And this is the tragedy, there is a genuine use case for something in a global world that transcends national currencies. We use the $US for that but it’s obviously problematic. I disagree that crypto is a “good” solution for this, but I admit it would be good to have something.
The fundamental problem is that crypto aims to strip value from context. National currency is worth something because governments build nations. Crypto builds bupkiss.
And there we get to the heart of it.
Yup!
Crypto investors are gamblers. They take their life saving and go to Vegas, convinced that they will beat the house. If they win, it is even worse for them, because they’ll get arrogant and take bigger risks.
The thing is, gamblers don’t lose their money on the roulette table. They lose it when they walk through the door; they just don’t know it yet. Same with crypto investors: they actually lost their money when they bought crypto, now they’re finding that out. If they think that they’ve lost money because of this or that crash, or because this exchange went down, then they still don’t get it and they will fall for the next scheme.
The difference is that the casinos themselves have a sustainable business model: people just want to have fun. Most people go to a casino to have a bit of a thrill and enjoy the night, they are not there in seriousness to make money. Only weirdos and addicts think they can win. In crypto, everyone takes themselves so very seriously. No-one is there just to have fun, only to win.
Yes, I believe that is where it started as an argument by Peter Singer.
The whole thing is such an object lesson in the middle way!
Haha I wrote the above before reading this!
So … Sarvastivada then?
It’s an interesting critique. One of the good things about utilitarianism is that it connects morality with something that is actually real: happiness and suffering. So it’s already heads and shoulders above “decree of God” or “absolute natural principle” theories. But, and I was struck by this when listening to Peter Singer a few years ago, it’s really hampered by a lack of a clear model as to what “happiness” really is or how it can be measured or calculated. Still, I think it remains the case that happiness has something important to do with morality, and in that there is a kernel of truth to utilitarianism.