It's fascinating to me that some commenters react to this essay saying it's "profoundly insightful" when my first reaction was it's very vague and fully of major inconsistencies.
Here is just one example: he opens his argument calling Western societies a "systemic train wreck" and yet concludes toward the end: "As a society, we are so much richer, so much luckier, than we have ever been"
Which is it? Are we a trainwreck or are we rich & lucky?
Yeah, this is what I'm not understanding as well. Like the reason I'm happy with people trying out all sorts of weird DeFi experiments now is because we've tried different regulations for literally hundreds of years now and it hasn't led to anything better. Why not try to fundamentally reinvent stuff? It might be a train wreck, but we already have that right now. And what if it's not?
Here is just one example: he opens his argument calling Western societies a "systemic train wreck" and yet concludes toward the end: "As a society, we are so much richer, so much luckier, than we have ever been"
Which is it? Are we a trainwreck or are we rich & lucky?