July 12, 2026
Reflections on the Human Condition
On the flood, the ratchet, and the long campaign to place the levers out of reach
I - The pattern is real. The usual explanation is not.
Every technological age runs the same arc. A frenzy of invention and capital. A turning point. Then a long deployment in which the gains are captured, the structure hardens, and what was once a frontier becomes a toll road. Carlota Perez mapped this across five industrial revolutions. Robert Gordon measured the flat part and found that after the extraordinary decades — plumbing, electrification, antibiotics, the automobile — the curve of productivity bent down and did not come back up.
Something did close in the late seventies. Wages decoupled from productivity. The share of output going to labour fell and kept falling. The postwar arrangement, whatever else it was, ended.
So the shape is real. But the thing people say about the flat part — that it produces a collective dimming, a generational stupefaction — does not survive contact with the last one.
The interwar years were a plateau of exactly this kind, and they produced John Maynard Keynes, who argued that an economy could sit indefinitely far below its capacity, that mass unemployment was not a passing imbalance the market would clear but a stable equilibrium the market was perfectly content to rest in, and that only deliberate collective spending would move it. They produced Antonio Gramsci, writing in a fascist prison, asking why the workers of Europe had not risen when the theory said they must, and answering: because domination is not chiefly achieved by force. It is achieved by hegemony — by the ruling arrangement making itself so ordinary, so much the water you swim in, that its alternatives become unthinkable. They produced Karl Polanyi, who showed the self-regulating market was never a natural condition that governments then meddled with, but a thing states had to violently construct. And they produced Simone Weil, who went to work in a factory to learn what the machine does to a person, and reported that it does not brutalise so much as it flattens — that the deepest injury is to attention itself.
They agreed about almost nothing. What they shared was a single operation. Each took an arrangement everyone else experienced as simply how things are — unemployment as personal failure, capitalism as nature, the market as gravity, factory labour as a neutral fact — and made it visible again as something someone had built.
Call this operation rendering the ordinary strange. It is the whole of what an antithesis is. It is what Marx did, and it is why Capital still cuts: not the programme, which was implemented badly and mostly failed, but the analysis, which showed a thing everyone took for weather to be a machine with an owner.
That is what a plateau produced last time. Not dimming. Some of the densest social thought on record.
So whatever is happening now is not a property of the flat part of the curve. It is specific, and it needs a specific mechanism. And the mechanism has two halves: something was done to our capacity to receive, and something was done to the levers themselves.
✦ ✦ ✦
II - The flood, and what it does to a mind
The first half is not a metaphor. It is a law about any controller — a thermostat, a nervous system, a parliament, a person.
Only variety can absorb variety. A regulator can only control what it can match.
W. Ross Ashby proved this in the nineteen-fifties and it has never been dented. Variety is his word for the size of a repertoire — the range of situations a thing can tell apart and respond to differently. To regulate something, your repertoire must be at least as large as the range of disturbances it throws at you. Below that threshold you do not merely struggle. You become structurally incapable — incapable the way a ruler is incapable of weighing something.
Now consider what a person is asked to regulate. Financialised production. Algorithmic pricing. Supply chains whose shape no participant can see. Jurisdictional arbitrage. Legal instruments built by teams over years precisely so that no outsider can read them. This is a disturbance of enormous variety, generated faster and in more dimensions than any unaided human repertoire can match.
And when a regulator cannot match the variety it faces, it does not shrug and go read a book. It attenuates. It crushes the flood down into the only channel it has left, which is very narrow. It reduces the world to one bit. Good or bad. Us or them. Something is wrong and I cannot say what.
What gets called stupefaction is a channel failure misread as a moral failure. The signal is not ignored on arrival. It is destroyed in transit, by the sheer volume and speed it must survive, long before anyone receives it. The same would happen to a mind of any size.
What the flood destroys, precisely, is attention — and the loss is not a loss of information. Information has never been more abundant. What is destroyed is the slow interior operation by which information becomes something a person can hold.
