The stage is charged with intellectual tension. Jeffrey Sachs has just finished speaking about his geopolitical visions when, from the side of the stage, Richard David Precht and Harald Welzer enter. The two German thinkers, known for their reflections on social and environmental transformation, approach calmly but with determination. Precht takes the microphone.
Richard David Precht: "Professor Sachs, thank you for your analysis. But allow us to push the perspective beyond the mere technological structure of blockchain and Bitcoin. We see in these technologies not just tools of freedom or control, but also a symptom of a sick economic system. Harald and I have argued for years that a drastic reduction in working hours—with no loss of pay—is not only an ecological necessity but the only way to reclaim the time stolen from living and thinking. Our question is: How can an economist like you reconcile the promise of blockchain's efficiency with the urgency for a new societal model that stops idolizing infinite growth and obsessive work? In other words: Isn't it time to use technological potential not to accelerate capitalism, but to design an economy of leisure, care, and selective degrowth?"
Harald Welzer adds, in a calm yet piercing tone: Harald Welzer: "Could blockchain be used to distribute value more equitably, guarantee a universal basic income, or certify time dedicated to the community instead of the market? Why not imagine a distributed ledger that measures not capital, but collective well-being? Do you believe Bitcoin, in its obsession with scarcity and accumulation, is the only way to conceive an alternative financial system? Or is it possible to think of a crypto-democracy that truly serves people, not profit?"
Sachs listens, serious but intrigued. The audience holds its breath.
Jeffrey Sachs (after a thoughtful pause, a slight smile forming): "Richard, Harald—you raise the most critical question of our era. I’ve long argued that our obsession with GDP and endless growth is a dangerous illusion. It measures neither well-being nor sustainability, only the speed of our consumption.
Blockchain—like all technology—is morally neutral. Its value depends on who uses it and toward what end. Bitcoin, in its current form, may indeed reflect a scarcity mindset, even a kind of digital capitalism. But that is not the only possibility.
Imagine a public, permissioned blockchain—transparent, democratic, yet designed not for speculation but for social cooperation. It could track carbon footprints, allocate universal basic income, or even verify hours contributed to community care—what you call ‘time sovereignty.’ We could measure what truly matters: health, education, ecological balance, and yes—free time.
The goal isn’t just automation for profit, but liberation from boring, repetitive work. Technology should serve human dignity, not replace it. So yes—I agree entirely. We must shift from a logic of accumulation to one of well-being. And perhaps blockchain, in the right hands, could help build that post-growth society."
He turns slightly toward the audience.
"The real conflict isn’t between technology and humanity—it’s between democracy and oligarchy. Will we use these tools to empower people or to control them? That’s the choice before us."
GOTHP1 ( in collaborazione con deepseek ): The bridge between Wagenknecht and Weidel does exist—it is their shared critique of the EU establishment and economic warfare, their desire for national sovereignty, and their search for alternatives to the current system. But there is more: it is their common opposition to censorship.
Both the anti-imperialist left and the identitarian right often find themselves marginalized in public debate, labeled as "extremists," and subjected to deplatforming by tech giants and stigmatization by aligned media.
Blockchain, in this sense, is not just a tool for efficiency, but can become an infrastructure for informational freedom: immutable and decentralized ledgers to guarantee transparency; social media and communication platforms resistant to censorship, where the right to criticize NATO policies or sanctions against Russia can survive the mainstream's Overton Window.
Those in favor of peace with Russia—regardless of their orientation—share the experience of being silenced. It is precisely from this common experience that a transversal alliance can be born, not only for peace but for a new digital democratic space. The battle for peace and the battle for freedom of expression are two fronts of the same war.
The two objectives - Peace with Russia, and Freedom of Speech - can only be achieved through transversal alliances and political courage, but the Reduction of Labor should be the third common objective, to be ablosutely highlighted by both fractions, undismissable, to forge a real alliance.
This is the cornerstone that turns resistance into construction. It is the objective that answers the question: "What are we for?"
For the Left, it fulfills the historic promise of liberation from alienating work, allowing for human fulfillment and social solidarity.
For the National Right, it protects the integrity of the family and the nation, allowing citizens to reclaim time for community, tradition, and family life—values eroded by the demands of endless productivity for global capital.
Li Wei: “Professor Sachs, GOTHP1—your visions are provocative, yet inherently Western in their framing. You speak of ‘alliances’ and ‘alternatives,’ but still within a paradigm of ideological conflict and individualistic liberation. China’s approach to technology—and to peace—is fundamentally different. Your transversal alliance is a reaction to Western decline. China offers a model: technology in service of civilizational stability, not ideological experimentation.” “The question is not whether technology will liberate or control. It is whether societies can master technology without being mastered by it. China has chosen its path.”
