Tuesday, May 26, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

If everybody must be equally well-off all the time, there can be no significant movement up or down.


Written in the context of the evils the British Labor government but pertinent generally.  Emphasis added.  

The great social evil now is relative poverty. Having succeeded in eliminating the mass hunger and life-threatening conditions in which so many once struggled to survive, we must finish the job and go on to abolish inequality which is the great injustice of our own age. The inference is that some people being relatively less well off than others is the precise moral equivalent of people starving to death while others feast.

Ironically, it is the great success of free market economics and the unprecedented mass prosperity it has produced which brings this reckoning. The economic system that has delivered more people from poverty than any previous one in human history is now attacked for failing to bring everyone’s lifestyle to the same standard all at once. There are some real problems with this. If everybody must be equally well-off all the time, there can be no significant movement up or down. That would rule out what might be seen as a natural trajectory from less successful to more successful, or from early struggle to affluent independence, perhaps involving personal resourcefulness or a climb up a professional ladder.

Relative poverty, so long as it is not permanent, is the obverse – the other side of the same coin – of social mobility. If there is a political guarantee of economic equality, as there was supposed to be in the old Soviet societies, the possibility of individual self-improvement is lost. For some people to be better off than others is not, in itself, morally unacceptable: their affluence may be a reward for talent, effort and risk-taking. (The argument that such traits are themselves unfair advantages is beyond ridiculous: it is positively pernicious.) Of course, they might have achieved their success through unscrupulous means, but that is the kind of moral affront which laws and social disapproval are intended to prevent.

The idea that anyone who is significantly better off must be, by definition, immoral is what lies behind the logic of a wealth tax – which is, in effect, a success tax. This is the real crux of the matter. Personal achievement and self-improvement are among the greatest satisfactions life has to offer. The possibility of moral agency and the scope for taking individual responsibility are probably the defining attributes of emotional maturity. We have spent a generation or so arguing about whether the government should guarantee equality of opportunity – which would provide as many people as possible with the chance to experience these things – or equality of outcome which would, by definition, eliminate them.

Relative poverty – which is to say, being less well off than some other people – is not, in itself, a bad thing, so long as it is temporary and remediable. It should be something that you can escape, leave behind, look back on as a formative time. (You may have guessed that I speak from experience here.) But the possibility of it must exist.

The emphasized text gets to the point I harp on - All systems need variance in order to evolve.  You can only have zero variance in contexts of zero change.  If the environment or context is itself subject to change, then your system within that environment needs variance to allow the evolution of the system to adapt to the changes in the environment.  Darwin's theory of evolution has application beyond the biological world.

Any ideology which insists on removing variance between individuals in order to achieve "equality" are guaranteed to fail.  Social systems are subject to exogenous change and therefore there needs to be variance (inequality) within the system to allow it to evolve in the context of those exogenous changes.  By disposing of differences, you guarantee the eventual collapse of the system.  

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffeehouse, for the voice of the kingdom.

The Conduct of the Allies (1711) by Jonathan Swift. 

It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffeehouse, for the voice of the kingdom. The city coffeehouses have been for some years filled with people, whose fortunes depend upon the Bank, East-India, or some other stock. Every new fund to these, is like a new mortgage to a usurer, whose compassion for a young heir, is exactly the same with that of a stockjobber to the landed gentry. At the court end of the town, the like places of resort are frequented either by men out of place, and consequently enemies to the present ministry, or by officers of the army: no wonder then if the general cry, in all such meetings, be against any peace, either with Spain or without; which, in other words, is no more than this; that discontented men desire another change of ministry; that soldiers would be glad to keep their commissions; and that the creditors have money still, and would have the debtors borrow on at the old extorting rate, while they have any security to give.

For all that we bemoan fake news, press release journalism, rank propaganda and the gulf between the chattering class and most ordinary citizens, it has ever been so as evidenced by Swift.

315 years ago and he might as well be speaking of X/Twitter.

It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffeehouse, for the voice of the kingdom.