Comprehending anything requires three things in sequence. You must hold it still long enough to turn it over. You must connect it to what came before, which means you must have retained what came before. And you must feel its weight — grasp not merely that it is true but how much it matters, relative to everything else you know. Each takes time. Each takes silence. The flood defeats all three, in order.
It defeats holding still, because the next item arrives before the last has landed. Neil Postman watched this begin with the telegraph: for the first time, information reached you bearing no relation to any action available to you, and no context to sit in. What follows he called a peek-a-boo world — events that appear, hold the eye, and vanish, having demanded nothing and left nothing behind.
It defeats connection, because connection requires memory and memory requires rehearsal, and nothing can be rehearsed while the feed is still running.
And then — this is the one that matters and the one nobody notices — it defeats weighing. In a flood of undifferentiated urgency, everything arrives at the same pitch. A genocide and a celebrity divorce come down the same scroll, in the same font, separated by the same distance of thumb. When the delivery mechanism strips out all difference in weight, the mind cannot hold everything at maximum urgency, so it does the only thing left: it lowers the weight of everything. It is the cheapest defence and it works. The price is that nothing means very much any longer — including the things that should mean everything.
Byung-Chul Han named the resulting state: not oppression but exhaustion. Not too little stimulus, but so much that deep attention — the long, boring, contemplative kind, the kind that actually produces anything — is displaced by the shallow rapid scanning of a threatened animal.
And Weil, who thought about attention more seriously than almost anyone, held that it was not a cognitive faculty at all but the substrate of moral life: that the capacity to genuinely attend to another's suffering is the whole of what we mean by love, and the rest is decoration.
Which gives the flood a moral cost and not merely an intellectual one. A person who cannot attend cannot weigh, and a person who cannot weigh cannot act. They can only react — briefly, loudly, and then not at all.
✦ ✦ ✦
III - Leverage, and the abolition of the address
Now the second half. And to see what was done to the levers, you have to be clear about how the levers were ever pulled.
There has been a tug-of-war beneath capitalism for seven centuries, and the working class has won real rounds of it. But look closely at when, because the pattern is unsentimental and it is the key to everything that follows.
After the Black Death, labour became scarce, and wages rose, and serfs walked off manors that could not replace them. That was not a victory of organisation or of ideology. It was a change in leverage — a shift in the material bargaining position, produced by mass death, which no worker chose and no worker could have engineered.
Then industry, which concentrated ten thousand people into a single building where they could see one another and stop the machine in concert. The factory built the union. Capital's own architecture manufactured the counter-power that would bargain against it.
Then the postwar settlement: full employment, mass conscription — a state that must arm its working class has to bargain with it — and a rival system across a wall that made concessions look cheap. And then the sixties, on a tight labour market and a draft.
Every genuine gain came from the same three things. Labour was scarce, or concentrated, or needed. Nothing else has ever worked. Not the rightness of the cause. Not the size of the crowd. Leverage, and only leverage.
And every gain was followed by a counter-attack aimed precisely at the leverage that produced it. Silvia Federici showed what came after the post-plague victories: the enclosures, the witch hunts, the violent construction of unwaged domestic labour. Not a drift back. A deliberate reconstruction of the bargaining position — the closing of the gap that death had opened.
So ask the only question that matters. What is the leverage position now?
Labour is abundant — global in supply, with no scarcity shock coming. It is dispersed — the factory floor became the platform, and ten thousand couriers cannot see each other, cannot meet, cannot stop the machine together. The architecture that built the union has been dismantled and replaced with one engineered to prevent it. And increasingly labour is not needed, which is what automation actually threatens: not jobs, leverage. A class that cannot withhold anything holds no chip at all.
Which is why the march fails and the strike still works. A march carries a verdict without an address — one bit, smeared across every possible cause, naming no lever. An election is the same instrument at lower frequency: one bit, once every four years, confounded across the whole surface of policy. Any control system fed error signals it cannot attribute does not converge. It oscillates — swings, overcorrects, swings back, never settles. Which is, more or less, a complete description of Anglo-American politics for fifteen years.
