The full article is here. The wag's remarks are on point; even when Popes had a lot more practical authority than currently, the crossbow thing didn't work out even in Italy. During the Battle of Poiters, the French Army was supported by 2,000 Genoese mercenary crossbowmen.
On the other hand, crossbow bans are back in the news (in the UK, of course, where they somehow continue to labor under the idea that they can ban everything that is potentially dangerous and then crime will go away).
Also on that other hand, the Pope's authority at least in America may be gaining. Commenting on a news story that Catholic converts now outnumber Evangelicals, Robert Kearney writes:
De Tocqueville foresaw a future time in America where Protestantism (existing as an intermediate form between pure reason and full authority) would struggle to endure long-term under our democratic conditions.Due to this, people would increasingly gravitate either toward complete unbelief or toward Catholicism due to the Church's existence as a singular, authoritative structure that could give answers to people and help organize society in order for it to remain functioning.Perhaps the 21st century may see his vision fulfilled.
I'm not sure we won't still be flying the A-10 and B-52 by the end of the century, but I guess we'll see. Well, our children or grandchildren, I suppose.
15 comments:
Crossbow bans are dumb. They need to get to the bottom of this and ban fiberglass and carbon fiber. Then they can ban steel. And yew trees are somewhat suspect by association. And geese-don't forget the geese.
The peak irony will be the banning of longbows.
I do think the concern over concealed trebuchets is overblown.
Ah. In light of 9/11, does he wish to ban _flying_ planes as well?
Maybe not. He said "Aircraft should always be vehicles of peace," and some people tell me that "Islam means 'peace.'"
Yeah, and St Augustine opposed preemptive strikes at the start of a war. That doesn't play well, practically, these days. Modern technology has made preemption necessary for survival.
The nation(s) that more or less unilaterally disarm become subservient. The nation(s) that more or less keep arming with steadily upgraded and newer, better weapons dominate, unless they're fighting each other.
Eric Hines
Has any new technology ever been successfully squelched? The best some societies can do is impose disincentives on innovative thinking generally, either by confiscating the proceeds or by disappearing the obstreperous inventors who won't shut up.
My first thought was, beta max. I mean, the market squelched it, but still.
My second was to ask, is that success rate a good thing? Are there some things best left un-invented?
But third, are we likely to have ever heard of bans or squelchings that really were successful? This could be survivor bias. Also, I suspect a lot of new tech fails just because it isn't that helpful or cool.
- Tom
In light of 10/7, I'm wondering about paragliders.
"Paragliders mean 'peace'!"
I can't say whether it's a good or bad thing that no one has ever succeeded in squelching an invention, other than (as you say) by out-competing it with something better. But a thing that is impossible remains impossible even if it would be better if it were possible. We shouldn't put our efforts into something that is both costly and futile.
Tex,
"Costly and futile" is the political ideal -AKA "It failed, we need more resources!"
But, Betamax was better, technologically. The company wasn't as savvy with marketing, so we all ended up with an inferior technology until DVDs hit the scene.
I'm not sure what your point about impossible things is about. Are you going back to banning aerial bombing? Yes, that would be a pointless ban.
Indeed!
From the point of view of surviving an attempted squelching, it doesn't matter if an innovation is better unless it's better at surviving. But my point there was that squelching a dangerous invention for the good of humanity is a very different matter from a particular invention's simply not catching on; the technology is still available, though no one's motivated to use it for now, perhaps not ever.
My point about impossible tasks is that they remain impossible even if we're quite sure that the world would be a better place if they were possible. Diverting resources to an impossible task (in this case, squelching an innovation because it seems too dangerous) is a waste of limited resources and incidentally promotes tyranny, without actually removing the dangerous innovation. It's a lose-lose.
Yup! "Pay me to fail some more!"
Any argument for disusing tools is frankly stupid on it's face. Tools aren't bad, uses of them can be bad. Focus on that. Focusing on the tool serves to veil the actual ills and bad players.
Post a Comment