This article will be a bit different because I wanted to do something a bit special to celebrate the new year the blog's first anniversary no particular reason whatsoever¹, hope you enjoy it.

Chapter 0: The reunion

A: “…If I understand that correctly, you betrayed us.”

B: “I, no look, it’s not that simple.”

A: “Have you even tried, like, really tried?”

B: “What does that even mean? How can you try to change the world? You either change it or you don’t.”

A: “Don’t play dumb with me! I know you know exactly what I’m trying to say.”

B: “Alright fine, for my defense, I never was in a position where I could do anything, not even at the smallest of scale. The worst part is, even if I was, there’s no guarantee my actions would bring any lasting improvements.”

A: “You just gave up then? That’s so lame… With this line of thought, we won’t accomplish anything in our lifetime. Anyway, what about our dream of a flying city?”

B: “Oh, good thing you’re mentioning that. You remember that it was more of an allegory? It’s just so much easier to create a new ideal society rather than trying to change an existing one.”

A: “True, but it was also supposed to be a symbol of hope and progress for everyone. A flying city was perfect for that.”

B: “Technical possibility aside, won’t this divert too many resources from our primary goal? Our shiny symbol will be useless if we fail to improve things in the first place.”

A: “Valid point, good thing you used all these years to make progress on that.”

B: “Ouch.”

A: “How could we turn into such a good-for-nothing cynic, I wonder.”

B: “I prefer the term realist. Now, are you going to spend our time berating me or can we move on? There’s a reason we’re reunited.”

A: “…Fine.”

Chapter 1: Half-satisfying reality

B: “So where do you want to start?”

A: “Let’s begin by how you lost faith in our ideas.”

B: “What makes you think that?”

A: “You keep criticizing them, just look at what you said on the flying city, for example.”

B: “Oh, there’s an interesting explanation to that. You see, I came to realize that the world is a complex, nuanced mess, and grasping it requires a similarly nuanced view of things. As a side effect, when discussing with someone, I tend to take a somewhat opposing stance to them, regardless of my own opinion.”

A: “Intriguing, let’s test this out. What happens if I say: Nazis bad?”

B: “Of course, you had to start with the Godwin point. Look, the Third Reich, fueled by a repulsive ideology, committed gruesome genocides and war crimes, there’s no denying that. However, I have an issue with how it became the shorthand for absolute evil.”

A: “Err…”

B: “By that, I’m not trying to say it conceals any positive that came out from them, like their anti-tobacco policy, because it’d be an insult to their victims. However, it skews our perception of what is morally reprehensible, to the point where other groups default to fighting Nazism as a justification for their own misdeeds, or massacres… Was that intelligible?”

A: “I guess?”

B: “Basically, them being represented as this unreachable vileness in our collective mind, allow others to say something along the lines: It’s bad, but not Nazi-bad, so it’s ok, even in cases where it’s really not that far off.”

A: “Conclusion?”

B: “Conclusion, Nazis definitely bad, but in a depressingly more common manner that they’re made to be.”

A: “I see, it makes sense. What I don’t see though, is the amount of fun you must deliver at parties.”

B: “Ha ha, mock me all you want, at least I’m no longer an insecure teen… What was I saying? Yes, there’s one more reason for playing devil’s advocate: Poking at ideas like that is helpful to test their soundness. It’s especially important to do at your own beliefs, because you don’t want them to be flimsy.”

A: “Otherwise you end up doubling down at any inconsistency, like flat earthers, right?

B: “Indeed, but I’d prefer you refrain from alienating groups of people, I already do that enough on my own.”

A: “You know, my earlier criticism is still valid. With your approach, you risk falling into analysis paralysis: by waiting to find the perfect solution before acting, you won’t do anything… Although, when lives are at stake, you certainly don’t want to rush things.”

B: “Exactly, that’s why…”

A: “The thing is, Ideas inhabit this unreachable realm of beauty. We can only pathetically attempt to bring them into our crooked world using flawed tools, corrupting them in the process.”