The organised strike is a different instrument. It is aimed at one lever — this employer, this contract, this clause — and held long enough for the loop to close. It carries an address. That is not a difference in the courage of European and American workers. Europe retained the institutional shell — sectoral bargaining, works councils, union density — that preserves concentration after the workplace stopped supplying it. The institution substitutes for the factory floor. Where that shell was dismantled, dispersal is total, and dispersed labour cannot mint an attributable bit however angry it is.
Note that both halves of the essay have now arrived at the same place. The flood atomises attention. The platform atomises work. Both produce a population of individually capable, mutually uncoupled units — and an uncoupled unit, whatever its capacity, cannot pull anything.
But there is a deeper thing happening, and it is the reason the lever cannot be named even by someone whose attention is intact and whose union card is current. The lever has been dissolved.
Every instrument of accountability ever built — the strike, the lawsuit, the vote, the boycott, the tribunal — presupposes one thing. An address. Somebody did this. Name them, reach them, make them stop. The entire architecture of redress, from the guild to the courtroom, is a machinery for converting a grievance into a defendant.
Now consider what has been built instead.
The factory that once concentrated ten thousand workers where they could see each other has been dispersed across a dozen jurisdictions, each holding one stage of a process no participant can see whole. The employer has become a contracting relationship. The corporation — as Friedman was pleased to point out — is not even an entity with moral standing, merely a legal fiction, a nexus of contracts, a thing that cannot be shamed because there is no one there to feel it. And then, over the top of all of it, software.
Software is the finishing move, and it is the tool the ratchet was waiting for. It does not merely make a system opaque; it inserts an imaginary middle layer between the decision and the decider — a layer of machine, of model, of ranking function, of policy engine — and that layer cannot be held responsible because it is not a thing that can be held. The feed showed you that. Which feed? The algorithm. Whose algorithm? It learns from behaviour. Whose behaviour? Everyone's. And so the chain of causation, which the entire apparatus of law and protest and moral suasion depends upon, simply terminates in a machine — and a machine is the one defendant against whom no judgement has ever been entered.
This is the true function of "software is eating the world," and it has nothing to do with efficiency. Software is the technology of unaccountability. It is the only substrate ever discovered that can execute a decision while destroying the address of the person who made it.
Look at the interval and you can measure it. It took roughly twenty-five years from the founding of the great platforms to the first serious attempts to hold them to account — and those attempts are still, largely, at the stage of discovery. A factory that poisoned a river was in court within a decade, because the river was there and the pipe was there and the pipe had an owner. There is no pipe. Nobody can vote on an app. There is no ballot for a ranking function, no ward in which to organise against a recommendation system, no parliament to which a model reports. The lever is not hidden. It has been removed from the class of things that levers can act upon.
And then the second move, which closes the trap. Say you try anyway. You claim that the platform damaged your child's mind, and you go looking for the thing every tribunal requires: proof. And here you meet a science that can no longer supply it.
Because causal understanding requires precisely what the flood destroys — a mechanism held in the mind long enough to be traced, tested, and understood. Correlation requires none of that. It is pattern-matching at scale, absorption without comprehension, and it is what the machines are built to produce: engines that tell you that without ever telling you why, in a culture that finds the absence of why not a limitation but a relief. So research drifts from the causal to the correlational — and this is not a separate decay but the same disease, arriving in the one institution that was supposed to be immune to it.
And the economics enforce it. Patient causal work is slow, unfashionable, and unfunded; the incentive gradient pushes the sciences toward fast, publishable, correlational output, and pushes the scientist toward writing what pays rather than what they believe. Underpay a discipline and you do not merely make it poorer. You make it produce the findings that the funders can live with — which is to say, findings that establish an association, disclaim causation, and call for further research.
So the platform's defence writes itself, and it is unanswerable in the terms the court accepts: correlation is not causation. And it is true. And that is the point. The apparatus that would be needed to prove harm has been defunded, and the epistemology that would be needed to establish blame has been replaced with one constitutionally incapable of it.
