Reflections of someone who hasn’t read Jeremy Bentham, Hannah Arendt, Pierre Bourdieu, Thomas Hobbes, Jacques Ellul or Langdon Winner, but should.

When the great Renaissance potentates built beautiful buildings adorned with expensive sculptures and paintings, and when they financed discovery expeditions, most of their subjects were living in abject poverty. The world is littered with artistic and engineering marvels created at the cost (direct or indirect) of thousands and thousands of victims. A revolution, as well as a beautiful museum, has costs mainly borne by the multitude who lack any decision-making power.

On the one hand, it is almost impossible to democratically achieve a goal that requires decades of sustained effort. On the other hand, anyone who accumulates enough power to direct such large-scale efforts risks sliding into some form of totalitarianism. This tension is everywhere. Three examples are particularly prominent: austerity and ultra-liberal politics, using war to accomplish political goals, and the financing of large scientific and technological projects.

Take Argentina, for example. For the past forty years, they seem to have been in a continuous crisis. While nothing seemed to work before, the shock therapy proposed by Milei brings something new. But what exactly is this “new” Argentina? A country without an education system, without social solidarity, without public services? A place where moneyed elites lord over a mass of poor and uneducated plebeians? There will be no deficit because there will be no public spending. There will be no inflation because most people will barely have enough for food and housing. The most probable future will see another “revolution,” with a left-wing populist once again promising to feed the masses. The rational path was to slowly and carefully reduce spending and the deficit to manageable levels, but perhaps the only way forward is the anarchist’s way: completely destroy society to rebuild a better one.

Similarly, both the Palestinians and the Russians have decided to pursue their political goals through war. Gaining a country or regaining international preeminence are, undeniably, valuable achievements. It is also likely that these goals can only be reached through war. Nevertheless, the costs are horrendous, and I doubt that without the tyranny of Hamas or Putin, the people dying in these wars would have chosen this path.

Lastly, if we reach Mars in the next decade, or if we achieve widespread autonomous driving, it will be entirely due to Elon Musk. There are no alternatives to the path he is leading us on. But are the environmental (pollution), social (labor market disruption), political (alliances with dangerous figures), and technological costs worth it? Is he really better at using the taxes he does not pay?

In conclusion, a quantitative cost-benefit analysis of almost any grandiose achievement is impossible. The only principle I am left with is that the step we take right now is what matters, and I will always prefer the one that causes the least amount of suffering overall.