B: “Nicely said, but I think you’re mistaken. My primary objective is to create our vision of society, even if it means using rickety ideas and accepting tough compromises.”

A: “Not all deals are good to make though, if you have to bargain your core values or primary objective in the process, what’s the point? Progress for the sake of progress?”

B: “There’s certainly a limit, but my motto on this issue is: A half-satisfying reality is better than any unattainable dream.”

A: “Such bold claims, yet you haven’t done anything during all those years.”

B: “First, how dare you? And next, the crushing truth is I’m simply powerless, I don’t see any path forward, and I’m not even sure I would improve things in the long run.”

A: “That’s bleak, you won’t achieve anything if you don’t believe it’s possible.”

B: “I’m just realistic on our odds here! I’m pretty sure you feel the same, it’s just that this pessimistic seed has bloomed in a hopeless tree over the years.”

A: “To be fair, it always was an uphill, or rather, upcliff battle. In any case, I fear that in your current state you’ll lament a future you let down.”

B: “Oh don’t worry, apathy has no hold on me. I will pursue any opportunity that presents itself, even if the only one is something like writing about our ideas to inspire random people on the internet.”

A: “Ugh, I don’t think this will ever work.”

B: “Yeah, me neither…”

Chapter 2: The cold heart of a leader

B: “What’s next?”

A: “I wanted to talk about egoist, psychopathic leaders. It does concern me quite a bit that they’re so common. Because, they won’t think twice about playing with our lives, and sending people to their death just to serve their own interests.”

B: “Tell me about it.”

A: “What?”

B: “Oh um, trust me, you don’t want to know. It’s just your remark is very timely for me.”

A: “I’m pretty sure it’s permanently relevant. So something terrible happened uh. Worse than the Great Recession?”

B: “Something with a country invading another… Wait, how was that caused by egoistic psychopaths?”

A: “I have no proof, but those bankers had to know what they were doing, not to say about those that saw it coming and profited off of it. You have to lack empathy to be so heartless.”

B: “That’s a possibility. It could also be simple hubris and opportunism. Besides, it’s not like they were directly hurting those people. Without that direct feedback loop it’s easier to hurt people, even if you’re normal.”

A: “You won’t persuade me, and we’re getting off topic. These guys are real obstacles to any lasting progress, there will always be one to topple everything if it helps them. Also, we can’t ignore their ability to stoke our divisions, create scapegoats to deflect blame, and avoid accountability.”

B: “What’s the plan then, we prevent them from getting into power? That’d require being able to somehow detect and block them, and neither seems feasible. Worse, if one slips through the net you bet they’ll do everything to hold on to their status. Just like the ones that are in place right now.”

A: Sigh, “I’m aware it won’t be easy, yet the problem can’t be overlooked. For those already there, we won’t be able to do much. Maybe we just need a system where those in charge can be easily removed from office if they exhibit psychopathic tendencies. Wait, we do have this in democratic systems through term limits and destitution mechanisms.”

B: “Also, did you ever wonder why they’re over-represented at the top like that?”

A: “Of course, but it isn’t too hard to figure out: they are smart and manipulative, that helps them skirt their way up. In addition, they exhibit traits that people generally associate with leadership like charisma, boldness, superficial strength. That convinces many to crown them… until they realize how horrible they are.”

B: “If they ever realize… Why do you think they are so horrible?”

A: “Uh, I already said that: They don’t care about others, they trample their feelings, sow divisions and create chaos!”

B: “Alright, don’t misunderstand what I’ll say. I abhor their questionable actions, and agree that they’re dangerous people. Yet, I don’t think this disqualifies them from ruling, far from it.”

A: “Excuse me? What the hell screams chief material in what I just described?”

B: “I’m not saying I want them in charge. I’m saying some of those nasty aspects are actually helpful in their role, helping them hold on to it. To much of my dismay, mind you.”