Meanwhile the revolving door turns — regulator to lobbyist, lobbyist to regulator — and the technology itself is malleable enough that whenever a rule finally hardens around a practice, the practice reshapes itself into something the rule no longer names. The regulation is written for a product. The product becomes a platform. The platform becomes a protocol. Each time, the definition slips out from under the statute, and the statute is left regulating an object that no longer exists.
Which is the whole of attribution starvation, stated properly. It is not that people are too dulled to name what is wrong. It is that a machine has been built in which naming is no longer a defined operation — no address, no defendant, no proof, no ward, no ballot. The march carries a verdict with no address because the address has been abolished, deliberately, at every layer: the firm that is not an entity, the decision that is not a decision, the harm that is not a proof, and the rule that is always regulating last year's shape.
The name for this arrangement is an accountability sink: a structure built so that a decision emerges and no human being can be found at the end of it. And Dan Davies, who named it, drew the conclusion that everything in this essay has been circling and not yet said.
✦
Go back to the Whitehall studies — the great British cohort work that followed civil servants across decades and expected to find that the men at the top, with their long hours and their ulcers and their responsibility, would die first. They did not. The men at the bottom died first, and they died at several times the rate, and the gradient held all the way up the hierarchy in an unbroken line.
And the mechanism was not poverty, and it was not diet, and it was not smoking, though all of those were controlled for and none of them explained it. The thing that killed them was the experience of being subject to a system they could not influence. Low control over one's own working life. Demands arriving from a place you cannot reach, at a rate you cannot regulate, with no lever anywhere within arm's length. That is what the gradient was measuring. Not hardship. Uncontrollability.
This is not a metaphor, and it is not a figure of speech, and it is the reason this essay is not merely an argument about politics.
To be accountable to something you cannot change is to experience precisely the out-of-control feeling that the Whitehall data suggests will kill you, if you are made to live inside it long enough.
And here is the move that makes it terrible. What is true at one level of a system can be true at every other. The clerk in an office with no control over their work is a small instance of a general form, and the general form scales. A citizen inside an economy whose mechanisms no vote can reach; inside an information environment that delivers more decisions per day than a person is built to make; inside a political system in which the address has been abolished — that citizen is in the Whitehall condition, and they are in it continuously, and they are in it with no five o'clock.
So look at what has been removed from underneath them. Two things at once. The attenuators — the institutions that used to stand between a person and the raw volatility of the world, absorbing shocks so that a life could be planned: the union, the pension, the tenured job, the welfare floor, the public hospital, the assumption that a decent life was a thing an ordinary person could reasonably expect to keep. And the levers — the means by which a person could push back on any of it. The first were dismantled as inefficiency. The second were dissolved into software. And they were removed in the same decades, by the same programme, and the removal of each made the removal of the other easier to bear.
Which leaves the modern person in a condition with no precedent: maximum exposure, minimum control. Every shock reaches them directly. No lever reaches back.
And people are dying of it. Not metaphorically. The despair deaths — the overdoses, the alcohol, the suicides — cluster exactly where the attenuators were stripped hardest and the levers dissolved most completely, which is why the curve is so much steeper in the United States than in Europe, where enough of the shell survived to absorb some of the blow. This is the same map as the strike and the march. The same map as union density. It is the map of who still has a lever, and the people without one are killing themselves at a rate that a plague would be ashamed of, and we discuss it as an opioid problem.
✦
Now — and this is the part that ought to frighten anyone hoping the anger will simply find its way — consider what a person in that condition will accept as relief.
Because there is an offer available, and it is being made in every democracy simultaneously, and it is the same offer every time. The strongman does not promise policy. Look at what is actually being said and it is far simpler and far more psychologically exact than policy: I will take the decisions. Give them to me. You will not have to hold any of this any longer.
