So let's say that there's a *descriptive* account of climate change (here's how things are changing) and there's a *prescriptive* account of what we should do about it (fight it like it's an emergency, plus use this situation to fix society). The descriptive part has real predictive power. So far so good.
As for me I will place my trust in the weirdo freaks who jumped multiple quintiles in their standardized tests and those who derive growth from instability. Give me a moneyball team of high-variance space oddities and I'll make hay of the elites.
Here's a strange thing: most of the elites in the developed world have no liminal experiences with gatekeepers or gatekeeping institutions. They think in terms of binary sorting, sheep and goats. So they look at the most stable indicators rather than the most disruptive ones. It is actually an anti-progressive stance in the sense that we have gatekeepers distributing positional goods with very little expectation of growth, development, or the cultivation of surprise by those who they reward.
People are clinging harder than ever to the notion that identity is durable and material at exactly the instant that it has become more transient and ephemeral than ever. We all know this to some extent. We're all watching the machinery of the culture industry manufacture new selves, new subjectivities out of holograms. That much is to be expected. But what is most remarkable and dissonant is that there are masses who willingly agree that these phantasms speak to their innermost realities.
Remember that Justinian was the emperor for both the Justinian Code and the Nika riots. Remember that Cybersyn was creating a comprehensive structuralist economic model while Chile's soldiers were reduced to ransacking Pablo Neruda's house. You can have extremely refined symbolic state capacity -- even while material state capacity has collapsed.
I foresee neomedievalism. The attacks on consensus institutions, and the grifts that have been cashing checks in the name of consensus institutions, have been very successful. We're going to reach a point where the most responsive institutions will be absolutely tied in knots responding to the sharpest, most analytically refined critiques of human history, while the dumber and less responsive institutions will plod on because they water the plants and feed the goldfish.
We must really be living under conditions of managed outcomes (not competition / competitive equilibrium) if there's enough surplus capacity to orchestrate these incentives.
A Potempkin village relies on forced perspective. Wherever there is a widespread social conceit being entertained, there is also a balance of incentives and disincentives holding the audience in their positions.
Anyone can lie, but when you lie in such a way that other people are incentivized to share the lie, it's public relations.
Humanist interested in the consequences of the machine on intellectual history.