A: “…Please elaborate.”

B: “There are two things at play here: The first one is, the ability to make tough decisions, like sacrificing some people to save others… such is the curse of wielding power in a cruel world. Obviously, if you don’t give a flying duck about fellow humans, this is much easier to do.”

A: “That way, you also appear to some as a tough and bold individual.”

B: “Yes. The next one is a bit similar, a good boss must be free of emotional biases in order to take purely pragmatic, fact-based decisions. Those two factors make up what I call the cold heart of a leader: You need to make only calculated decisions, devoid of any emotional attachment.”

A: “I’ll have to stop you right there, those guys are self-serving psychos, they only take decisions that benefit themselves, regardless of what reality dictates.”

B: “True. What I was trying to say is: although psychopaths are not free of emotions, because of their nature they can act cold-hearted, which is beneficial in this context.”

A: “That’s meager compared to everything they do wrong. In this case, I’d much prefer someone who feels the sacrifice they make, that way I’m sure they won’t overdo it.”

B: “For sure! I was just nuancing things, as you know I do. What would be your ideal leader then?”

A: “Let me think, an empathetic smart person, who understands the struggle of the rank and file, who always prioritizes the best interests of their people, only taking decisions with the long term in mind.”

B: “In a nutshell, some sort of selfless, competent and benevolent ruler then. Sounds nice, but have you ever met one?”

A: “…I can’t say I have.”

B: “None? I mean, maybe not to the extent you described, yet it doesn’t sound too far-fetched, surely you’ve seen one.”

A: “Uh, no. It seems none of them really want to improve things, they’re just trying to maximize short-term gains for them and an elite few.”

B: “Call me naive, because I think most people getting into politics are driven by a genuine will to improve things. That being said, we must take in consideration that their vision of improvement might be different from our own, and there are subject to the inherent limitations of our power structures.”

A: “That doesn’t excuse their self-serving behaviors. They should focus on the interests of all their constituents, to the extent of their ability.”

B: “So they shouldn’t be able to serve their interests?”

A: “Definitely not.”

B: “The thing is, seeking to improve your condition and your relatives’ is natural, a fundamental right even… As long as it’s not at the expense of others.”

A: “Still, you shouldn’t go into politics solely with this intent, you goal should be to solve problems, diffuse crisis and improve livelihoods.”

B: “Ideally, yes. Realistically, you admitted you’ve never seen such a person. They might exist, but we can’t really wait for them to stumble into the job once every century.”

A: “Fine, what do you suggest then?”

B: “To begin with, we should put legal barriers to known self-enrichment mechanisms, like insider trading, lobbying, kickbacks and the like, as well as keep watch for new ones.”

A: “Because that’s not already the case?”

B: “Not everywhere, and it’s a game of cat and mouse. Next, we should ensure that the goals of the rulers and their populations align, by carefully choosing the incentives to wield power.”

A: “Like paying them only if they deliver on their promises or if they have a high approval rate, something like that?”

B: “Right.”

A: “In that case, we have to suppose politicians can’t artificially increase that number then, which is a big if.”

B: “Sure, anyway, just making sure that the best interests of the people are theirs as well. That way we can rely on a much larger pool of candidates, and that’s sort of what’s going on in healthy democracies.”

A: “Since you talk about democracies, I’ve seen countless times how easy it is for a shrewd individual to exploit the system for their own gain. Thus, it’d be safer to filter out any non-suitable candidates.”

B: “Then we have the same problem we had with egoistic psychopaths earlier.”

A: “I realized saying it. Still, I think it’s the only way.”

B: “What if, in addition to what I said, there was a cultural shift, where rulers were not above their people but in their service, power as a duty in a sense. It will help to attract the right kind of benevolent people we want.”

A: “Sounds cool, how exactly do you plan to achieve that?”

B: “Yeah, nevermind.”

A: “Well, we veered off course quite a bit in this discussion. Do you have anything to add?”

