objectivistbrit

> Disputes between two anti-capital-punishment agencies will, of course, go to an anti-capital-punishment court; disputes between two pro-capital-punishment agencies will go to a pro-capital-punishment court. What would happen in a dispute between an anti-capital-punishment agency and a pro-capital-punishment agency? Obviously there is no way that if I kill you the case goes to one court, but if you are killed by me it goes to another. We cannot each get exactly the law we want.

> We can each have our preferences reflected in the bargaining demands of our respective agencies. If the opponents of capital punishment feel more strongly than the proponents, the agencies will agree to no capital punishment; in exchange, the agencies that want capital punishment will get something else. Perhaps it will be agreed that they will not pay court costs or that some other disputed question will go their way.

This is exactly the consequences of "everyone chooses their own laws" put into action. Not only can we not get "exactly the law we want", we have to either pay off or haggle with everyone who wants a competing law (the amount of payment driven by how strongly either side "feels" about the issue in question).

I've heard ancaps argue that the current system in the West is similar (in that you have to accept the laws that the majority votes for). The current system is certainly not ideal. My point is that an ancap-style system doesn't even lead to anything resembling what most libertarians are looking for in a free society. (Anyone curious can read the two links in the post above for references to more material on what I think a rational path to a free society would look like.)

(For the uninitiated, Objectivism is a philosophical system that agrees with libertarianism on some points and disgrees on others. It's difficult to summarise all of the differences because modern-day "libertarianism" is quite a vague term. However, Objectivism is definitely opposed to the anarcho-capitalist wing of the libertarian movement. For the curious, [1] is a good basic introduction to Objectivism, and [2] contains a slightly more technical introduction.)

Page 62 of David Friedman's book:

> In such an anarchist society, who would make the laws? On what basis would the private arbitrator decide what acts were criminal and what their punishments should be? The answer is that systems of law would be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are produced today. There could be competition among different brands of law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars.

> In such a society there might be many courts and even many legal systems. Each pair of protection agencies agree in advance on which court they will use in case of conflict. Thus the laws under which a particular case is decided are determined implicitly by advance agreement between the protection agencies whose customers are involved. In principle, there could be a different court and a different set of laws for every pair of protection agencies. In practice, many agencies would probably find it convenient to patronize the same courts, and many courts might find it convenient to adopt identical, or nearly identical, systems of law in order to simplify matters for their customers.

It's precisely this point that every pair of protection agencies needs some kind of prior agreement that prevent normal market dynamics from applying to dealing between protection agencies in such a system. In normal markets any firm is free to walk away from any deal with any other firm, and find an alternative. This freedom to walk away and find an alternative offer is what gives both sides negotiating leverage.

This might be difficult -- if a startup makes iPhone apps, they will find it difficult to avoid dealing with Apple, but they do have options -- they can switch to making Android apps, convert their apps to purely web apps, petition Goldman Sachs to fund the next generation of iPhone-killing smartphones, and so on.

However, if Bob's Local Small Town Protection Agency (with 50 employees) is signing a deal with WalMart Mega Protection Agency (with 2 million employees), Bob has to agree to whatever terms the WalMart agency sets. If he does not, if there is ever a conflict between one of Bob's clients and one of WalMart's clients, the WalMart agency can simply send their vast army over and force Bob's agency to submit. Assuming that Bob and WalMart both realise this when negotiating their deal, both will also realise that Bob effectively has to agree to whatever terms WalMart sets.

The takeaway of all this is that it is not logically possible to have a system where "every chooses their own 'brand of law'". The reason is that since anyone can hypothetically interact with anyone else, whatever legal system you choose to adopt will have to "interface" with every other legal system, on terms that are ultimately set by naked force. Or: no matter which "personal legal system" you choose, you're locked into the same "meta-legal system" as everyone else, one with a very odd structure.

One million scientologists demand that anyone who criticises scientology be heavily fined? You have to pay the fines, unless your agency is able to fend off the scientologists. One hundred thousand Salafists declare that they will kill anyone who criticises Islam? Unless your protection agency is able to shut them down, you have to remain silent.

(The logical endpoint of these dynamics is that everyone subscribes to a few very large protection agencies, and anarcho-capitalism ends up looking something like medieval feudalism, where everyone ultimately relies on a few powerful "dukes" and "kings" for protection.)

