1. April 30, 1945 -> Hitler's suicide
  2. July 16, 1945 -> Trinity test
  3. August 6, 1945 -> Hiroshima
  4. August 29, 1945 -> First soviet test
  5. June 27, 1954 -> First nuclear power plant
  6. March 28, 1979 -> Three mile island
  7. April 26, 1986 -> Chernobyl
Unintuitive order...
The breakdown of empiricist science comes when we realize there are things that don't need to be observed to be true. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were unfathomably shortsighted mistakes, holding back human progress to this day while handing fear-based ideological power to authoritarians.
For clarity, I honestly thought that Hitler's suicide came after the bombs. I'm sure I've been told otherwise, but somehow this must have slipped my mind. By 1944 Japanese soldiers were already cannibalizing for sustenance. We had already won, ideologically and practically.
In the message to the Japanese, Truman (et al) didn't mention a nuclear weapon. Had they given any estimate of what "total destruction" meant and/or accepted a "conditional surrender", the world would be a better place. But they thought they were "smarter" than others, I guess.
They weren't smarter, but they were less ignorant, which is to say: they did have knowledge others didn't have. A lot of problems, big and small, can be solved by figuring out how to share knowledge. This is why I studied communication, but it's really an epistemological problem.
Anyway, sanctions restrict the flow of knowledge. So, in the current situation with Putin, we're punishing ignorance by ensuring further broader ignorance on the grounds that he's too ignorant to understand something most don't understand. It's a knowledge distribution problem.
I conjecture that Putin is a scared child inside: Vera Putina
Scared children can be easily coerced into anything, they can even be coerced into coercing themselves into thinking the world is a dark place and humans are more full of darkness than light.
Sanctions are used by the Kremlin on their own citizens for the same reasons described above, for context. Cycles of ignorance. But I think deep down Putin has the right intentions, I think he's a good person, just so mislead it'd take something 'Rosebud' level to dislodge him.
Why doesn't he think humans are great (so that they must be controlled)? It's the same problem that faces people everywhere. Hell, most of the people I follow on Twitter don't think people are all that great and/or are cyclically cynical/apathetic, myself included until ~2020.
I still feel like a child myself most of the time, but I'm not scared, and I can explain why: "All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge."
Anyway, I just want to add that sanctions are objectively better than deaths (like from an escalating WW situation). And, we did articulate, relatively specifically and clearly, "if you do this we will do this". Boundaries are crucial. It just, clearly hasn't worked (yet?), so...
Also, I think he's been humiliated and backed into a corner, maybe (Biden [et al]) doing the least possible may be the best thing for now--but populism demands something, so we can send money to the Ukraine national reserves and force political sanctions.
Agree with the premise regarding Putin, but what about the expansion of NATO over the last 20+ years. Why does the US political machine continue to expand an alliance that should really have been wound up when the iron curtain fell? What does it say about it? Is it fear that drives this expansion, or something else in your opinion?
reply
I'm a poltical layman, but I'll try to reply to the best my ability.
NATO is an institution that was designed to provide collective security against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union itself was an institutional extension of Marxist ideas.
One of the most important Marxist ideas is that humans aren't individually rational, so the collective good (often, then, defined by a few elites) is the "greater good." Here, suffering becomes a way to virtue signal, and when that happens we have a much bigger problem.
While the Soviet Union has ended, those Marxist epistemological ideas about the inferiority of individuals persist through Putinism.
Let's take this current meme for example:
If one reads the full transcript, what spoke to me was not the woke woman predicting flowers growing from her and the solider's own corpses, but the solider's fallible statement:
"Right now, our discussion will lead to nothing"
That's not true, it is possible that their conversation lead to the end of the war—to a fair election of a new leader in Russia. In another universe, it did.
But I digress, What does this have to do with NATO? NATO is unfortunately becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe if Putin thought more of himself as an individual, he would have had the knowledge realize that he was about to pull a Catch-22. But he didn't. And now it's everyone's job to prevent this ignorance from exacerbating indefinitely.
One thing worth taking seriously is that money is a form of communication. All forms of communication are imperfect in that there is no way to communicate so as to not be misinterpreted. So, because of its imperfect claims about value, people tend to think of money as one of the worst forms of communication. Even economists refer to their own field as "The Dismal Science".
However, silencing (censoring transactions) in any medium is akin to those same Marxist ideas about the inferiority of people--we must be able to silence because people can only speak "for the greater good" that a few elites can define. Insert any Yoda-like quote about fear here. But, part of the reason the study of money is considered 'The Dismal Science' must certainly be related to this fear.
This becomes the same self-fulfilling prophecy. But we now have a new voluntary institution without those restrictions--Bitcoin. That means Russians can use Bitcoin to avoid monetary censorship (but likely not value, on account of I, for example, don't want those Oligarch's Bitcoin), and that's a good thing, particularly on a micro-scale. Bitcoin seems like it could be one good contributor long-term for shrinking the need for NATO/military. But, Bitcoin is only as strong as our communications infrastructure. I'd worry about attacks on Starlink satellites, for example.
reply
One of the most important Marxist ideas is that humans aren't individually rational, so the collective good (often, then, defined by a few elites) is the "greater good."
This approach appears to be adopted by the west based on how we approached COVID and more recently in Canada with the freedom convoy. The Canadian government has put property rights to the side and frozen people's Bank accounts. I can't see this limited to Canada. Western countries will implement this in due course.
As a result, it's two pigs arguing over the trough and the only choice us plebs have is which lipstick do we prefer?
Thank God for bitcoin. The more of us that withdraw our labour from the fiat system, the more power the individual will have over the collective, be it a nation state or an alliance
reply
Indeed, totally agree with you. Hence the intense pushback from citizens all over the world. And yeah, thanks for Bitcoin.
Regarding hog cosmetics: The difference between the US/Canada/EU and Russia is that in the West we celebrate criticism, we have a Tradition of Criticism--which goes all the way back to people like Galileo, Copernicus, Martin Luther and, hell, Mark Twain. There's no method of criticism in Russia (or China, or North Korea) that isn't intermediated. If a solider asks questions, they get killed, if they defect, their family gets killed (or silenced in some way). Bitcoin, again, is a digital extension of that Tradition of Criticism where all Western progress derives from.
I agree with the negative points about centralized governance, but I also see more reasons to be optimistic than ever.
reply
MUCH more concise response to the "NATO expansion" argument, I totally agree with:
reply