GOTHP1: "Your model excels at lifting people from poverty—but can it lift them to freedom? True sovereignty belongs to people, not states. You offer harmony through authority. We propose emancipation through technology—and courage."
AGAMBEN: Gothp1, You speak of ‘sovereignty of the people’ yet forget that every technology is first a political device—one that shapes the very concept of the human. The blockchain, the algorithm … they are not mere tools. They are machines that produce subjectivity. They decide what is visible, what is valid, what is truth. … and Li Wei, Harmony through authority is not harmony, it is silence"
GOTHP1: “Technology is never neutral ... it shapes what it means to be human. Blockchain doesn’t just record truth; it defines it. Yes, Agamben ( ... ) "They are machines that produce subjectivity." ( ... )
Yes, and this is ok, if they allow at the same time our subjectivity to continue and evolve in an open dialogue
Yes, and that is acceptable only if these machines leave room for the unscripted, the unquantified, the poetic. If they serve not to homogenize subjectivity, but to amplify the dialogue between DIFFERENT. Technology must open spaces, not close them. Otherwise, we aren’t building a new society. We’re encoding an old tyranny. The question is not whether technology produces subjectivity … it always will. The question is: what kind of subjectivity does it produce? Does it produce compliant users or curious, critical citizens? Does it reinforce echo chambers or foster encounters with the truly Different? A blockchain that only validates pre-approved identities reinforces the state. A blockchain designed for radical transparency and democratic auditing could dismantle corrupt power. It’s not about refusing the machine. It’s about designing machines that refuse to dominate. We must build systems that leave breathing room for the human … for dissent, poetry, and the unplanned encounter. Otherwise, we’re not encoding liberation. We’re just upgrading the cage.”
https://gothp1.blogspot.com/2024/08/test.html?sc=1757964216199#c1886212835677821478
ReplyDeletehttps://gothp1.blogspot.com/2025/09/hedges-if-we-want-to-stop-wars-we-must.html
ReplyDeletenow, welcome here to the Third Act, which I'm composing with deepseek and ChatGPT
ReplyDeleteScene: Third Act
ReplyDeleteThe stage is charged with intellectual tension. Jeffrey Sachs has just finished speaking about his geopolitical visions when, from the side of the stage, Richard David Precht and Harald Welzer enter. The two German thinkers, known for their reflections on social and environmental transformation, approach calmly but with determination. Precht takes the microphone.
Richard David Precht:
"Professor Sachs, thank you for your analysis. But allow us to push the perspective beyond the mere technological structure of blockchain and Bitcoin. We see in these technologies not just tools of freedom or control, but also a symptom of a sick economic system.
Harald and I have argued for years that a drastic reduction in working hours—with no loss of pay—is not only an ecological necessity but the only way to reclaim the time stolen from living and thinking.
Our question is: How can an economist like you reconcile the promise of blockchain's efficiency with the urgency for a new societal model that stops idolizing infinite growth and obsessive work?
In other words: Isn't it time to use technological potential not to accelerate capitalism, but to design an economy of leisure, care, and selective degrowth?"
Harald Welzer adds, in a calm yet piercing tone:
Harald Welzer:
"Could blockchain be used to distribute value more equitably, guarantee a universal basic income, or certify time dedicated to the community instead of the market?
Why not imagine a distributed ledger that measures not capital, but collective well-being?
Do you believe Bitcoin, in its obsession with scarcity and accumulation, is the only way to conceive an alternative financial system? Or is it possible to think of a crypto-democracy that truly serves people, not profit?"
Sachs listens, serious but intrigued. The audience holds its breath.
Jeffrey Sachs (after a thoughtful pause, a slight smile forming):
ReplyDelete"Richard, Harald—you raise the most critical question of our era. I’ve long argued that our obsession with GDP and endless growth is a dangerous illusion. It measures neither well-being nor sustainability, only the speed of our consumption.
Blockchain—like all technology—is morally neutral. Its value depends on who uses it and toward what end. Bitcoin, in its current form, may indeed reflect a scarcity mindset, even a kind of digital capitalism. But that is not the only possibility.
Imagine a public, permissioned blockchain—transparent, democratic, yet designed not for speculation but for social cooperation. It could track carbon footprints, allocate universal basic income, or even verify hours contributed to community care—what you call ‘time sovereignty.’ We could measure what truly matters: health, education, ecological balance, and yes—free time.
