Slightly off-topic rant: it seems (at least in hn circles) all the crypto buzz generation has found a new target in AI. Whereas prior to GPT-3 _every_ problem's solution according to a certain crowd was a hefty dose of web3/crypto, it seems now the consensus among a comparably sized crowd is that AI is actually the answer to all of humanity's pressing issues.
I'm not sure what fraction of HN is between 15 and 35 years old, but it's probably pretty high. Lots of people want to get a career in the new and exciting thing.
(I jest, but I do think there's some truth at the core here)
Time to trot out my pet theory that explains this and the last few decades of politics: By some combination of evolution and culture, many young men feel a strong compulsion to seek out high-risk, high-reward endeavors. Our culture encourages this with ideas like "making a name for yourself": is if you don't even exist until you've done something of significant value to the community.
There's a drive to pioneer, seek thrills, find adventure, take risk, and compete. If a culture has healthy outlets for that drive, then it can lead to incredible innovation, discovery, and harnessing new resources. How many new islands, foods, tools, drugs, etc. were found by someone who just said "fuck it" and went for it?
But when that drive has no healthy outlet, what you instead see is risk-taking turned to destructive ends. We've mapped the whole Earth, space is too expensive, most of the dangerous blue collar jobs have (rightly!) been made safer or automated, and the US's past several decades of forever wars have clearly become less and less morally justified.
So what we see is many young men striving to satisfy that desire any way they can. Things like:
* Treating crypto as a new unexplored frontier where they might get rich.
* Likewise now generative AI.
* Escaping into gaming where they can at least experience a simulation of the kind of risk, thrill-seeking, and glory they crave. Then GamerGate happened where some men lashed out at women who they felt were threatening that space where they could virtually experience that side of themselves.
* Young Trump voters who voted for him specifically as destructive wildcard to break down institutions. Because a world that is more chaotic and dangerous is a world better suited to their desires.
* Further, the fascination and trend around doomsday preppers, apocalyptic media, militias, etc. A segment of the population are obsessed with the world falling apart because maybe in the resulting chaos they can (re)build something.
This is a generalization, obviously, but I tend to think of young single men like this as the TNT of society: incredibly powerful and useful when applied well, but destructive otherwise.
> Time to trot out my pet theory that explains this and the last few decades of politics: By some combination of evolution and culture, many young men feel a strong compulsion to seek out high-risk, high-reward endeavors.
> ...
> This is a generalization, obviously, but I tend to think of young single men like this as the TNT of society: incredibly powerful and useful when applied well, but destructive otherwise.
---
(Bare branches refers to branches of the family tree where there's an unmarried male in a society where the male/female ratio is significantly distorted - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guang_Gun )
> Missing Women and Bare Branches: Gender Balance and Conflict
> We must also examine the reaction of the government. Historically, we have found that as governments become aware of the negative consequences of a growing number of bare branches, most governments are motivated to do something. In the past, “doing something” meant thinning the numbers of bare branches, whether through fighting, sponsoring the construction of large public works necessitating dangerous manual labor, exporting them to less populated areas, or co-opting them into the military or police. One 16th century Portuguese monarch sent his army, composed primarily of noble and non-noble bare branches, on one of the later crusades to avoid a crisis of governance; more than 25 percent of that army never returned, and many others were seriously wounded (Boone, 1983, 1986).
> We find that the need to control the rising instability created by the increasing numbers of bare branches has led governments to favor more authoritarian approaches to internal governance and less benign international presences. In many ways, a society’s prospects for democracy and peace are diminished in step with the devaluation of daughters.
> Because a world that is more chaotic and dangerous is a world better suited to their desires.
I would amend this to say "Because they believe a world..."
You kind of hit on it with your statements about doomsday preppers.
All of which I find hilarious. Apocalypse proponents, doomsday preppers, accelerationists, anarcho-anything, etc.
People are trying to prepare for an event that by its very definition is unimaginably catastrophic. We don't even know what that event will be. Or if survival is possible or even desirable.
People think that because they want a thing, that they're in a better position to exploit that thing. Sorry, Littlefingers, chaos is not a ladder. It's just chaos.
In recent years I have worked quite hard to rid myself of such thinking, in favor of a more positive outlook, even if it's slightly forced.
As a result, I've found myself much more at peace with the world, and generally in a better mood. I'd like to think I'm a better version of myself sans cynicism but maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. I'm not sure I bought in at first, but I've slowly come to realize the benefit of actively acknowledging goodness. +1 for "fake it til ya make it."
That said, there's certainly a significant part of my psyche with which the sentiment of the law resonates.
