He's a windbag and perhaps the best example of how some people really just need a wedgie.
That said, he does raise some interesting points--in extremely roundabout ways--and it's incredibly telling how different people react to him. The amazing amount of butthurt und sturm und drang that comes up whenever urbit is mentioned, for example, is almost always due to political/tribal stuff and not due to technical deficiencies or the deliberate obfuscation of whatever ideas actually might be there.
I think he's basically riding coats of the populist MAGA movement at this point in an almost ESR "I helped make this" sort of way, and while an interesting footnote in the evolution of NRx he's basically just an edgelord with some extra money.
I keep seeing people credit Yarvin with the rise of the alt-right or MAGA but I don't see any elements of NRx in MAGA other than the edgy attitude. None of his ideas have been implemented or if they have it's by accident. Of course his writing is so obfuscated I guess he could use hindsight to twist his own words into something like a correct prediction.
He's like a neoconservative Žižek. His party uses him to confuse and anger opponents, as a method to deflect criticism away from matters concerning policy or influence.
His original bibliography is largely ignored in polsci circles, found most often next to a print copy of Protocols of the Elders or somesuch conspiracy.
I don't think Curtis Yarvin ever says the word "degrowth" and the people who think "degrowth" is inevitable, necessary or desirable would not endorse him, but
his vision of the future is a vision of degrowth.
I think he sees the peak of civilization as around 1777 in France or 1852 in Japan when there was a relatively high technology level and material stock but we were
still basically on a solar economy where wealth derived from holding agricultural land and food supplies were limited so we weren't quite ready for Marx's labor
theory of value. If you thought the greatest thing in life was the exploitation of personal services, whether that is having a house full of servants or the
debauchery of Valmont from Dangerous Liasons, you'd probably think that was the pinnacle of development. If you like pharmaceuticals or good food or things made out of metal, not so much. (Even if he didn't die in a duel or under the guillotine or from syphilis he would have been lucky to make it past 40)
So far as I know the story was the same in feudal agrarian Europe, Japan and China and likely elsewhere. There was an ideology that the King or Emperor or whatever had a divine right or was a god or was descended from the gods but actually he ruled with the consent of a class of warlords and landowners and if they wanted him overthrown he was overthrown though it often ushered in a century of chaos as those warlords struggled to figure out who'd come out on top finally falling back on the old ideology out of exhaustion.
The strength of modern society is not formal democracy but the very large numbers of institutions of many kinds large and small that through their many degrees of
freedom are able to face the complexity of the problems that face civilization. (See Ashby's Law) You have the many branches of government, not one church, but
many churches, many businesses, labor unions, professional associations, the academy, and civil society organizations of every stripe from Greenpeace to the Freemasons.
The case for degrowth is that civilization faces many threats not least pollution, resource depletion, war, pandemics as well as continuously changing
technology, culture and economy. Critically, as Ezra Klein points out lately, the institutional complexity that it takes to manage these threats itself gets in
the way of the responsiveness of the system and that's a tough problem.
I'll grant it to Yarvin that there has been an "ahistorical turn" and a lot of people, particularly the identitarian left, aren't interested in thinking about 2005 or
1974, never mind 1843 or the Ancien Regime. Yarvin's answer though is either going to be the cause of collapse or the consequence of collapse. Even if you're
Peter Thiel your wealth can only protect you so much in that scenario, it's like playing Russian Roulette with a 10 chamber revolver and 9 bullets loaded. For the
median person, it's worse. If you are looking for answers that will work in that kind of world you are better looking into matters of religion and the spirit because
those are things that don't change along with economy and technology.
I agree with the main points of this. Just some addenda (while my main loop has neither verbal nor quantitative juice to spare):
1. 1777 & 1852 were peak for iron tech. Black smithery decentralized in both solar econs. (+nitrate prod. How could those revolutions succeed otherwise?) did not read GG+S to know if he had the same or counter argument (eg incompetent monarchs.) (Role of aluminum tech is a fun rabbit hole)
2. When your main threats are either yourselves other supra-organisms (not the universe), there may be a case for violating Ashby's Law. That might not be so crackpot if your fave supra-organism has a sustainably robust energy infra
2b. One might have to make the case that the brain may be materially バロック but organizationally simple? Do hominids have the most complex brains of all? Will botanics outlive us?