We keep discovering, age by age, that the loudest, most persistent, grating and annoying voices, whether in the London coffehouse or on X, are unrepresentative of the vox populi.  The NGOs, 501(c)(3)'s, Think Tanks and academia do their advocacy press releases; legacy media fills their column inches and social media regurgitate for likes, all fueled by self-interest; and all that noise correlates poorly with the interests and opinions of the great bulk of the nation.


Data Talks

 

Sun, Sea and Sky: a Summer Phantasy, 1892 by John Atkinson Grimshaw

Sun, Sea and Sky: a Summer Phantasy, 1892 by John Atkinson Grimshaw (England, 1836-1893)
















Click to enlarge.

Monday, May 25, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it

From The Examiner No. XIV (Thursday, November 9th, 1710), Jonathan Swift.

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.

Prairie Sky by Joseph Alleman

Prairie Sky by Joseph Alleman (America, 1975 - ) 
































Click to enlarge.

Sunday, May 24, 2026

Wilmer McLean

Grok, is this true?

The X post replies to a prompt for favorite historical facts by claiming the US Civil War began and ended on properties of the same man, later identifying him as Wilbur (a minor misremembering of Wilmer McLean).

Wilmer McLean's Virginia farmhouse near Manassas served as Confederate Gen. Beauregard's headquarters in July 1861 during the First Battle of Bull Run, where a cannonball struck his kitchen.

McLean moved to Appomattox Court House to escape fighting, but in April 1865 Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant in the parlor of his new home there, effectively ending the war.

 

Andrew Jackson had an African grey parrot that swore so much at his funeral it had to be removed because it wouldn’t stop screaming obscenities

Question to Grok - Did that really happen? (the grey parrot story; I know about the Emu war.)

Andrew Jackson owned an African grey parrot named Poll (sometimes called Polly). It originally belonged to his wife Rachel and was acquired around 1827. After Rachel's death, Jackson kept the bird. 

[en.wikipedia.org]

At Jackson's funeral on June 10, 1845, at The Hermitage in Tennessee, Poll reportedly caused a scene by swearing loudly. Reverend William Menefee Norment, who attended, later recalled (as quoted in Samuel G. Heiskell’s Andrew Jackson and Early Tennessee History):

"Before the sermon and while the crowd was gathering, a wicked parrot that was a household pet, got excited and commenced swearing so loud and long as to disturb the people and had to be carried from the house."

The bird was removed to restore order. African greys are excellent mimics, and Jackson was known for his colorful language, so the parrot likely picked it up from him or others in the household. 

[jacksonianamerica.com]

This is an anecdotal story based on a contemporary eyewitness account, but it's widely accepted as credible (though not 100% proven with multiple independent sources). It's documented in historical books, the Presidential Pet Museum, and Snopes rates the core claim as true based on the reverend's recollection.

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

So thick the confusion, Even the cowards were brave.

From Carmina Archilochi: The Fragments of Archilochos translated by Guy Davenport.

So thick the confusion,
Even the cowards were brave.

Palo Alto Circle, 1943 by Richard Diebenkorn

Palo Alto Circle, 1943 by Richard Diebenkorn (America, 1922-1993)































Click to enlarge.

Saturday, May 23, 2026

The sweetness Of homecoming

From Carmina Archilochi: The Fragments of Archilochos translated by Guy Davenport.

How Many Times
by Archilochos

How many times,
How many times,
On the grey sea,
The sea combed
By the wind
Like a wilderness
Of woman’s hair,
Have we longed,
Lost in nostalgia,
For the sweetness
Of homecoming.

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Data Talks

 

Distich

From Carmina Archilochi:  The Fragments of Archilochos translated by Guy Davenport.

Hipponax alone among the archaic poets, we are told, had as sharpened a stylus as Archilochos, and Hipponax is remembered for a black little distich:

Woman is twice a pleasure to man.
The wedding night and her funeral.

Leading to the question:  What is a distich?

A distich is a literary term for a stanza, strophe, or poem consisting of two lines of verse, typically forming a complete thought or rhyming couplet. It is derived from the Greek distichos ("having two rows") and often refers specifically to classical elegiac couplets (one hexameter and one pentameter line) or similar two-line structures.