> In such a society law is produced on the market. A court supports itself by charging for the service of arbitrating disputes. Its success depends on its reputation for honesty, reliability, and promptness and on the desirability to potential customers of the particular set of laws it judges by.

This creates an enormous incentive for protection agencies to covertly lie, smear, and destroy the reputations of competing agencies via whatever means available.

[1] https://theobjectivestandard.com/what-is-objectivism/

[2] https://objectivismindepth.com/introduction-to-objectivism/

https://racefortheironthrone.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/chapte...

"A second theme we have here is the complication of our view of the Dothraki – presented here as a sophisticated, culturally flexible people who can put on “rich fabrics and sweet perfumes” when they visit their second homes among the palaces of Pentos, yet who still hold to their own culture where everything is done under the open sky."

"One of George R.R Martin’s innovations that sadly didn’t make it onto the screen is the way in which he both displays and subverts the traditional fantasy tropes about barbarians and barbarism."

"Any fantasy work with a foot in the Middle Ages has to reflect this history. And yet, the line between “Christendom” and “barbarism” was never simple – Medieval Europe was built out of the invasions of Goths, Franks, and Vandals into the Roman Empire, just as Westeros was built out of the invasions of the First Men, Andals, Rhoynar, and Valaryians."

Your comment made me think of that book, and I certainly found it very useful in overcoming some of the lingering consequences of my odd upbringing. My mother was not abusive, but was alternately neglectful and controlling, and I only recently found out that she was continuing patterns from her own childhood. I highly recommend the book if your situation is at all similar.

Lee Kuan Yew realised that Singapore's future lay in becoming a trading city. They built a port, invested in infrastructure, and basically oriented all their policies around making the city-state as attractive as possible for foreign investment. One reason the streets were kept so orderly and well-maintained was to impress foreign visitors that Singapore was a reliable place to operate in (compare to many developing countries where the ride from the airport will pass ramshackle buildings, potholed streets, garbage everywhere, etc). They kept the British common law system because it's a good system to do business under. Etc.

They also knew that, given the region (SE Asia) is a hotbed of drug trafficking, if Singapore became a successful port then tons of drugs would pass through the city. Drugs would mean organised crime. Organised crime would mean corruption. Corruption would scare off foreign investment. Singapore could have ended up looking like most other third-world countries, only too small to retain its independence, and could easily have been reabsorbed into Malaysia or Indonesia.

The reason the drug penalties are so harsh is to scare away any possibility of drug trafficking happening there.

Just to be clear, I'm not condoning Singapore's policies. Weed is certainly not the same as heroin or crack cocaine. Harsh sentences for carrying a tiny bit of marijuana is pretty draconian. (I looked up some news articles, and it seems as though foreigners are unlikely to get the death penalty for small amounts of weed, but you can still expect jail time and caning.)

In a similar way, one rationale behind Singapore's censorship is a similar reason to the (effective) censorship many European countries have -- Singapore has some simmering ethnic tensions, and wants to prevent anyone publishing inflammatory rhetoric. (That's not the only reason, afaik, but it's one of them.)

Still: it's worth remembering that Singapore started out in an unusual position with unusual constraints. Everything they have done has been with the aim of turning themselves from a third-world to a first-world country in a few decades. They've seen many other post-colonial countries go down bad trajectories, despite said countries receiving tons of foreign aid, support from international organisations, allowing Western NGOs to operate internally, etc. So they don't have much time for Western journalists/academics/etc who push them to change their policies, because they think the policies they're being pushed to adapt would have led them to disaster.

If anyone's curious to learn more about the Singapore approach I'd point them to first look up Lee Kuan Yew's books, or interviews of him, to get an introduction to how he thought about governance and how he approached Singapore's challenges.

My own takeaway is that Singapore stands out because most other developing countries have been run so badly. It's not that Lee Kuan Yew had a brilliant political philosophy that all countries should adopt (he claimed to be skeptical of political philosophy), it's more that he was both pragmatic and took a long-range view, and put into practice many sensible policies that other developing countries could have adopted in an alternative timeline. On the other hand, that is definitely not to say that all of his policies are justifiable. I gather that Singapore is slowly changing now that they feel more secure in their first-world status, but they're still pretty averse to adopting the kinds of policies Western nations and the UN usually push other countries to adopt.

