• 2 Posts
  • 272 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 9th, 2023

help-circle











  • I’ve been watching The Great on Hulu. It’s an explicitly fictionalized account of Catherine the Great in Russia, and I generally recommend it as long as you keep its subtitle of “An Occasionally True Story” in mind.

    Anyway, the actual Catherine the Great was one of the Enlightened Despots of Europe. For the sake of argument, let’s say everything she did was absolutely amazing, and raised millions of people out of serfdom and into education and opportunities that were completely closed off before. Basically, the absolute best case you can ever make for the monarchy.

    6 generations later, Russia is ruled by Czar Nicholas II, and there’s no other way to put it: it’s a fucking disaster. Russia hadn’t been industrializing the way other powers had in the 100+ years between then and Catherine, but Nicky drags the country into a war against a country that had. The inevitable happens, and it gets so bad that Nicky gets shot by revolutionaries in a basement along with the rest of his family. As brutal as that execution was, it’s hard to say the Bolshoviks were wrong for doing so.

    So even in the absolute best case scenario, better than any monarchy could ever do for real, it doesn’t last. It can’t last. You may get a good one once in a while–and even that is a stretch–but the next one could easily be a monster that undoes everything.



  • There are several countries who gave up WMDs, either deployed or in development. Iraq, Libya, South Africa, and Ukraine. Of these, only South Africa was left alone. And to be clear, two of the remaining three were attacked by the US.

    So what we’ve done here is signal to the smaller powers that they should never negotiate away their WMDs. You’re just going to get invaded, anyway. I can’t blame smaller powers for going that way at all.

    Edit: and to be extra clear, this also applies to Iran and N Korea. They have no incentive to give up their nuclear programs.


  • Being hard is the point. (That’s what she said).

    In making that attempt, we have to solve a lot of problems. How do we make a self-sustaining ecosystems where humans can live indefinitely? Can humans live that long in reduced gravity without issues? Can children be raised to healthy adulthood in reduced gravity? Is human pregnancy even possible there (probably is, but we don’t know that for sure)? Are there technologies or genetic engineering that we could use to solve the issues we encounter?

    How do we mine asteroids? How do we manufacture things in zero gravity? How do we build the Internet to handle latency measured in minutes or hours or days?

    These are all hard problems, but if they were easy, then they wouldn’t be interesting.

    And I’d say the same for ocean colonies. That’s hard, too. Not quite as hard, but hard.






  • Russia has some odd game theory incentives because their nukes probably haven’t been well maintained. Now, the rest of the world has to assume they work. The consequences of being wrong about that are too great. However, if Russia actually launched a nuke and it fizzles, that’s a pretty good indication that their nukes don’t work in general. It’s therefore in Russia’s best interest to keep pretending that it will launch a nuke, but never do it because that would remove all doubt.

    And then they’re fucked. With the nuclear taboo broken–fizzle or not–nobody will complain when NATO gets directly involved in conventional ways.