How does one resolve the tension (contradiction?) between the need for a leader pursuing personal gain, & the need for a leader as an ideologue? My attempts below.
"Personal gain is always a better motivator than vague appeals to civic duty or collective good" -4.5
"The founder must be so devoted to his own vision that nothing can cleave him from his cause. Wealth and admiration may result from the venture, but they are far from the heart of his ambition. Purity of purpose and an unrelenting drive to make it manifest must be his soul motive. Anything less and his attention will easily stray elsewhere. Undivided care for the project and the people involved is all that matters." -6.4
A) The personal gain is the achievement of one's vision ❌️ Pandering to the quotes not the text, "Thus, running a [...] prosperous[...] society becomes the sovereign’s sole priority, as this alone is what will make them WEALTHY."-4.5. Personal gain = PROFIT.
B) Profit motive is for the creation of lame rookie cities, Based cities will have an auteur CEO/leader at the helm ❓️ Sure, I guess if the goal is just the creation of more city-states regardless of quality this makes sense. From there it's obvs just the questions of "Is that the goal?" & more interestingly, "Does the ideologue seek to make the city profitable? Why?"
C) Profit motive is an onboarding tactic the ideologue uses to gain the support of others to work for them, not their actual motivation ❓️ Semi-supported by the discussion of paying CEO's to run cities, but semi-contradicted by saying "[Those chosen to help run the city] should also have a personal connection to the city's mission and view their involvement as a lifelong duty." Maybe it just loops back to B, where ideological conviction is preferred but profit motive can substitute.
D) Dialectics/Dualism? Forcing yourself to negotiate between idealism and practicality. ⭐️ Creating profit for yourself via your project so you can further fund that project. FUCK that's just A again, but delaying the ideological motivation a step.
🪦 I can't resolve the benefit of a leader pursuing personal profit as anything beyond a backup plan, but I had fun trying. Wonderland is such a rich text full of so many interesting ideas, even when I disagree I find myself enchanted. Really loved it, and I'm excited for whatever comes next
Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment Melissa! I'm glad you enjoyed the series :)
I guess my answer is a synthesis of these two positions--if you buy into the capitalist frame that creating things people value is profitable, then creating a city that upholds the sovereign's personal formulation of value will result in them making money.
But I believe there are many potential peaks on the adaptive landscape of what type of city people will find valuable--this meshes with Balaji's overall view. Some people might want to live in a city that is trying to optimize for longevity in a Bryan Johnson or SolBrah manner (and even these two have vastly different approaches), while others might prefer a libertarian haven with minimal regulation and freedom to experiment in the market however they choose. Others might want to live in a super futuristic city with tons of automation and massive skyscrapers (but less privacy), while others want a more environmentally conscious, solarpunk aesthetic.
If you're not profitable, you're doing something wrong--either there isn't the demand you thought there would be, or you're not managing things efficiently. The lack of profit indicates that something needs to change.
Please follow up if I didn't get to the heart of your query!
Thought-provoking commentary and wonderful storytelling, as usual. Especially loved these two lines:
“Modern man experiences paralyzing anxiety because society has broken his spine. The spirit remains tenuously aware of this fracture, which is why a sense of injustice and subjugation follows him everywhere.”
“The political process is perfected—if only you could get with the program.”
Question!
Do you think it is possible that within the next decade or so, we might develop robotics that are so advanced that they might start to be capable of engaging in certain types of “tactile, artistic, emotional, interpersonal, *embodied* crafts”?
Robotic bartenders or musicians that, for some people, are more desirable than human ones? An emergent form of new intelligence?
I see the robotics question as having two aspects:
1) Even if we developed technology with the fine motor skills of a human being, I am consistently reminded of a JBP quote of him describing how sensory information "isn't just out there" in any practical sense. The ability to craft a delicious cocktail or arrange a bouquet of flowers strikes me as a uniquely human domain given the need for good taste, composition, and efficiency. I think a human bartender will always be cheaper, faster, and much more charismatic than a machine.
2) A lot of the value we derive from service, artistic, and interpersonal professions is precisely the human element. A rock band or restaurant composed entirely of robots might be fun for the sake of novelty (I'm sure Japan already has plenty of these), but most of the time we want to be able to make eye contact with a server and ask what their favorite thing is on the menu. We want our celebrities to be people we can relate to, we want emotional guidance from people who can empathize with what we're feeling, etc.
Basically, even if technology did get that far, I think there would still be a greater demand for human services outside of a few niches. McDonalds could be fully automated, a Michelin star restaurant could not.
How does one resolve the tension (contradiction?) between the need for a leader pursuing personal gain, & the need for a leader as an ideologue? My attempts below.