And to a person drowning in decisions they cannot make, inside a system they cannot influence, dying by inches of an uncontrollability they have no name for — this is not authoritarianism. It is a hand. It arrives as relief, and it is experienced as relief, and that is exactly why it works and why arguing with it accomplishes nothing. You cannot refute a hand offered to a drowning man by pointing out that its owner is unreliable.
This is what the demagogue is for. He is a proposed attenuator. He is the offer to be the thing that stands between the citizen and the flood — the function the union and the pension and the public institution used to perform, now offered by a single man, in exchange for everything.
And of course he cannot do it. He has no more capacity to absorb that variety than anyone else does; the flood is not smaller because he is loud. So the decisions do not get made, and the volatility is not absorbed, and the machinery that could have absorbed it — the institutions, the courts, the press, the very ones that were already too weak — get further dismantled in his name, because their weakness was the evidence of their treachery. The relief is real, and it is brief, and the condition it was relief from is measurably worse afterward.
Which is the whole tragedy in a sentence. The demand for a strongman is not a failure of civic virtue. It is a rational response to an unbearable and correctly perceived condition — and it is the single worst available answer to it.
The despair is not a symptom of the politics. The despair is upstream of the politics, and it is a health emergency, and the politics is what it produces when nobody builds anything better to absorb it.
Hold onto that, because it converts the closing argument of this essay from a preference into an obligation. What follows is not about whether one prefers a distributed internet on aesthetic grounds. Someone is going to attenuate this. Something is going to stand between the ordinary person and a flood that is killing them. It will either be a structure they can reach and change, or it will be a man who promises to hold it all and will not, and the second option is already on the table, already popular, and already being chosen.
✦ ✦ ✦
IV - Four locks
And here is the thing that took me longest to see, and that reorganises everything above it.
The levers have not merely been made hard to find. They have been systematically removed from reach — deliberately, by people who explained exactly what they were doing, over three centuries.
Start with why this is even necessary. All infrastructure decays. Roads crack, institutions rot, laws are forgotten, arrangements slacken. And this decay has always been the friend of anyone trying to change anything, because every structure of power must be actively maintained — and maintenance costs money, takes time, and requires people who go on agreeing to do it. In the gap between the building and the maintaining, there is slack. That slack is where every reform in history has happened.
Gramsci understood this better than anyone, which is why he spent his life on hegemony rather than the barricade. Hegemony is not a fact that exists; it is a fact that must be continually reproduced — through schools, newspapers, churches, unions, a thousand daily reassertions. Which means it can be contested at every one of those points, slowly, across decades. He called this the war of position, and it works for one reason only: the terrain erodes. The manufacture of consent is slow and it leaks, because it is made of people and paper and habit, and people and paper and habit degrade.
The counter-move, then, is obvious. If your enemy's only weapon is patience, build something that does not tire.
This has been attempted four times, in four materials, and it is the same design each time.
The lock in law Read the founding documents of the liberal republics and notice what they are actually for. The Senate, malapportioned by design. The House of Lords, named for the feudal lords it descends from. The Electoral College. Judicial review. The supermajority. The written constitution itself, requiring a threshold no ordinary majority can clear. These are, straightforwardly, counter-majoritarian devices, and their architects said so aloud. Madison, in Federalist 10, is explicit: the scheme exists to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. This is not a critical interpretation. It is the design brief, published in advance. The inheritance runs from Roman law, where the function was the same — a Senate of property standing against an assembly of people. And note the property that makes it work: a malapportioned senate does not erode. A constitutional court does not tire. These were the first successful maintenance-free locks on the popular lever, and they have held for two hundred and fifty years without anyone having to defend them each morning.