Of course a woman can be a "maker". Of course an attractive person can be a "maker". But Naomi Wu's entire shtick seems to be "skimpily dressed girl with fake tits does stereotypically nerdy male activity". Look at her Youtube channel [1] - every video starts with an anime cartoon of her, obviously intended to titillate.

People have frequently criticised startups for using sex to promote their products. (E.g., Geeklist, a few years back [2]). Now a scantily clad woman is a feminist icon? I get that there's a view of the world whereby the Geeklist woman was being exploited, and Naomi Wu is simply owning her sexuality, or whatever. For most outsiders it simply looks like fashion. Using sex to promote tech products was passe, and now it's in again and slightly edgy, but only if you're cool enough to pull it off.

She has an explanation about how the breast implants really express her interest in bodyhacking and the outfits reflect the cyberpunk style of Shenzhen. (B.S., by the way - most of Shenzhen is just a normal Chinese city). And when all her photos and videos are of her in a skimpy outfit, wearing makeup and with hair styled - she's choosing to present herself in a certain way. She could do a video wearing a sweater, working on a late night project with a ponytail and bagged eyes, but she doesn't. She knows looking good will get her videos more clicks. (It takes a lot of effort to look good consistently, which is why engineers and scientists of either gender are stereotypically not good-looking. They're spending too much time on other things).

Then there's the fact that her Twitter [3] simply doesn't sound like a mainland Chinese girl. No, I can't prove this. But I spent enough time studying Chinese and living in China, speaking with a wide range of Chinese people, and I'd bet any amount of money that those tweets were written by an American. Even when translated by a native English speaker, Chinese has a ton of idiosyncratic phrasings and sentence patterns that give it a distinctive style. (For an example, see ChinaSmack [4], which translates Chinese internet culture into English).

Not only do Naomi's tweets lack that style completely, they definitely do not sound like they were written who grew up in a Confucian culture. China favours modesty, hierarchy and conforming to the group. Sure, there are sassy, independent young Chinese women, but they don't sound like sassy, independent young American women. Naomi Wu sounds like an American woman. (Specifically American and not generically Western - Europeans don't have that brash aggressiveness). Again, I can't prove this, but her Twitter postings simply do not have the slightest hint of Chinese-ness. [Edit: having listened to more of her videos, it is highly unlikely the girl in the videos made those tweets].

Then there's the fact that she screenshotted his tweet and uses it as part of her Twitter header photo [3]. And the huge pile-on to a guy who made one tweet and later apologised for it. She even goes digging and trying to associate him with Donald Trump on fairly spurious grounds [5]. This whole story designed to hit the tech industry's buttons and incite everyone to pontificate about "tech bros". My guess is that her company is intentionally using this episode as a guerilla marketing/PR exercise, but I have no idea.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdk4Zw2oYdc

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/03/23/women...

[3] https://twitter.com/realsexycyborg

[4] https://www.chinasmack.com/renren-statuses-by-chinese-univer...

[5] https://twitter.com/dalepd/status/926813927769440256

You don't need economic theory to refute an article like this - you simply need to point to reality. Every human need beyond picking wild berries off the trees takes effort to produce. The vast wealth of modern industrial society relies on complex forms of organisation and specialists in discovering and applying knowledge. Anyone's who's built a company, or even advanced in a demanding career, knows that success doesn't just fall in your lap. Beyond a certain point you have to really want to succeed and be willing to put in place the actions that lead to success.

I re-read the article and it only mentions labour vs capital once, in passing. Mostly it talks in terms of owners vs managers, and the principal-agent problem. You refer to "greedy pigs" and exploitation making it sound as though the author is anti-capitalist, but that does not seem to be the case).

(I was curious enough to look him up. He's a finance professor at HBS. That probably explains the different slant compared to other Atlantic articles).

The question is not: what are the relative costs and benefits to user-repairable products? Of course there are both benefits and drawbacks.

The question is: who should decide?

That is, should the government enforce a "right to repair" - which means a ban on non-repairable products? Or should companies be able to manufacture both repairable and non-repairable products, and let consumers decide which they want to buy?

A free society is broader than just the free market. No companies manufacture a repairable version of X product? You can use free association to form the "Society for User-maintainable X Devices". You can use free speech to campaign in the press for user-maintainable X devices. You can promote to others the virtues of having a user-maintable X, until there's enough latent demand for startups to spring up to fill it.

None of this requires the government.

You already have the right to pay extra for an extended warranty, or go shopping around for a version of X product that is user-maintainable. You also have the right to pay less for a shorter warranty, or buy a compact, tightly-integrated, non-repairable product. The EU's "right of repair" is merely a ban on the second category of product.

The "right to repair" doesn't give people the right to buy a Fairphone. They already have the right. It removes their right to buy other kinds of phone.

Scarcity, fungibility, divisibility and portability are some of these properties. Mass adoption is another (because money effectively has "network effects"), but if a society widely uses a particular form of money when a better substitute is available, they will very likely switch at some point (see: dollarization).

Bitcoin and gold are both superior to fiat in terms of scarcity. (The author is correct that the gold supply grew massively at certain points in history, but there's very little chance of this happening again any time soon. That said, there's still a lot of Au in the earth's crust left to dig up and with modern mining techniques the global stocks grow at about 1.5% a year). Anyone with a lot of usd (or rmb or euros or whatever) puts it somewhere less prone to inflation (stocks, bonds, real estate). This means there's always a lot of fiat currency looking for a home - though people at the bottom don't see this over-abundance of money, it is visible in things like the crazy prices for premium real estate, the crazy size of tech acquisitions (everyone else is investing their money in FB/AMZN/GOOG/AAPL, so those guys have huge cash hoards with little opportunities to put them to use - so they buy many startups).

On top of that, bitcoin is highly divisible and very portable (it's easier to send btc around the world than gold or usd). A couple of years ago I saw nothing that could stop it long term. I've since become convinced that its weird supply formula makes the price inherently, permanently volatile. Longterm, the finite supply limit will incentivise everyone to hoard, causing the price to skyrocket - but if everyone hoards the amount traded will become so low that even a small amount leaving the hoards (as hoarders suddenly spend some of their overpriced btc) then causes a big price drop. This bouncing up and down incentivises people to stay away.

Gold, on the other hand, has ties to economic reality - if the price increases gold miners can mine more, and vice versa. This natural adjustment in supply dampens price swings. Unfortunately gold needs to be kept in a vault and can't be transferred easily (that said, for non-technical users, securing one's bitcoins appears equally difficult).

If someone made a cryptocurrency with a gold-like supply rate, that would have real world domination potential. Maybe some startup founder with the connections to pull this off is reading this - if so, take a look here for more theory: https://keithweinereconomics.com/2013/12/28/the-theory-of-in... (his argument is more complicated than those you may have encountered in libertarian/goldbug circles. It's not simply that the scarcity of gold means it will be more valuable long-term - it's the arbitrages that modulate the supply and thereby make it suitable as a store of value).

Writing this comment has gotten me thinking, so here's a few other thoughts on how this will pan out. I've read many different thinkers who write about such topics, and spent much time evaluating and integrating, so hopefully some stray reader will find this of value.

The other thing I've come to realise is that economics is one aspect of human society. It has a kind of permanent, fixed reality, despite being based on human decisions and actions, because the incentives humans face are universal and eternal (everyone needs to save, everyone needs to trade, even in a socialist dictatorship semi-regular economic activity continues on the black market). But the ideas that spread in a culture also count. If most people believe that the usd is money, and bitcoin and gold are for weirdos, then the usd can remain money for a long, long time. I thought that over time people would see the bitcoin price constantly rising (though unstably), and realise that they needed to buy in. (First the risk-takers and early adopters, then the more adventurous asset managers investing 0.5% of their funds, then the early majority, and so on). But with the recent price spike, I saw that though many people suddenly wanted to pile in, they had no understanding and little interest of bitcoin's fundamentals. They buy now and hope to sell before the next crash. Maybe some entrants will become long-term holders and help drive the price up - but not many. The btc market cap is around $50bn - tiny in the world of finance. If/when it approaches $1tn, things will get interesting. Our current world economic order (BW2) is a hacky fix from the 70s on an agreement made in the 40s. It suited the great powers of the time and was based on certain assumptions. Now the assumptions are proving wrong and the balance of power is shifting.

I don't believe in the mass automation/sustainable energy/basic income future most of the tech crowd is looking forwards too. I foresee two likely futures - one, a return to 19th century great power politics, as Putin hopes for - definitely not a utopia, but hopefully a world where at least some countries realise that freedom is the path to prosperity and advancement. The other, a darker world, where dictatorships (both in socialistic and nationalistic flavours) become dominant on every continent. In both scenarios the usd is likely to lose its status as the global reserve currency, but in neither scenario is bitcoin guaranteed to be the replacement.

As for renting out property, it's never effortless or risk-free. If it was, the rate of return would drop to that of other minimum risk assets (e.g. treasury bonds).

The most relevant column is the second one (Thousands of Jobs, 2014). Just seeing this table makes clear how broad the modern economy is.

https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm

Here's a more detailed version:

https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_207.htm

The founder I knew told me excitedly their vision for a dynamic interactive world - I thought this sounded like pure nerd crack though wasn't sure if it would actually work as a game. (I built a much more basic dynamic world MMO in university and it ended up with huge drama amongst the player base). I think they pivoted to building a platform rather than a game about a year later.

Wish I'd stayed in touch now, though that seems to happen a lot in the start-up world.

HN has also become increasingly hostile to PG's views over time (for example, his inequality essay), so it's hardly an echo chamber. Personally, I preferred this place when there were more people who agreed with his basic worldview. And, though many in SV share his politics, he has a distinct way of thinking when compared with other billionaire thought leaders like Peter Thiel and Marc Andreesen.

I understand why HN wants net neutrality: the majority here think that ISPs have undeserved control, and so the government needs to step in to ensure a level playing field. Still, if someone advocated "search engine neutrality", arguing that the govt should regulate Google's search results to ensure everyone had a fair chance, there would be uproar. Similarly, if someone argued for "platform neutrality", holding that every startup that offered some kind of API had to register with the gov't to ensure their services were equally available to all others, the insanity would be obvious.

Things are complicated because many tech libertarians are liberal-libertarians who support things like basic income, but that doesn't change the overall slant of HN. Also note most liberals are ostensibly pro-business, they just think the gov't needs to step in to regulate the free market.

Comments like the grandparent are an example of liberalism without any semblance of objectivity. He disagrees with someone, and, rather than think about why someone would hold those views (even if erroneous), takes for granted that they are irrational, illogical and driven by a hidden agenda.

Travis Kalanick is often painted as an example of Ayn Rand's philosophy in action. [1] I don't doubt he follows his own shallow understanding of her ideas. Still, what she actually said was that it's in your rational self-interest to treat everyone you deal with fairly and trade value for value. I.e., you need ethics to succeed in business.

John Allison of BB&T bank explains this principled approach better than I can [2]. He grew BB&T into a top 10 American bank, but he's the polar opposite of the stereotypical ruthless capitalist.

If you screw people over, you may gain a short-term advantage, but you will inevitably fail in the long-run. Enron, Zynga, Groupon, and countless others have proved this.

[1] https://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/

[2] https://youtu.be/XPSGMbqEGU0?t=3m12s

There are suckers born every minute and, yes, you might be able to screw them over. If you do, there are two options, 1: you screw them out of enough money that you never have to work again, or 2: you eventually need to make more money. If 2, you can either A: pursue a career in screwing people over, or B: start pursuing an honest career.

Not many people can make 1 work. (If you pull off some huge heist, enough that you can retire for life, you'll probably have to spend the rest of your days worrying about Interpol tracking you down).

If you follow 2A, you are creating an ever-growing number of enemies, any one of whom might decide to sue you, publicly destroy your reputation, press criminal charges, etc, etc. Again, your stress and insecurity increase over time.

If you follow 2B, you're in the position of someone who decided to play in straight from the start, but lacking in genuine experience and with years of poor references.

In practice, unscrupulous people try and follow a middle road where they're honest and responsible enough to hold down respectable jobs, but try to lie, cheat, and play the system wherever they can get away with it. They're still risking being caught and they'd have an easier time if they focused on playing it straight and developing valuable skills.

The fundamental principle here is that dishonesty requires faking reality, but reality is everywhere and potentially visible to anyone, so once you choose dishonesty as a basic strategy you're in constant danger.

No industry is immune to fraud, and the hotter the business, the more hucksters flock to it. But Silicon Valley has always seen itself as the virtuous outlier, a place where altruistic nerds tolerate capitalism in order to make the world a better place. Suddenly the Valley looks as crooked and greedy as the rest of the business world.

...I strongly disagree with the implication that unethical behaviour is due to capitalism, or to be expected in the business world. In the long run, screwing people over never works. Building a successful business requires building win-win, non-zero-sum relationships. Good people prefer to work with good people. Cutting corners, breaking contracts, fiddling numbers - anyone who does these things will eventually be found out, and no-one decent will want to deal with them.

And the growing roster of scandal-tainted startups share a theme. Faking it, from marketing exaggerations to outright fraud, feels more prevalent than ever—so much so that it’s time to ask whether startup culture itself is becoming a problem.

This is closer to the real root cause. Today's startup culture (and the nature of the VC game) incentivises "faking it", delusional over-confidence, and pseudo-idealism that crashes into reality in an ugly fashion.

Amy Hoy and some others wrote about startup narcissism which is a big part of this: https://hackpad.com/Startup-Narcissism-sy2u5j2aTbE

Some of these entities fund lobbyists and some don't.

mythology ... opaquely-funded think tanks

I don't know if you are a Marxist, but this is a Marxist way of looking at the world, where each class pursues its collective interest, and funds propaganda to spread a self-justifying mythology.

So how do investors react? For decades, they have bullied governments to release assets for sale that can then be leased back at high returns. In the UK, this is why we have privatised utilities and a swath of other safe, previously state-owned, assets in private hands.

It is not morally wrong ("greedy") for investors to seek high returns. If an investment does offer high returns, investors will flock to it, the price will increase, and it will quickly offer average returns, relative to the amount invested.

Nor do investors "demand" high returns - who would they demand them from? - they simply look for the best place to put their money. Investors are not a cartel that lobbies the government. Government services were privatised in the UK for political reasons.

Then there is the way most people, businesses and governments have accumulated their savings. Just a quick look at the $100tn total and we can see that most of it is the result of tax avoidance.

The Japanese are famous for their savings and investments. But middle-income families can only save because they don’t pay enough tax for officials in Tokyo to provide basic services. Every year the Japanese government runs a 10% budget deficit, such that its accumulated debt is worth almost 250% of GDP.

The author has expanded the meaning of "tax avoidance" to cover cases where he thinks the government should be imposing higher taxes. I agree that governments should run a balanced budget (I would prefer they do so by cutting spending), but the author implies that you could pay all the taxes you owe, and you would still be cheating the system.

As for the effects of climate change, they look intimidating as a whole - when you look at each item individually, they are unpleasant but manageable. Humans have been dealing with the weather for millennia, after all.

> Stronger storms, drought

These happen routinely now. Yes, it would be preferable to have less storms and drought, but we know how to handle them.

> the displacement of peoples

In the last decade the Chinese have built scores of new cities across the third world - it's not that hard for people to move.

> an ensuing refugee crisis as their crops fail and water supplies dwindle

We grow crops in many different climates now. Crop failures happen now in poor countries with bad infrastructure and management. Societies with sufficient capital and technology can adapt to almost any climate. (In extreme climates, with desalination plants and hydroponics - or people could just move).

> Maintaining the civilisation we built at the cost of the natural world we inherited isn't fantastic

This is really the crux of the issue - should the standard of value be maximising human flourishing, or minimising human impact?

Your summary of my argument is completely off-the-mark.

Slashing energy usage means slashing many of the benefits of living in a post-industrial society. Think living in one-room houses (no cheap heating), eating bread and potatoes in winter (no imported food), working locally with little career progression (no easy commuting) and many people returning to manual labour (no cheap machinery). All this to prevent 60cm-1m of sea level rise by 2100 - something we can manage, if we maintain the civilisation we have worked so hard to build.

Cuts in emissions (e.g., the 80% cuts the EU is pushing for) will require major cuts in energy usage. We know what a low-energy economy looks like - it looks like a pre-industrial economy. We might not need to go back to the middle ages, but we'd need to reverse many advances of the industrial revolution.

In contrast, we're facing a maximum of 59cm of sea level rise by 2100. (IPCC estimate). That's not desirable but it is manageable - at least if we maintain our technological, industrial civilisation.

I am very tempted to write my own thoughts on the issue, but rather than start a political flamewar, I'll simply link to both men's side of the story:

http://anildash.com/2013/09/my-meeting-with-pax.html

https://paxdickinson.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/moral-panics-a...

(My 2c: though I'm on the political right and agree that tech is becoming increasingly hostile to non-liberal ideas, I think many of Pax's ideas are quite weird).