"Personal gain is always a better motivator than vague appeals to civic duty or collective good" -4.5
"The founder must be so devoted to his own vision that nothing can cleave him from his cause. Wealth and admiration may result from the venture, but they are far from the heart of his ambition. Purity of purpose and an unrelenting drive to make it manifest must be his soul motive. Anything less and his attention will easily stray elsewhere. Undivided care for the project and the people involved is all that matters." -6.4
A) The personal gain is the achievement of one's vision ❌️ Pandering to the quotes not the text, "Thus, running a [...] prosperous[...] society becomes the sovereign’s sole priority, as this alone is what will make them WEALTHY."-4.5. Personal gain = PROFIT.
B) Profit motive is for the creation of lame rookie cities, Based cities will have an auteur CEO/leader at the helm ❓️ Sure, I guess if the goal is just the creation of more city-states regardless of quality this makes sense. From there it's obvs just the questions of "Is that the goal?" & more interestingly, "Does the ideologue seek to make the city profitable? Why?"
C) Profit motive is an onboarding tactic the ideologue uses to gain the support of others to work for them, not their actual motivation ❓️ Semi-supported by the discussion of paying CEO's to run cities, but semi-contradicted by saying "[Those chosen to help run the city] should also have a personal connection to the city's mission and view their involvement as a lifelong duty." Maybe it just loops back to B, where ideological conviction is preferred but profit motive can substitute.
D) Dialectics/Dualism? Forcing yourself to negotiate between idealism and practicality. ⭐️ Creating profit for yourself via your project so you can further fund that project. FUCK that's just A again, but delaying the ideological motivation a step.
🪦 I can't resolve the benefit of a leader pursuing personal profit as anything beyond a backup plan, but I had fun trying. Wonderland is such a rich text full of so many interesting ideas, even when I disagree I find myself enchanted. Really loved it, and I'm excited for whatever comes next
Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment Melissa! I'm glad you enjoyed the series :)
I guess my answer is a synthesis of these two positions--if you buy into the capitalist frame that creating things people value is profitable, then creating a city that upholds the sovereign's personal formulation of value will result in them making money.
But I believe there are many potential peaks on the adaptive landscape of what type of city people will find valuable--this meshes with Balaji's overall view. Some people might want to live in a city that is trying to optimize for longevity in a Bryan Johnson or SolBrah manner (and even these two have vastly different approaches), while others might prefer a libertarian haven with minimal regulation and freedom to experiment in the market however they choose. Others might want to live in a super futuristic city with tons of automation and massive skyscrapers (but less privacy), while others want a more environmentally conscious, solarpunk aesthetic.
If you're not profitable, you're doing something wrong--either there isn't the demand you thought there would be, or you're not managing things efficiently. The lack of profit indicates that something needs to change.
Please follow up if I didn't get to the heart of your query!
Thought-provoking commentary and wonderful storytelling, as usual. Especially loved these two lines:
“Modern man experiences paralyzing anxiety because society has broken his spine. The spirit remains tenuously aware of this fracture, which is why a sense of injustice and subjugation follows him everywhere.”
“The political process is perfected—if only you could get with the program.”
Question!
Do you think it is possible that within the next decade or so, we might develop robotics that are so advanced that they might start to be capable of engaging in certain types of “tactile, artistic, emotional, interpersonal, *embodied* crafts”?
Robotic bartenders or musicians that, for some people, are more desirable than human ones? An emergent form of new intelligence?
Thanks Shingai! :)
I see the robotics question as having two aspects:
1) Even if we developed technology with the fine motor skills of a human being, I am consistently reminded of a JBP quote of him describing how sensory information "isn't just out there" in any practical sense. The ability to craft a delicious cocktail or arrange a bouquet of flowers strikes me as a uniquely human domain given the need for good taste, composition, and efficiency. I think a human bartender will always be cheaper, faster, and much more charismatic than a machine.
2) A lot of the value we derive from service, artistic, and interpersonal professions is precisely the human element. A rock band or restaurant composed entirely of robots might be fun for the sake of novelty (I'm sure Japan already has plenty of these), but most of the time we want to be able to make eye contact with a server and ask what their favorite thing is on the menu. We want our celebrities to be people we can relate to, we want emotional guidance from people who can empathize with what we're feeling, etc.
Basically, even if technology did get that far, I think there would still be a greater demand for human services outside of a few niches. McDonalds could be fully automated, a Michelin star restaurant could not.
I love this. Your ideas are wonderful and your voice is soothing. A rare mix. Instant subscribe from me.
Thank you so much! I'm so glad you're enjoyed it :)