Salamovka at Night (Judy’s Window Lit), 1975 by Lois Dodd

Salamovka at Night (Judy’s Window Lit), 1975 by Lois Dodd (America, 1927 - )























Click to enlarge.

290 million Americans have flow at least once in their life.

I saw the claim that the median American takes zero flights a year.  

I am willing to believe that it is true, but is it true?

To Gemini

What percent of Americans fly at least once in a year?

Depending on the year and the specific survey methodology, between 43% and 52% of American adults fly at least once a year.

The most comprehensive data comes from the annual Air Travelers in America survey conducted by Ipsos for Airlines for America (A4A). Their recent tracking shows the following stability in annual air travel:

2023: 43%

2024: 46%

2025: 45%

By contrast, independent polling by Gallup historically puts the normal baseline slightly higher, tracking near 48% to 52% in peak non-pandemic travel years.

Key Data Insights
  • The "Super-Users" Distort the Average: While roughly half of the population does not step onto a plane in a given year, total passenger volumes remain massive. This is because a small segment of frequent fliers (roughly 8% to 10% of the population) takes five or more round trips per year, heavily skewing the total number of flights taken. 
  • The Five-Year Window: If you expand the timeline slightly, about 64% to 68% of Americans report flying at least once within a 5-year period 
  • Lifetime Flight Data: Flying is overwhelmingly common over the course of a lifetime; 86% to 87% of all Americans have flown on a commercial aircraft at least once.
So strictly just barely true, depending on definitions and source.  But broadly, true.  Roughly half of Americans do not take a flight in a given year.

However, another way of looking at it, and a miraculous way, is related to the final statistic.  Roughly 15 fifteen percent of Americans have never flown.

But invert that and you have the neat miracle that 290 million Americans (85% of the 342 million Americans) currently alive have at some point in their lives been hoisted to some 35,000 feet in the air for an hour or more and flown some hundreds or thousands of miles at a speed of 5-600 miles per hour.  Truly miraculous.  

Friday, May 22, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

The result is that whenever those who are opposed to change have the chance to attack the innovator, they do it with much vigour,

From The Prince by Machiavelli.  Chapter 6.

Interesting to reread at this moment when AI is challenging old commercial orders and the public will is overturning old political settlements.  

Those who, like them, become rulers through their own abilities, experience difficulty in attaining power, but once that is achieved, they keep it easily. The difficulties encountered in attaining power arise partly from the new institutions and laws they are forced to introduce in order to establish their power and make it secure. And it should be realised that taking the initiative in introducing a new form of government is very difficult and dangerous, and unlikely to succeed. The reason is that all those who profit from the old order will be opposed to the innovator, whereas all those who might benefit from the new order are, at best, tepid supporters of him. This lukewarmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws on their side, partly from the sceptical temper of men, who do not really believe in new things unless they have been seen to work well. The result is that whenever those who are opposed to change have the chance to attack the innovator, they do it with much vigour, whereas his supporters act only half-heartedly; so that the innovator and his supporters find themselves in great danger.

In order to examine this matter thoroughly, we need to consider whether these innovators can act on their own or whether they depend upon others; that is, whether they need to persuade others if they are to succeed, or whether they are capable of establishing themselves by force. In the former case, they always fare badly and accomplish nothing. But if they do not depend upon others and have sufficient forces to take the initiative, they rarely find themselves in difficulties. Consequently, all armed prophetsa succeed, whereas unarmed ones fail. This happens because, apart from the factors already mentioned, the people are fickle; it is easy to persuade them about something, but difficult to keep them persuaded. Hence, when they no longer believe in you and your schemes, you must be able to force them to believe.

[snip]

Such innovators, then, have to confront many difficulties; all the dangers come after they have begun their enterprises, and need to be overcome through their own ability. But once they have succeeded, and begin to be greatly respected (after they have extinguished those envious of their success), they remain powerful, secure, honoured and successful.

