OT: Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]
Unlike Arraya, I don’t wish for economic collapse because revolution would bring on terrible poverty through wealth destruction.
.[/quote]

(sigh)

No, more precisely, I would rather a collapse happen sooner rather than being dragged out. The way things are shaping up, it looks like we could get lucky;)

Being 36, there is no doubt the world will transform tremendously over the rest of my life. Currently trajectories are not promising for how this will transpire in the form of social well being. Being that I probably will bring another life into the world, the chances of the our current social systems being functional under current trajectories for the duration of his or her life is even lower. In fact, I’d say non-existent.

In other words I don’t expect anything less than a social train wreck at some point. It’s just the gravitation of the system(regardless of politics). The speed at which information transfers ensures that it will probably happen sooner rather than later. How we handle this train wreck is a choice and could be labeled a revolution, regardless if it is positive or negative.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

This is called cultural stupidity. History is littered with failed societies, as he astutely points out. Education level seems to be immune to cultural stupidity.

It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being.

This is called enlightened self-interest. While I disagree with his analysis regarding, what I consider, a romanticization of the past. I do, however, agree with the sentiment.

Furthermore, I would say this only focusing on a narrow self interest is a systemic issue rather than personal. And really calls into question what economists call “rational self-interest”

It seems other great thinkers had similar ideas.

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, “Universe,” a part
limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion
of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting
us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to
us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our
circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of
nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the
striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a
foundation for inner security.”

-Albert Einstein

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

No, more precisely, I would rather a collapse happen sooner rather than being dragged out. The way things are shaping up, it looks like we could get lucky;)
[/quote]

That’s where we differ.

For a example, a collapse of the financial system would have meant loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, not just for the top 1% but for all of us (pensions plans, money markets, etc…). Those in the developing world would suffer even more.

Lives would be upended.

[quote=Arraya]

Being that I probably will bring another life into the world, the chances of the our current social systems being functional under current trajectories for the duration of his or her life is even lower. In fact, I’d say non-existent.

In other words I don’t expect anything less than a social train wreck at some point.
[/quote]

You seem pretty rational. So if you are that pessimistic about the world, then why bring a new human in the world?

My grand-mother was born in 1890 and she died in 1988. She saw empires fall, revolutions, a Great Depression and two World Wars. Her financial well-being was adversely affected when my grand-father died at young age. Her life changed tremendously over time. But she did just fine.

I don’t know that we will witness such social and economic changes again.

Despite the upheavals, the world today is pretty peaceful. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are proving to be fairly peaceful. The threat of terrorism pales in comparison to potential nuclear world war.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

No, more precisely, I would rather a collapse happen sooner rather than being dragged out. The way things are shaping up, it looks like we could get lucky;)
[/quote]

That’s where we differ.

For a example, a collapse of the financial system would have meant loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, not just for the top 1% but for all of us (pensions plans, money markets, etc…). Those in the developing world would suffer even more.

Lives would be upended.

[quote=Arraya]

Being that I probably will bring another life into the world, the chances of the our current social systems being functional under current trajectories for the duration of his or her life is even lower. In fact, I’d say non-existent.

In other words I don’t expect anything less than a social train wreck at some point.
[/quote]

You seem pretty rational. So if you are that pessimistic about the world, then why bring a new human in the world?

My grand-mother was born in 1890 and she died in 1988. She saw empires fall, revolutions, a Great Depression and two World Wars. Her financial well-being was adversely affected when my grand-father died at young age. Her life changed tremendously over time. But she did just fine.

I don’t know that we will witness such social and economic changes again.

Despite the upheavals, the world today is pretty peaceful. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are proving to be fairly peaceful. The threat of terrorism pales in comparison to potential nuclear world war.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

No, more precisely, I would rather a collapse happen sooner rather than being dragged out. The way things are shaping up, it looks like we could get lucky;)
[/quote]

That’s where we differ.

For a example, a collapse of the financial system would have meant loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, not just for the top 1% but for all of us (pensions plans, money markets, etc…). Those in the developing world would suffer even more.

Lives would be upended.

[quote=Arraya]

Being that I probably will bring another life into the world, the chances of the our current social systems being functional under current trajectories for the duration of his or her life is even lower. In fact, I’d say non-existent.

In other words I don’t expect anything less than a social train wreck at some point.
[/quote]

You seem pretty rational. So if you are that pessimistic about the world, then why bring a new human in the world?

My grand-mother was born in 1890 and she died in 1988. She saw empires fall, revolutions, a Great Depression and two World Wars. Her financial well-being was adversely affected when my grand-father died at young age. Her life changed tremendously over time. But she did just fine.

I don’t know that we will witness such social and economic changes again.

