatever your theory tells you too, and then report back to me about how well that behavior has changed the universe
https://t.co/z5o5YVJF9l
They have power because you give them power. They have prestige because you defer to them. I'm not interested in being ruled.
— Lady Hellcat - Subject 75634 (@hellcat_lady) January 7, 2021
I am also interested in being left alone
Please tell me how your theories achieve that.
https://t.co/VA50duUcyR
I'm not interested in changing the universe. I'm interested on being left alone. I mock the "elite" snobs and will continue to be a rock in the boot of authoritarians. Enjoy your crumbs.
— Lady Hellcat - Subject 75634 (@hellcat_lady) January 7, 2021
Well, I guess that means that your theory is better / smarter / more accurate.
Congrats on that, and best of luck.
https://t.co/1CGu9r9gZ5
I ignore people like you.
— Lady Hellcat - Subject 75634 (@hellcat_lady) January 7, 2021
More from History
You May Also Like
1/ Some initial thoughts on personal moats:
Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.
Characteristics of a personal moat below:
2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.
As Andrew Chen noted:
3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized
Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than
4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.
After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.
5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.
In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.
Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.
Characteristics of a personal moat below:
I'm increasingly interested in the idea of "personal moats" in the context of careers.
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) November 22, 2018
Moats should be:
- Hard to learn and hard to do (but perhaps easier for you)
- Skills that are rare and valuable
- Legible
- Compounding over time
- Unique to your own talents & interests https://t.co/bB3k1YcH5b
2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.
As Andrew Chen noted:
People talk about \u201cpassive income\u201d a lot but not about \u201cpassive social capital\u201d or \u201cpassive networking\u201d or \u201cpassive knowledge gaining\u201d but that\u2019s what you can architect if you have a thing and it grows over time without intensive constant effort to sustain it
— Andrew Chen (@andrewchen) November 22, 2018
3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized
Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than
Things that look like moats but likely aren\u2019t or may fade:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) November 22, 2018
- Proprietary networks
- Being something other than one of the best at any tournament style-game
- Many "awards"
- Twitter followers or general reach without "respect"
- Anything that depends on information asymmetry https://t.co/abjxesVIh9
4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.
After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.
5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.
In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.
