by trod1234 | 2025-05-31 23:40:32+00:00
> You're saying I rely on fallacy, survivorship bias, but you have no way of knowing what is coming.

Just because you happen to be blind in this area, doesn't mean all people are blind. In the day after tomorrow, you had that group at the library that chose to follow the police officer despite warnings that going out into the storm would kill them. What happened? They died.

That is how reality works, it doesn't care about belief. Its pass fail, live die.

The thing about a classical education (following the greeks/roman western philosophy) is that you can see a lot more of reality accurately than someone who hasn't received it, and an order of magnitude more than someone that's been indoctrinated. You know the dynamics and how systems interact.

The dynamics of systems don't just disappear, there is inertia, and you can see where that is going even if you cannot predict individual details or a timeline. It is a stochastic environment, but you can make accurate predictions like El Nino/La Nina weather patterns with the right know-how and observation skills. Everything we know today originated from observation (objective measure), and trial and error.

This framework is called first principles, or a first principled approach. Its the backbone of science, and it ties everything that is important to objective measure, and the limits of error. When dealing with human systems of organization, you can treat the system in predictable ways at the sacrifice of some of the accuracy, but that doesn't negate it completely.

These are things that matter more than other things, and let one predict the future of an existing system, if carefully observed. Like a dam where the concrete has started cracking might indicate structural weakness prior to a catastrophic collapse.

It is not governments job to redistribute wealth. That is communist/marxist/socialist rhetoric, and it fails for obvious reasons I won't get into. Mises sums it up in his writings back in the 1930s. You like to claim you base reasoning on history, but you have to include parts that you don't agree with to actually be doing that.

Just because you don't know what will happen doesn't mean others can't. These are fundamental biases to your perception that rigorous critical thinking teaches you to avoid so you are not dead wrong.

There are people that see the trends before others because they follow a first principled approach, and they save themselves, or may even profit off that when survival is not at risk.

The blind will often cause chaos to profit, thinking no matter what they do individually they can't end it all. The exact same kind of fallacy that you seem to be falling into, survivorship bias.

There are phase changes in many systems. The specific bounds may not be known or knowable in detail ahead of time, but they have been shown to happen, and in such environments precursor details matter.

The moment you start dismissing likely outcomes without basis, is the moment you and those you care about go extinct when those outcomes happen and you are in the path of that outcome.

No one knows everything, but there are some people that know more than others.

It is a fairly short jaunt in the scheme of things from the falling dominoes caused by elimination of entry level positions (and capital formation as a whole), to socio-economic collapse (where no goods are produced or can be exchanged).

The major problem is no one is listening to the smartest people because they are no longer in the room, only yes people get into the room, the blind leading the blind. That has only one type of outcome given sufficient time. Destruction.