[adnzzzzZ]

Less, because the way it invades those aspects is direct, and not indirect through other human beings. In our society, for power to work it has to convince the population of what power wants, which means that the political invasion happens by other people caring about politics. In a country ruled by a dictator, that isn't the case, because the dictator doesn't have to convince the population of anything, he just does it, and if it works and it's better then good, and if it doesn't then he can try something else (without having to reconvince anyone that now this something else might work).

[AnimalMuppet]

And if what he tries is working for the dictator and not the population?

And China's social credit system looks like "indirect through other human beings", at least in part.

[adnzzzzZ]

China's social credit system is highly exaggerated, and not far too different from what already exists in most Western nations. People get fired here for the slightest social mistakes, right? On top of not being able to buy all sorts of things if they don't have enough credit.

As for the first question, it's not a problem for China specifically because their leaders seem competent. But more generally the problem of power transfer in case of poor results probably has lots of different solutions that haven't been tried in the past, especially now that we have more technology available. One interesting thing China does is have lots of surveys about local policies, which seems to me like something easier and more practical to have now that everyone is online.

In any case, that question is not too different of a problem than what to do when the government in a decentralized democracy such as ours has been taken over by all sorts of interests that are not aligned at all with the population's interests.

Decentralized systems like the one we have are very hard to fix incrementally precisely because they're optimized for stability in the face of constant growth, and we've reached a point of no growth, so the stability starts working against it as it makes the necessary changes harder to enact (since it's very decentralized). Like it or not, the most logical solution for this is more centralization of power. And this will likely happen in the coming decades. It's better that it happens willingly than unwillingly.

[mempko]

You are right about social credit system and western credit systems but that doesn't make it right.

Optimizing society for growth is a dead end (collapse or extinction). It's completely irrational. The most sane approach is sustainability.

[adnzzzzZ]

I don't think we disagree and I don't know why you responded to my comment with this. Even Yarvin himself sort of agrees with you (starting at the Extending Economics section) https://graymirror.substack.com/p/5-the-land-its-people-and-...

[mempko]

Yarvin is terrible.

> Its subjects are its assets. Their proprietor’s purpose is to preserve and improve this human capital—hence, salus populi suprema lex.

People are people, not assets to some monarch. Sorry, I can't stand behind some backwards 17th century thinking.

He is also completely wrong about economics. Economics is not a science that Yarvin thinks it is.