(no title)
augment001 | 2 years ago
If we're trading catchphrases, here's one I prefer:
"In times of change learners inherit the earth while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists." - Eric Hoffer.
That said, I'd prefer it if someone addressed the point, which is that the analysis of what's possible dates from an earlier technological era.
If the contention is that technology doesn't change what's possible in society and that society will always be the way it is was for most of the 20th century, I think we can safely ignore that.
than3|2 years ago
The contention is if history has gone through multiple and innumerable cycles and has ended up at the same outcome multiple times before, given an infinite number of potential outcomes, there must be common principles that led to the clustering at that outcome.
If you choose to ignore what those conveniently documented outcomes were and by extension what led to them, can you exercise any reasonable control over something you have no knowledge of?
Would the statement, "This time will be different, have any credibility if you have no control or knowledge of the issues?
Everyone at some point will say anyone, anything, and nothing, and what is said will likely be less true than not true when it is not backed with support.
Rational and rigorous approaches from first principles lend credibility to something being potentially more true than not, and by the law of approximation we can improve these approches over time until we eventually get to the point of it being true.
Wouldn't you say its better to be true, than not true if you want to succeed and live?
augment001|2 years ago
The first problem is that this is simply a false premise. Very few people would make such a claim, and none can back it up with evidence.
The second is that you still seem to think that technological change has no impact on history.