thomas

1/3 The parable of Chesterton’s Fence suggests that we should not remove metaphorical fences without first gaining a deep understanding of why they exist in the first place.

It’s an act of humility to recognize that, no matter how smart we are, we must acknowledge that other smart people preceded us and thought deeply about solving some problem, leading to the fence being erected.

It’s an act of giving credit to inter-generational wisdom, not blind deference to traditions for their own sake (they are nothing more than peer pressure from dead people after all).

PhD in aviation ∩ climate science | Aviator, diver, ETH maxi, nexialist | Host of /diving /ethfinance /eth-staker /geopolitics /science /singapore /thomas

3/3 This is not a libertarian stance — it’s only the idea that we must experiment at some scale before putting regulatory fences in place, because once they’re in, they are exceedingly difficult to remove and they set a ceiling for further experimentation.

So I vote for a generalized Chesterton’s Fence principle: be equally diligent in removing fences as you are setting them up.

2/3 However, I see a corollary to Chesterton’s Fence: don’t erect a fence without first gaining a deep understanding of the problem you are looking to solve.

Some problems are timeless; others are unique to each generation. In the current e/acc vs d/acc debate, the corollary to Chesterton’s Fence suggests that we should explore the problems fully before deciding on safeguards and regulations.

This is where I see network states, edge cities, pop up communities, etc play a role. I see them as living laboratories of the future, where new ideas can be tested between consenting adults: gene therapy, longevity protocols, biohacks and nootropics, AI augmentation, transhumanism, robotics-assisted living, crypto economies, etc.