I should like to add a less important example than the eminent ones already discussed. But it certainly is worthy of mention in this context, so let it suffice for all the others like it: I refer to Hiero of Syracuse. From being a private citizen, he became ruler of Syracuse. He enjoyed a fine opportunity but, apart from that, his success owed nothing to luck. For when the Syracusans were in desperate straits, they chose him as their general; afterwards he was deservedly made their ruler. And even in private life he showed so much ability that it was written of him ‘quod nihil illi deerat ad regnandum praeter regnum’. He disbanded the old army and raised a new one; he abandoned the old alliances and formed new ones; and as soon as he possessed his own troops and had reliable allies he could build any edifice he wanted upon this foundation. Thus, it was very difficult for him to attain power, but not to keep it.

Moon Lights by Phil Greenwood

Moon Lights by Phil Greenwood (Britain, 1943 - )





















Click to enlarge.

Thursday, May 21, 2026

He lives more in the same amount of time.

From On Losing the Cold War by Severian.  Long, rambling, in a style I am not enthusiastic about.  But with several worthwhile insights.

Where Marx really went wrong was — and I know this sounds flip, but I’m as serious as cancer — being born in 1818. He lived his entire miserable life in a world where “labor” really was a physical thing. The richest robber baron of the Gilded Age lived a far different life, materially, than the poorest serf-in-all-but-name working in his factories…

…but the robber baron knew he needed the serfs. Their relationship was purely dialectical. Without his factory hands, no robber baron. And in a strange but very real way, the higher up the food chain your Gilded Age robber baron went, the more he was dependent on his serfs for his lifestyle. J.P. Morgan is usually credited as being the first guy to become a Robber Baron purely through finance. Carnegie, Rockefeller, all those guys had most of their wealth in financial instruments, of course, but those financial instruments rested on control of a physical product — Carnegie Steel, Standard Oil.

I’m probably being unfair to Jay Cooke, the Michael Milken of his day, but since more people have heard of J.P. Morgan let’s roll with it. Even though Morgan’s wealth was entirely on paper — he was nothing but a securities trader — his lifestyle utterly depended on a battalion of servants. In a very real way, you yourself, right now, live much better than J.P. Morgan did in his heyday. And not just because you have aspirin, antibiotics, and air conditioning, three taken-for-granted things ol’ J.P. would’ve given half his kingdom for. But because you have more time. If you’re hungry, you can open the fridge or the microwave and have all the food you need in a matter of minutes.

J.P. couldn’t. J.P. had to deploy an army of servants every time he wanted a snack, and those servants were constrained by things like “availability of ice” and “when is the fishmonger at his stall.” You’re hungry at 2am, you jump in your car and get some Taco Bell. It takes ten minutes. J.P.’s hungry at 2am and it’s tough titty, J.P., your ass is going hungry. Because even though you’re the richest man in the world and have legions of manservants at your beck and call, Taco Bell just isn’t there. Even if someone had had the brilliant idea to create a Gilded Age Taco Bell, it still would’ve taken hours:

Wake up the manservant. Wake up the groom and stableboy. Hell, wake up the horse, then saddle the horse, ride to the drive thru window… which in this case means “the house of the guy who runs Gilded Age Taco Bell.” At which point he has to fire up the oven, start pounding the tortillas, send his own legion of valets and stableboys and whatnot out to get the refried beans…

And that’s the other thing, J.P. — you’d best not pull that shit too often, because those people know where you live. Not only do they know where you live, they live with you. Literally under the same roof. You want to sleep easy? You’d best not beat the servants too often, buddy.

There’s only so much “class consciousness” one can develop in that world. Oh yeah, J.P. thought of himself as one of the Masters of the Universe, there’s no denying that. But J.P. lived in what was still a brutally physical world, in a way we PoMo people really can’t grasp. If you can’t imagine what it would take to get some Gilded Age Taco Bell, maybe geography will do the trick. Ever seen Gangs of New York? Even if you haven’t, you’ve probably heard the name “Five Points.” The worst slum in America in the 19th century, and 19th century American slums were world class….