B: “Actually, I do. Since we’re talking about ruling and the like, what’s your opinion on term limits for presidents?”

A: “Err, let’s try it your way. As a downside, it favors short-term politics, while it also prevents someone from holding on to power for too long, limiting the control they can gather, somewhat protecting democracy. Overall, I’d say it’s better to have them.”

B: “That’s a balanced analysis, now they have another advantage: they limit the amount of corruption.”

A: “You mean like, monetary corruption?”

B: “No, although I guess it does. I meant something else: I am convinced, ruling corrodes the heart of the ruler over time.”

A: “I’m not sure I follow you.”

B: “This phenomenon is probably the result of different factors but basically, the information and actions necessary to accomplish this role, the mindset if you will, induces loneliness and a disconnection with mundane reality. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets, triggering nasty side effects in the process.”

A: “…I’m still not following you, sorry.”

B: “For example, there’s this common nasty dictator loop, where they get increasingly paranoid about people wanting to topple their reign, asking for increasingly stronger loyalty pledges, and looser definition of treason… with the copious amount of purging that comes with it.”

A: “Ok hmm, was there any conclusion to that?”

B: “Not really, I just wanted to bring it up, that’s all.”

A: “Let’s move on to the next subject then…”

Chapter 3: Things never change

A: “I don’t even know why we’re talking, things will never change anyway.”

B: “Why do you say that?”

A: “Because things do not ever change, duh.”

B: “My bad, let me reformulate. Why do you think that’s the case?”

A: “Part of it definitely comes from politicians as we already said, the other is the resistance to change from a part of the population.”

B: “All politicians are corrupt liars?”

A: “I did not say that, but I’d be dishonest if I deny thinking this.”

B: “And short of actual scandals revealing the corruption of a person, you think that because things don’t change, right?”

A: “Mainly. Let me guess, you don’t agree?”

B: “It’s complicated. As I said, I think they really want to change things, but yeah, they are self-interested and liars. We talked already on the self-interest part, for the lying it’s sadly part of the job.”

A: “I don’t see how lying is good in this context.”

B: “Would you vote for a completely honest, realistic politician?”

A: “Without a doubt.”

B: “Now, do you think they would win against less honest competition?”

A: “… Probably not.”

B: “Part of the problem comes from a winner takes all approach to election. Having a more granular outcome to elections should help lower the stakes and the need to over-promise.”

A: “I’m not sure it’ll do much, you can still be rewarded for bad behavior. The real game-changer would be punishing blatant lies heavily in the urns, alas that’s a people problem. But let’s come back to your absence of change explanation.”

B: “To begin with, we must acknowledge that ruling under normal circumstances is hard, and it’s not like you can get experience beforehand. Now imagine when a once-in-a-lifetime crisis suddenly comes up, understandably, nobody knows how to handle it. You’re bound to make mistakes, and a good leader should not be recognized by their luck of taking the best decision right away, but by their ability to correct trajectory mid-course if needed.”

A: “Point taken: ruling is hard and you start as a newbie, so even if you want to improve things you might take the wrong approach. It compounds with short tenure and term limits, forcing you to step down at the moment where you’re theoretically the best at your job. I don’t see how the crisis stuff is relevant to the subject though.”

B: “It isn’t, I just got carried away by current events, sorry. The next hurdle to change is stability.”

A: “Stability as in the lack of change? The lack of change is responsible for the lack of change?”

B: roll eyes “Stop being cheeky. What I meant is stability by itself requires effort to maintain, just like you need work to stay put in a curved space². Meaning, when things stagnate, politicians are not rolling their thumbs, it might simply be the best they can manage.”

A: “They’re not competent enough then. If things are bad and you’re just able to not screw things more, I’m not going to thank you. Besides, it’s not like you always have to stabilize things before improving them, that’s two somewhat separate concepts. Therefore, I suspect stagnation is more often than not their end goal.”