Despite the upheavals, the world today is pretty peaceful. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are proving to be fairly peaceful. The threat of terrorism pales in comparison to potential nuclear world war.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

No, more precisely, I would rather a collapse happen sooner rather than being dragged out. The way things are shaping up, it looks like we could get lucky;)
[/quote]

That’s where we differ.

For a example, a collapse of the financial system would have meant loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, not just for the top 1% but for all of us (pensions plans, money markets, etc…). Those in the developing world would suffer even more.

Lives would be upended.

[quote=Arraya]

Being that I probably will bring another life into the world, the chances of the our current social systems being functional under current trajectories for the duration of his or her life is even lower. In fact, I’d say non-existent.

In other words I don’t expect anything less than a social train wreck at some point.
[/quote]

You seem pretty rational. So if you are that pessimistic about the world, then why bring a new human in the world?

My grand-mother was born in 1890 and she died in 1988. She saw empires fall, revolutions, a Great Depression and two World Wars. Her financial well-being was adversely affected when my grand-father died at young age. Her life changed tremendously over time. But she did just fine.

I don’t know that we will witness such social and economic changes again.

Despite the upheavals, the world today is pretty peaceful. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are proving to be fairly peaceful. The threat of terrorism pales in comparison to potential nuclear world war.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

No, more precisely, I would rather a collapse happen sooner rather than being dragged out. The way things are shaping up, it looks like we could get lucky;)
[/quote]

That’s where we differ.

For a example, a collapse of the financial system would have meant loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, not just for the top 1% but for all of us (pensions plans, money markets, etc…). Those in the developing world would suffer even more.

Lives would be upended.

[quote=Arraya]

Being that I probably will bring another life into the world, the chances of the our current social systems being functional under current trajectories for the duration of his or her life is even lower. In fact, I’d say non-existent.

In other words I don’t expect anything less than a social train wreck at some point.
[/quote]

You seem pretty rational. So if you are that pessimistic about the world, then why bring a new human in the world?

My grand-mother was born in 1890 and she died in 1988. She saw empires fall, revolutions, a Great Depression and two World Wars. Her financial well-being was adversely affected when my grand-father died at young age. Her life changed tremendously over time. But she did just fine.

I don’t know that we will witness such social and economic changes again.

Despite the upheavals, the world today is pretty peaceful. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are proving to be fairly peaceful. The threat of terrorism pales in comparison to potential nuclear world war.

[UCGal]

Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.

It’s a question of ripping off the bandaid quickly – or peeling it back slowly – which may hurt more overall.

[UCGal]

Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.

It’s a question of ripping off the bandaid quickly – or peeling it back slowly – which may hurt more overall.

[UCGal]

Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.

It’s a question of ripping off the bandaid quickly – or peeling it back slowly – which may hurt more overall.

[UCGal]

Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.

It’s a question of ripping off the bandaid quickly – or peeling it back slowly – which may hurt more overall.

[UCGal]

Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.

It’s a question of ripping off the bandaid quickly – or peeling it back slowly – which may hurt more overall.

[davelj]

[quote=UCGal]Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.
[/quote]

Sure, but… the “when” and the “depth” are the only important considerations.

For example, I know I’m going to die. But the “when” and the “how” are the important issues. Simply noting that I’m going to die doesn’t convey any useful information.

Sure, there will be a collapse… but without any idea of timing (which could be many decades in the future – or longer)… I fall back on Keynes’ quip that, “In the long run we’re all dead.”

[Sorry for butting in.]

[davelj]

[quote=UCGal]Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.
[/quote]

Sure, but… the “when” and the “depth” are the only important considerations.

For example, I know I’m going to die. But the “when” and the “how” are the important issues. Simply noting that I’m going to die doesn’t convey any useful information.

Sure, there will be a collapse… but without any idea of timing (which could be many decades in the future – or longer)… I fall back on Keynes’ quip that, “In the long run we’re all dead.”

[Sorry for butting in.]

[davelj]

[quote=UCGal]Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.
[/quote]

Sure, but… the “when” and the “depth” are the only important considerations.

For example, I know I’m going to die. But the “when” and the “how” are the important issues. Simply noting that I’m going to die doesn’t convey any useful information.

Sure, there will be a collapse… but without any idea of timing (which could be many decades in the future – or longer)… I fall back on Keynes’ quip that, “In the long run we’re all dead.”

[Sorry for butting in.]

[davelj]

[quote=UCGal]Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.
[/quote]

Sure, but… the “when” and the “depth” are the only important considerations.

For example, I know I’m going to die. But the “when” and the “how” are the important issues. Simply noting that I’m going to die doesn’t convey any useful information.

Sure, there will be a collapse… but without any idea of timing (which could be many decades in the future – or longer)… I fall back on Keynes’ quip that, “In the long run we’re all dead.”

[Sorry for butting in.]

[Author]

Posts