That was right down the street from Wall Street. Literally. I am not in any way joking, and if I’m exaggerating a little for effect when I say “J.P. could’ve hit Five Points with a five iron from his swanky digs on Central Park West,” I promise you I’m not exaggerating much. You can look it up for yourself. The main reason the Union rushed troops straight from the Gettysburg battlefield, and no-shit shelled parts of the city with gunboats, during the Draft Riots was because Five Points (et al) was right fucking there, and they might’ve gotten it into their heads to lynch a few Masters of the Universe. Rich man’s war, poor man’s fight, right? Let’s see how you like it, you bankster bastards…

The PoMo “information economy” removes all that. The other day I joked about colleges like Bennington and Goucher. I cracked some jokes, yeah, but I wasn’t really joking. Those places aren’t for us. Wall Street is still a physical location, but it might as well be on the dark side of the moon for all any of us have access to it. J.P. couldn’t beat the servants too hard, or too often. The modern equivalent of J.P. isn’t even aware that he has servants. He just clicks on a website, and stuff appears at his door. Like magic. Hell, it IS magic for all he knows, and he surely doesn’t care, because all that shit is his by right. He went to Bennington, after all. He has achieved full class consciousness.

I like the point that our modern systemic efficiency and effectiveness makes everyone dramatically better off than almost everyone way back when (up until recent times such as even a decade or two ago.)

Not just the normal points regarding technology and medical sophistication and longevity - all good points.  People can, if they wish, live more than Morgan could.  More intensely and with more time.  

I am always struck by this in historical accounts even into the first half of the 20th century.  During the October 1929 Crash and subsequent depression, when the President summoned the owner of the biggest bank on the West Coast, it was a four day train ride from San Francisco to Washington, D.C.  When Britain dispatched troops and a new leadership team to South Africa to deal with the Boer War, it was a five week steamship journey to arrive - with no radio communication in the duration.

Time wasn't wasted on those long journeys, but it was also certainly not optimally used.

Not only does everyone now live longer than even fifty years ago, but everyone lives more in the time that they have.  

All of that ties into another idea which has been floating around in my head for some reason in the past day.

It is well established that people with high general intelligence (IQ) have, on average, better desirable life outcomes along the standard sociological outcomes (education attainment, longevity, morbidity, income, marriage rates and stability, etc.)  

There are many reasons for the correlation and one which I do not see much discussed but which I suspect is a significant one is time efficiency.

High IQ generally allows better estimation of what is likely to happen in the near future.  High IQ is a form of reading the future and acting on that future in the present to better optimize time and resources.

A simple example.

You approach a door that will need to be unlocked.  High IQ John anticipates this and has the key out and ready as he approaches the door.  Low IQ Jack does not anticipate this and waits till he is at the door to get the keys from his pocket.  

It is a minor time savings.  Maybe 10 seconds saved by John over Jack.  But repeat that 10 second saving dozens or hundreds of time during the day and it adds up.  Not only adds up, but compounds.  And lets not get distracted by the greater range of opportunities opened up through that saved time.  Let's just focus on the time.

If John gets a half hour more done in the work day than does Jack simply through having the capacity to hold multiple future scenarios in mind, assess the probabilities of those scenarios and then act on the most likely scenario, that implies that John lives/works/enjoys two and a half hours more a week, 130 more hours a year.  On an eight hour day, High IQ John "lives" 16 1/4 more days a year than Jack.

The JP Morgan issue elaborated by Severian and the High IQ John example here revolve around the efficiency and effectiveness of time utilization.  Do you want to be JP Morgan with his massive wealth but in a system of low personal productivity (and poor health, etc.) or you want to be the average person today whose personal efficiency and effectiveness in the modern system can be so much dramatically greater?

It is a variant of the hoary conundrum - do you want to be a big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond.  

High IQ John gets the best of both worlds - he optimizes personal efficiency and effectiveness in a system which is already geared towards enabling and rewarding efficiency and effectiveness.  Plus, he lives more in the same amount of time.