B: “Probably. The thing is, stability has intrinsic value. No matter how flawed the system is, if the rules are clear, with time people will adapt and make it work. On the other hand, changing things will necessarily introduce instability, at a cost.”

A: “Right, but confidence in the system is also valuable, and there is none when it’s utterly broken. Also, the value of stability only limits how often and how fast you may change things. With good planning, you can still achieve results.”

B: “However, should you fail, the political cost would be immense. With such stakes, it’s understandable that many politicians settle for maintaining the status quo.”

A: “I refuse to hear that, it’s too disheartening. Surely, there’s a way to test things at small scale, adjust if needed, then smoothly roll them out.”

B: “Indeed, and that’s generally how new systems are implemented. The issue is before you can reach this phase you need to fend off the other obstacles.”

A: “Which are?”

B: “The first one is actually knowing how to improve things. I know it sounds dumb, still it’s not trivial. Generally, as laymen we only consider our point of view, but as a leader you need to consider all of them. Since there will be conflicting interests, this will mechanically reduce your options through conducting harsh negotiations between all sides.”

A: “Sure, I guess as an employee it’s easy to demand a raise without taking into consideration the cost to the employer, or potential effects on inflation if it’s generalized. That being said, with the balance of power tipped so much towards companies, I’m not going to cry if they have to reduce the dividends to increase payrolls.”

B: “Agreed, but as a politician, support of employers is at least as important as employees. Anyway, the other aspect of this is you don’t want your solution to recreate past issues.”

A: “Hmm, do you have an example in mind?”

B: “Well, the move from commodity backed currencies to fiat currencies prevents the return of Mercantilism, colonization and every nasty things that came with it.”

A: “Don’t you jump the gun with this? Slavery was abolished way before the end of the Gold Standard, and decolonization started earlier as well.”

B: “Excuse me, I just meant that since these were solutions to the economic woes brought by commodity backed currencies, dropping them ensures they won’t come back… probably. Look, I don’t think we’re qualified enough for this, I shouldn’t have brought this up.”

A: “Now, recreating past issues is not necessarily problematic - I don’t mean slavery of course. Context changes with time, so maybe those issues are less troublesome now, or they’re better than the current alternative.”

B: “I stand defeated. Let’s just say that when solving something, you don’t want to create more severe issues in the process. That can further reduce your options, and increase difficulty to change.”

A: “Agreed. It also stands to reason that you’re limited by your ability to research, or come up with solutions, and there’s also a good deal of subjectivity on what it means to solve something.”

B: “You know what? It’s kind of refreshing when you do the explaining. Would you mind doing it for, in my sense, the biggest obstacle to change?”

A: “I know we’re technically the same person, only a few years apart, but that doesn’t mean I can read your thoughts…”

B: “Come on, you even said it at the start!”

A: “Oh, of course. People resisting change because they don’t want to change their habits, or because it’s tradition, or whatever.”

B: “There’s that and also, since everyone tries to defend their own interests, you can see society as this gigantic tug-of-war, where everyone tries to pull countless ropes in their direction.”

A: “Right, and your pulling strength is proportional to how vocal, or how influential you are.”

B: “Exactly. Since we need to take in all points of view, it makes it very difficult to see the path forward as it creates so much noise, and friction. All of this makes change so difficult, and slow. That’s why we wanted our flying city.”

A: “You understand that with this much obstruction, many people become hopeless and increasingly frustrated, right?”

B: “Alas yes, and I’m extremely concerned that in their desperation, others embrace projects that will change things… for the worse.”

A: “Can you blame them though? When you keep hearing the same thing over and over without results, you’re tempted to try something different, even if it defies logic. Besides, we don’t know the future. It might start out bad, and improve afterwards.”

B: “Even in normal times, a crisis, or any event really, can wipe out years of progress instantly, so why should we take on additional risks? Look, I’m convinced change is possible. Sure, it’s much slower than we’d like. Nonetheless, we should tirelessly focus on going forward, and solidifying what little gains we get.”

