The recent statements by Vitalik Buterin, founder of Ethereum, regarding the reduction of the world population and the solutions he proposes, apart from giving me a lot of creeps, have motivated me to write this article and embark on a search to raise a Bitcoin metapolicy.
That is, how we should think about certain social events from the parameters with which Bitcoin seems to work and sustain itself as a technology. But, before falling into Vitalik’s opinions, let’s expand and I will introduce the concept of metapolitics and what this dissertation proposes.
Comments are frequent that affirm that cryptocurrencies are inclusive and that, particularly in the political field, they are not discriminatory. It’s true, you don’t have to be of one or another political tendency to use them; but I do think that their operating logic, and their approach to themselves and also to the world around them, corresponds to one or another current of political thought.
After all, the consensus mechanisms under which these protocols work require dialogue and interaction, and decision-making processes for the collective., and there is present the political fact.
Now, talking and thinking about politics is not necessarily exercising it, but it is the process that establishes the bases or premises for it. In this way, the vote is not the only mechanism that exists to establish or express a position, regardless of the form of political organization under which it is developed.
“Metapolitica” is the appropriate term to refer to the discussion and thought about politics. They are all those discursive components outside the practical exercise of politics that lead us to exercise it.
To lay the conceptual groundwork for what I mean by “metapolitics,” I will use one of the quotes from Alain Badiou, French philosopher (critical Marxist, by the way), in reference to this term, as collected in his book Metapolítica (Verso, 2005).
“By ‘metapolitics’ I mean the effects that a philosophy can obtain, in and of itself, from the fact that real policies are thoughts. Metapolitics is opposed to political philosophy, according to which, since policies are not thoughts, it is up to the philosopher to think the political.
Alain Badiou, philosopher.
Thinking about politics is not an exclusive exercise for ‘thinkers’ or philosophers. Anyone who intends to participate in some type of organization or social event does so with a political stance, regardless of being aware of it or not.
Thus, in this, and possibly in other articles in the future, I intend to explore the metapolitics of Bitcoin, occasionally contrasting them with those of Ethereum, since I consider that protocol as the antithesis or the most immediate referent of what Bitcoin is not.
How to tackle the reduction of the birth rate from Ethereum and Bitcoin?
Let us begin, then, this metapolitical discussion with recent declarations of Vitalik Buterin, regarding the apparent decline of the world population, birth rates and fertility.
I think it is pertinent to compare his perspective on this issue with the position that, in my opinion, a bitcoiner should have in harmonious relationship with the cryptocurrency he uses, Bitcoin.
Vitalik’s statements were given as a result of some tweets from Elon Musk, founder and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, and Sahil Lavingia, founder of Gumroad, on this subject in the following dialogue:
The richest man in the world, a venture capital investor and the founder of a cryptocurrency with a capitalization of more than 380 billion dollars participate in this dialogue.
In this dialogue they discuss measures to regulate the world population, the way in which having children can be made “cheaper”, and Vitalik points out that pregnancy is “a burden” that makes men and women economically unequal. In a certain sense, it is, since many women must stop working or attend their studies to care for their pregnancy, but there may be other solutions that are not artificial wombs.
A bitcoiner, understood as someone who tries to exercise their metapolitical thinking aligned with how Bitcoin works, should perhaps not commune with these twisted notions of life and family.
The fact is that the fiat economy and central planning have erased the future prospects of many people in the world, removing the incentives to support a family and children, since it is not attractive to bring a new life when it will not be able to access opportunities that allow it to grow and develop in relatively acceptable terms for these times.
Elon, Sahil and Vitalik are part of this same chain of privilege. Although I do not detract from the aerospace technological merits of the former, Musk has been one of the main beneficiaries of government energy credits, that we know are artificial (printing money) and are a punishment against the population as they involve inflation and destruction of the work of the most vulnerable.
Sahil is the founder of Gumroad, one of the most successful platforms for creating and selling content, and which has certainly made many creators rich; but Sahil is also a venture capital investor in companies and cryptocurrencies. In other words, a speculator and seller of stories who will run away with the money when said projects startups and cryptocurrencies fail.
Vitalik is not very different from the previous two characters, as he accumulates broken promises with the development of Ethereum, changes the narrative or direction of the project every year and is clearly the ffigure that most influences the decisions of this entire ecosystem.
Thus, it seems that we can establish an interesting parallelism between the functioning of Bitcoin and that of Ethereum, regarding the opinions expressed here by these technology leaders.
having and raising children, to form a united and successful family, is a Proof of Work (Proof of Work), while making humans in incubators or artificial ‘wombs’ is a Proof of Participation (Proof of Stake), and that takes us to dystopian and terrifying scenarios like the ones in the book A happy world or the movies Matrix Y Blade Runner.
The same approach that Vitalik has to the technological development of Ethereum is the same that he proposes for the real world: look for solutions from linear and literal thinking, which it does not denote true intelligence and not an ounce of empathy.
His reasoning does not seek to create conditions so that humans can buy or build a house, establish a home, form a family and educate our children with full freedom.
Vitalik and Sahil propose automate Procreation, in a process managed by technocrats and corporations in collaboration with the governments of the world, perpetuating the same corrupt system that Bitcoin opposes, but with nuances of innovation and goodness technological.
In fact, those who have enough power and money would have advantages, such as having access to genetic manipulation, making their children potentially more intelligent, taller, with better qualities of beauty.
The aberrant thing is that they will be intervening in the way in which we humans reproduce as a species, discarding any principle of biological and scientific ethics. At least the ethic I think we should stick to.
That is why I reject a future where the only ones who have the right and ability to have a home, family and children are Elon, Sahil and Vitalik, although apparently, Sahil and Vitalik’s only chance to have them is to artificially manufacture them.
Lords of technology, the new masters of the world
Historically, wise men and inventors have been influential people in state policies. However, the closest reference has been Bill Gates, who went from being a successful software developer to a consultant on the most varied topics: child malnutrition, global warming, population growth, globalization, education, epidemics, vaccination and more.
Is he a genius or a wealthy strategist? On account of what do we entrust the most crucial matters to these people? Why does the fate of billions of people depend on your opinion and criteria?
Perhaps if Bitcoin were a person, it would oppose entrepreneurs, inventors, and any kind of leader, despite their wisdom and merits, they are allowed to be masters and lords of the world, with the power and authority to change people’s lives from the most basic aspects of their existence.
If Bitcoin were a person, it would be against synthetic wombs, and in favor of economic and financial equality so that each human being decides what to do with their lives and how to have children, without worrying about the difficulties of the unwise distribution of capital in the world through the issuance of unlimited credits, which only help banks and large investors and they indebt future generations before they are born.
Satoshi knew that this was the right orientation for the success of Bitcoin and so he withdrew from public life. And even if I came back, a bitcoiner should probably ignore or dispute your opinion.
The same code of conduct that Bitcoin requires from its community to maintain the integrity of the protocol, we should also implement it on issues crucial to humanity, and there I find the metapolitical reason for Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin as a protocol does not transcend the social and political spheres, it will only be reduced to a tool of limited and highly specific utility, losing its potential to defend the causes for which it was created.
Bitcoin returns power to individuals and channels the energy and incentives that any form of association and organization between them requires. If even with Bitcoin, society prefers to delegate population control to predatory entrepreneurs like Sahil, Elon and Vitalik, they’re not gonna make it (ngmi)…
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to its author and do not necessarily reflect those of CriptoNoticias.