History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

The Pearl Necklace, 1930's by Dod Procter

The Pearl Necklace, 1930's by Dod Procter (England, 1892-1972)






























Click to enlarge.

Wednesday, May 20, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

House at Dusk, 1935 by Edward Hopper

House at Dusk, 1935 by Edward Hopper (America, 1882-1967)


















Click to enlarge.

Tuesday, May 19, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Reflection, 2024 by Inari Krohn

Reflection, 2024 by Inari Krohn (Finland, 1945 - )






























Click to enlarge.

Monday, May 18, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

The Yellow Birds, 1950 by Grandma Moses

The Yellow Birds, 1950 by Grandma Moses (America, 1860-1961)































Click to enlarge.

The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places

From A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway.

The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.

Sunday, May 17, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

"7:00," 2023 by Rob Browning

"7:00," 2023 by Rob Browning (America, 1955 - ) 
























Click to enlarge.

Saturday, May 16, 2026

Who Learns My Lesson Complete? by Walt Whitman

Who Learns My Lesson Complete?  
By Walt Whitman (America, 1819-1892)

Who learns my lesson complete?
Boss, journeyman, apprentice, churchman and atheist,
The stupid and the wise thinker, parents and offspring, merchant, 
 clerk, porter and customer,
Editor, author, artist, and schoolboy—draw nigh and commence;
It is no lesson—it lets down the bars to a good lesson,
And that to another, and every one to another still.

The great laws take and effuse without argument,
I am of the same style, for I am their friend,
I love them quits and quits, I do not halt and make salaams.

I lie abstracted and hear beautiful tales of things and the reasons of things,
They are so beautiful I nudge myself to listen.

I cannot say to any person what I hear—I cannot say it to myself  
 —it is very wonderful.

It is no small matter, this round and delicious globe moving so  
 exactly in its orbit for ever and ever, without one jolt or the  
 untruth of a single second,
I do not think it was made in six days, nor in ten thousand years, 
 nor ten billions of years,
Nor plann'd and built one thing after another as an architect  
 plans and builds a house.

I do not think seventy years is the time of a man or woman,
Nor that seventy millions of years is the time of a man or woman,
Nor that years will ever stop the existence of me, or any one else.

Is it wonderful that I should be immortal? as every one is im- 
 mortal;
I know it is wonderful, but my eyesight is equally wonderful, and  
 how I was conceived in my mother's womb is equally  
 wonderful,
And pass'd from a babe in the creeping trance of a couple of  
 summers and winters to articulate and walk—all this is  
 equally wonderful.

And that my soul embraces you this hour, and we affect each  
 other without ever seeing each other, and never perhaps to  
 see each other, is every bit as wonderful.

And that I can think such thoughts as these is just as wonderful,
And that I can remind you, and you think them and know them  
 to be true, is just as wonderful.

And that the moon spins round the earth and on with the earth, is 
equally wonderful,
And that they balance themselves with the sun and stars is equally  
 wonderful.

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Nocturnal Departure, 2007 by Timothy Dickinson

Nocturnal Departure, 2007 by Timothy Dickinson (England, 1941 - )































Click to enlarge.

Friday, May 15, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

It is not that folks didn't consider such ideas, but that their proponents were usually heretics who posed an existential threat.

From Philosophical Ideas Behind Their Time by  Alex Tabarrok.  An idea behind its time:

What is less commented on is the third possibility, ideas that could have been discovered much earlier but which were not, ideas behind their time.

His list of philosophical ideas, behind their times.

Hume’s is/ought distinction: the idea that you cannot derive a normative conclusion from factual premises.

Hume’s problem of induction: past regularities do not rationally guarantee future regularities.

Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance: the principles of justice should be derived without knowing one’s own particularities of class, race, gender and so forth. Seems obvious as an idea.

The Trolley Problem: similar ideas can be found earlier but the clean distinction between killing and let die or more generally omission and commission could have come much earlier. One might also think of the Prisoner’s Dilemma in this category of ideas or constructs that cleanly isolate an otherwise present but opaque idea.