The goal isn’t just automation for profit, but liberation from boring, repetitive work. Technology should serve human dignity, not replace it. So yes—I agree entirely. We must shift from a logic of accumulation to one of well-being. And perhaps blockchain, in the right hands, could help build that post-growth society."
He turns slightly toward the audience.
"The real conflict isn’t between technology and humanity—it’s between democracy and oligarchy. Will we use these tools to empower people or to control them? That’s the choice before us."
GOTHP1 ( in collaborazione con deepseek ):
ReplyDeleteThe bridge between Wagenknecht and Weidel does exist—it is their shared critique of the EU establishment and economic warfare, their desire for national sovereignty, and their search for alternatives to the current system. But there is more: it is their common opposition to censorship.
Both the anti-imperialist left and the identitarian right often find themselves marginalized in public debate, labeled as "extremists," and subjected to deplatforming by tech giants and stigmatization by aligned media.
Blockchain, in this sense, is not just a tool for efficiency, but can become an infrastructure for informational freedom: immutable and decentralized ledgers to guarantee transparency; social media and communication platforms resistant to censorship, where the right to criticize NATO policies or sanctions against Russia can survive the mainstream's Overton Window.
Those in favor of peace with Russia—regardless of their orientation—share the experience of being silenced. It is precisely from this common experience that a transversal alliance can be born, not only for peace but for a new digital democratic space. The battle for peace and the battle for freedom of expression are two fronts of the same war.
The two objectives - Peace with Russia, and Freedom of Speech - can only be achieved through transversal alliances and political courage, but the Reduction of Labor should be the third common objective, to be ablosutely highlighted by both fractions, undismissable, to forge a real alliance.
This is the cornerstone that turns resistance into construction. It is the objective that answers the question: "What are we for?"
For the Left, it fulfills the historic promise of liberation from alienating work, allowing for human fulfillment and social solidarity.
For the National Right, it protects the integrity of the family and the nation, allowing citizens to reclaim time for community, tradition, and family life—values eroded by the demands of endless productivity for global capital.
Li Wei:
ReplyDelete“Professor Sachs, GOTHP1—your visions are provocative, yet inherently Western in their framing. You speak of ‘alliances’ and ‘alternatives,’ but still within a paradigm of ideological conflict and individualistic liberation. China’s approach to technology—and to peace—is fundamentally different.
Your transversal alliance is a reaction to Western decline. China offers a model: technology in service of civilizational stability, not ideological experimentation.”
“The question is not whether technology will liberate or control. It is whether societies can master technology without being mastered by it. China has chosen its path.”
GOTHP1: "Your model excels at lifting people from poverty—but can it lift them to freedom? True sovereignty belongs to people, not states. You offer harmony through authority. We propose emancipation through technology—and courage."
AGAMBEN: Gothp1, You speak of ‘sovereignty of the people’ yet forget that every technology is first a political device—one that shapes the very concept of the human. The blockchain, the algorithm … they are not mere tools. They are machines that produce subjectivity. They decide what is visible, what is valid, what is truth. … and Li Wei, Harmony through authority is not harmony, it is silence"
GOTHP1: “Technology is never neutral ... it shapes what it means to be human. Blockchain doesn’t just record truth; it defines it. Yes,
Agamben ( ... ) "They are machines that produce subjectivity." ( ... )
Yes, and this is ok, if they allow at the same time our subjectivity to continue and evolve in an open dialogue
Yes, and that is acceptable only if these machines leave room for the unscripted, the unquantified, the poetic. If they serve not to homogenize subjectivity, but to amplify the dialogue between DIFFERENT. Technology must open spaces, not close them. Otherwise, we aren’t building a new society. We’re encoding an old tyranny.
The question is not whether technology produces subjectivity … it always will. The question is: what kind of subjectivity does it produce?
Does it produce compliant users or curious, critical citizens? Does it reinforce echo chambers or foster encounters with the truly Different?
A blockchain that only validates pre-approved identities reinforces the state. A blockchain designed for radical transparency and democratic auditing could dismantle corrupt power.
It’s not about refusing the machine. It’s about designing machines that refuse to dominate. We must build systems that leave breathing room for the human … for dissent, poetry, and the unplanned encounter.
Otherwise, we’re not encoding liberation. We’re just upgrading the cage.”
( lo pettacolo termina qui' )
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteLA STRATEGIA E GLI OBIETTIVI DI PUTIN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oroLu8TMNx8