A: “Again, such big words, while you accomplished nothing.”

B: “You will never let me off the hook, will you? I did the only thing I could do: vote. Admittedly not for the projects that would yield the more progress, but the one that had the best chance to win, and maybe improve things a little.”

A: “…I know in doing so you’re simply playing by the rules, but that only makes you part of the problem.”

B: “An inconvenient truth I’ll stomach as a realist. Now, I may have a solution to accelerate change.”

A: “Oh yeah? Let’s hear it then.”

B: “Akin to aligning people and leader goals, if we could reduce the amount of non-alignment in people themselves, this would reduce the amount of noise from the tug-of-war. For example, you may have a minority with opposing interests to the majority. Stagnation arises when this minority has an outsize influence, say because they have more money, and they use it to counter any push for change by the majority.”

A: “What is the solution here? I follow your logic, the minority should have some rights to defend its interests. Also, instating a majority tyranny - although I guess it’s the point of democracies - is probably not a lasting solution, stability-wise.”

B: “Which is why, better than a flying city, we should rather have a patchwork of more homogeneous societies, striving to overcome their differences.”

A: “You realize this will simply never happen?”

B: “In our lifetime, no. With time and effort it might be possible, though. In the meantime, reducing the power of money, or reducing the amount of conflicting interests are safe bets that we don’t have time to delve into.”

A: “What about increasing the barriers to voting? I know it might sound bad, but if people vote with only their own interests in mind, without understanding what they’re voting for, or if they’re getting manipulated through their frustrations, in the interest of the many we should temporarily remove their voting power. Obviously, it’s a slippery slope because you don’t want to give the ability to remove voting power to any political opponents. Still, I think it’s an interesting area to study.”

B: “This would be a challenge to implement in an effective and exploit-proof manner. In a similar manner, we could increase barriers to candidacy to avoid populists, extremists, or more generally people increasing the political toxicity and hysteria of a system. Because just like leaders, I don’t think voters should base decisions on their emotions, albeit it’s a hard proposition when you feel like your life is at stake.”

A: “You’ll have the same implementation pitfalls as my voter restriction idea then. Also, now that I think about it, if our answer to the people’s frustration and distrust is to prevent them from voting, that can’t end well.”

B: “Good point, we would need to address the core of the issue. Sadly, we’re running out of time so we’ll have to wrap it up here.”

Chapter ∞: Final words

B: “So, what’s your conclusion?”

A: “Well, if I’m perfectly honest, our whole discussion is not leaving me very optimistic for the future.”

B: “One thing that really helps me in this regard: Sure our system sucks in many ways, but then you realize it’s the best we ever had throughout history, by far. Even if we can’t presume past performances will continue, I’m convinced things are improving over time.”

A: “I find it ironic that, for a realist that has seen no progress in all those years, you’re so hopeful. Anyway, when are you meeting our older self?”

B: “It should be sometime tomorrow… that is if we even have an older self.”

A: “And now you’re being pessimistic. Is your ambivalence a byproduct of your nuanced policy, I wonder?”

B: “Not quite, it comes from approaching the future more as a superposition of possibilities rather than a single deterministic outcome.”

A: “Alright, what’s your most likely scenario then?”

B: “As I said, things will improve, regardless of whether we live or not.”

A: “I know I berated you all this time for accomplishing nothing, but in these circumstances, should you even bother trying?”

B: “Seemingly insignificant things can have an outsize impact through the snowball or butterfly effect³. We can’t miss an opportunity to ever so slightly accelerate change.”

A: “Whether you decide to keep our dream alive, it’s your decision to make. I can only wish you good luck in our hopeless endeavor. Say hello to the old geezer if you meet them.”

B: “I’ll sure do.”

Will WST ever meet their future self? Alas, we’ll only know the answer after many, many years. In the meantime, dear non-readers, you can help them in their endless pursuit of changing the world, by checking the other works of the present WST.