The analytic/synthetic truths distinction: some things are true by definition, others are empirical. Obvious and it can be found before say Kant, yet a clear earlier statement would have resolved many issues and seems well within say Aristotle’s capability.

Aumann’s Agreement Theorem, technically, this requires Bayesian machinery and is difficult to formulate with precision, so I would not say the actual theorem was behind its time. But the underlying idea—that disagreement itself, not merely the arguments offered, should cause one to question and refine one’s own beliefs—could have been developed in Athens.

I’d also nominate a package of ideas like abolitionism, equal rights for women, and religious toleration–each of these is tendentious as examples yet the basic package seems fairly obvious as a category and yet late. (Perhaps if the veil of ignorance had been thought of earlier so would these ideas!) 

Note, that I am not arguing that abolitionism or equal rights for women could have happened much earlier only that these ideas were behind their time–the ideas were morally obvious even if not institutionally feasible.

A marginally interesting exercise but with a strong cast of intellectual onanism.  My first thought was that this could devolve into arguments of definition, and there is an element of that.  But it feels like there is more of a critique than that but I couldn't put my finger on it.  Something about the whole framing of the idea.

But commenter Sure gets at the issue.

Abolitionism as an idea dates back to at least the patristic era, if not Zoroaster. Religious toleration was not just an idea but Achaemaenid policy. Equal rights for women was largely opposed by women (it wasn't until WWII that majority of woman actively mobilizing on Woman's Suffrage were women), but it was policy among the Shakers, if not the Beguins.

The distinction between killing and let die dates back to at least Hammurabi. The Talmud explicitly condemns suicide, but allows one to undertake actions that lead to someone else killing you.

The veil of ignorance was proposed and rejected as incompatible with an all knowing god.

Hume, likewise, hcas historical antecedents (e.g. Socrates), but runs into trouble whenever people accept personalized or personalistic god(s).

And that is the big problem for a lot of this. It is not that folks didn't consider such ideas, but that their proponents were usually heretics who worried the establishment that their whole philosophical package would lead to a decay of morals, the dissolution of the people and the waning of its military power, and lead the populace to forsake the proper worship of the divine.

You can find all manner of folks who took positions that spring readily from the idea that any deity is remote and not informing people how to live. But that idea package has a terrible historical record. Rising copies of Stoicist literature, for instance, is associated with some pretty nasty demographic troubles. The Minha gave rise to a bloody rationalist persecution followed by a counter purge.

In a premodern world you need blindingly high birth rates, extremely high willingness to violently oppose interlopers, and a willingness to risk death for the community to stand up to the invasions on the horizon.

The folks who adopted the precursors to these ideas, generally, were crushed meretriciously by those who didn't. And the folks willing to be violent enough to uphold these sorts of concepts against the hordes of true believers? Well since the French Revolution that has typically been bloodier than their contemporaneous religious counterparts.

The real magic sauce here is not that these ideas might come about, it was that there existed societies confident enough and overpowering enough that they could indulge the whole project without either demanding a Socratic suicide or be overrun by some place more willing to do what was needed to sustain greater violence.

The Protestant West was weird. It tolerated heretics of numerous stripes without falling into demographic death spirals, too much internal conflict, or any of the very common failure modes that saw enterprising humanistic philosophers get executed by their compatriots or those beyond the borders.

I am exceedingly doubtful that any of these ideas could ever reach wide sway for centuries in other societies. The Inquisition would root such folks out and, at minimum, ostracize them. The Islamic world tried this and had one of the more famous purges in its history. Even among the Chinese, this sort of setup gave rise to incredibly harsh Legalistic practices.

And as an aside it is blindingly hilarious for Alex to invoke Bayes without at least considering the option that paucity of societies that endured with some of these concepts might bespeak something about their survival utility (at least under ancient conditions).





Data Talks

 

Young lady at the excavations of Pompeii, 1870 by Filippo Palizzi

Young lady at the excavations of Pompeii, 1870 by Filippo Palizzi (Italy, 1818-1899)

































Click to enlarge.

Thursday, May 14, 2026

History

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks