A post by Stephen Gowans.

What we need to progress as a human civilization is more diversity in how we are organizing ourselves, in how we run our economies, and in which values we pursue. We need a global understanding that such diversity is important and we should establish ways for countries to try and experiment with different paths. Even if we do not believe that their path is correct we should be proud that they are walking it and we should help them if needed. We will all learn as a result.

If we really believe that our system is better, do we really need to actively try to undermine the other system? We could even help it, if they need anything, and once it will collapse (if, but our system is better and the only with a future!), with all circumstances being positive for it, including us helping, we will know for sure that it is really a worse system. We can even then help those brave explorers who hit the floor. But, until then, let us have some diversity and encouragement for each other when trying something new.

The fact that Spartacus lost a war does not mean that slavery is a great system. How many more years of exploration of various systems were needed before we realized that?

An interesting critique of crowdfunding.

If one actually paid a decent wage to all of the people involved in helping with the campaign, one would be loosing much of the money raised. The production costs of organizing a €10000 campaign will have already used up some of the funds for the project that is to be executed when funded. The actual costs of organizing, raising money and carrying out the campaign are therefore not funded. It is the people who actually do most of the work (the campaigner) who are not paid enough (if anything at all) and then only if the project is successful, i.e. if the amount of funding requested has been raised.

Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacturing of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?

An essay by Bertrand Russell from 1932.