2a. The hard to formalize notions of simplicity from Clausewitz
3. Loki "physically" manifesting as a Hydra, thus concluding the TV series: what if he's The Good Guy?
f33d5173|6 months ago
its-summertime|6 months ago
Hansappreciator|6 months ago
ai_critic|6 months ago
That said, he does raise some interesting points--in extremely roundabout ways--and it's incredibly telling how different people react to him. The amazing amount of butthurt und sturm und drang that comes up whenever urbit is mentioned, for example, is almost always due to political/tribal stuff and not due to technical deficiencies or the deliberate obfuscation of whatever ideas actually might be there.
I think he's basically riding coats of the populist MAGA movement at this point in an almost ESR "I helped make this" sort of way, and while an interesting footnote in the evolution of NRx he's basically just an edgelord with some extra money.
wmf|6 months ago
rossdavidh|6 months ago
tastyface|6 months ago
--Curtis Yarvin, https://bsky.app/profile/esqueer.net/post/3lv7lipobrs2a
That should give you a good sense of what kind of man he is, and what it says about those who support him.
mindcrime|6 months ago
bigyabai|6 months ago
His original bibliography is largely ignored in polsci circles, found most often next to a print copy of Protocols of the Elders or somesuch conspiracy.
ai_critic|6 months ago
PestoDiRucola|6 months ago
PaulHoule|6 months ago
I don't think Curtis Yarvin ever says the word "degrowth" and the people who think "degrowth" is inevitable, necessary or desirable would not endorse him, but his vision of the future is a vision of degrowth.
I think he sees the peak of civilization as around 1777 in France or 1852 in Japan when there was a relatively high technology level and material stock but we were still basically on a solar economy where wealth derived from holding agricultural land and food supplies were limited so we weren't quite ready for Marx's labor theory of value. If you thought the greatest thing in life was the exploitation of personal services, whether that is having a house full of servants or the debauchery of Valmont from Dangerous Liasons, you'd probably think that was the pinnacle of development. If you like pharmaceuticals or good food or things made out of metal, not so much. (Even if he didn't die in a duel or under the guillotine or from syphilis he would have been lucky to make it past 40)
So far as I know the story was the same in feudal agrarian Europe, Japan and China and likely elsewhere. There was an ideology that the King or Emperor or whatever had a divine right or was a god or was descended from the gods but actually he ruled with the consent of a class of warlords and landowners and if they wanted him overthrown he was overthrown though it often ushered in a century of chaos as those warlords struggled to figure out who'd come out on top finally falling back on the old ideology out of exhaustion.
The strength of modern society is not formal democracy but the very large numbers of institutions of many kinds large and small that through their many degrees of freedom are able to face the complexity of the problems that face civilization. (See Ashby's Law) You have the many branches of government, not one church, but many churches, many businesses, labor unions, professional associations, the academy, and civil society organizations of every stripe from Greenpeace to the Freemasons.
The case for degrowth is that civilization faces many threats not least pollution, resource depletion, war, pandemics as well as continuously changing technology, culture and economy. Critically, as Ezra Klein points out lately, the institutional complexity that it takes to manage these threats itself gets in the way of the responsiveness of the system and that's a tough problem.
I'll grant it to Yarvin that there has been an "ahistorical turn" and a lot of people, particularly the identitarian left, aren't interested in thinking about 2005 or 1974, never mind 1843 or the Ancien Regime. Yarvin's answer though is either going to be the cause of collapse or the consequence of collapse. Even if you're Peter Thiel your wealth can only protect you so much in that scenario, it's like playing Russian Roulette with a 10 chamber revolver and 9 bullets loaded. For the median person, it's worse. If you are looking for answers that will work in that kind of world you are better looking into matters of religion and the spirit because those are things that don't change along with economy and technology.
The way out is the way through.
gsf_emergency_2|6 months ago
1. 1777 & 1852 were peak for iron tech. Black smithery decentralized in both solar econs. (+nitrate prod. How could those revolutions succeed otherwise?) did not read GG+S to know if he had the same or counter argument (eg incompetent monarchs.) (Role of aluminum tech is a fun rabbit hole)
2. When your main threats are either yourselves other supra-organisms (not the universe), there may be a case for violating Ashby's Law. That might not be so crackpot if your fave supra-organism has a sustainably robust energy infra
2b. One might have to make the case that the brain may be materially バロック but organizationally simple? Do hominids have the most complex brains of all? Will botanics outlive us?
2a. The hard to formalize notions of simplicity from Clausewitz
3. Loki "physically" manifesting as a Hydra, thus concluding the TV series: what if he's The Good Guy?
aaron695|6 months ago
[deleted]