The lock in treaty Quinn Slobodian showed that neoliberalism was never what it claimed. It was not about freeing markets from states. It was about encasing markets from democracy. The Geneva school looked at the collapse of empire and the arrival of mass suffrage and saw a single problem: national publics can vote, and voting publics will expropriate. So they built a layer of binding, supranational, non-democratic rule — trade law, investment treaties, arbitration courts, central bank independence, capital mobility — that sits above the nation and cannot be reached by any electorate. Not a market freed from the state. A market walled off from the vote, by law, permanently. And the property is the same. An investment treaty does not decay. An arbitration mechanism does not need a public that consents to it next year. Central bank independence is, precisely, the removal of a lever from the reach of a ballot. What was eroded was never the nation as such — nationalism is louder now than it has been in a century. What was eroded was the nation as a container a public could actually capture. The democracy was left standing and the wires were pulled out the back.
The lock in nature Then the Cold War ended, and by the logic of the thing they should have declared victory. They did not. Slobodian's account of what came next is the sharpest thing written about the modern right: they saw civil rights, feminism and environmentalism running in the veins of the body politic, and they went looking for an antidote. They found it in nature. The result was a philosophy of three hards — hardwired human nature, hard borders, and hard money — and the crucial point is that it emerged within the neoliberal movement and not against it. What is reported as a populist backlash against globalisation is, in Slobodian's word, a frontlash. A family feud, not a clash of opposites. Take them one at a time, because each is a lock on a specific lever. Hard money — gold, or its modern equivalents: the independent central bank, the constitutional debt brake, the currency union without a fiscal union. This takes monetary policy out of the vote. You cannot inflate away a debt, cannot spend into full employment, cannot do the Keynesian thing. Keynes's entire discovery — that an economy can rest below capacity and only deliberate collective spending will move it — names precisely the capability that hard money exists to disable. The lever is not argued with. The lever is removed. Hard borders — and here the design is at its most exact, and its most brazen. They demanded free movement for capital and goods, and drew a line only against certain kinds of people. This is not hypocrisy; it is the entire machine. The border manufactures the wage differential and then forbids its arbitrage. An American firm's product, made by Chinese hands in China, is the arrangement they want; the same hands in America is the arrangement they forbid. Japanese capital, Filipina labour, and the Filipina stays in Manila. The factory travels to her. She is paid the local rate for producing at the global one, and the one move that would raise her wage — go where they need you — is the one move made illegal. She is given crumbs in a market deliberately devalued, and the border is what holds the devaluation in place. And recall what this essay established one section ago: every worker's victory in seven hundred years came from scarcity, concentration, or necessity. Hard borders are a machine for guaranteeing permanent global labour abundance. They are leverage-destruction written as immigration policy. Note too who was for open borders in the nineteen-eighties: the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. The right was enthusiastic about free movement while free movement meant cheap labour arriving. It turned when the arrival began to carry political weight — a vote, a claim, a demand. Free movement for the factor of production. Hard borders against the citizen. Hardwired human nature — the deepest of the three, and the reason the other two hold. Peter Brimelow argued that the market requires ethnic and cultural coherence; that homogeneity reduces friction by supplying presumed trust; that some cultures simply handle the market's atomism better than others. Peoples ranked by their fitness for capitalism, and the ranking used to decide who may move. This is what the movement's own members called the ethno-economy, and it is the argument that makes hard borders sound like economics rather than exclusion. But its real function is deeper, and it is aimed straight at this essay's opening. Hardwired hierarchy is the anti-Gramsci. Gramsci's whole claim is that the arrangement is made, and can therefore be unmade. The claim of the bell curve is that the hierarchy is natural — found, not built — and so there is nothing to unmake. Nature as the originator of innate rank, rather than a force to be mastered. Which means it is not a lock on a policy lever at all. It is a lock on the imagination. It attacks the single operation that Keynes and Polanyi and Gramsci and Weil each performed — making the ordinary strange, showing the given as constructed. If the hierarchy is in the genome, then it was never ordinary and never constructed and there is nothing there to render strange. It is a lock on the capacity to produce the antithesis. Three hards: money, movement, mind. And observe why they chose nature. Nature is the only thing that never needs maintaining. Gold requires no consent. A treaty needs no bureaucrat who believes in it. And a claim about the genome cannot be repealed by an election. They were reaching for a lock as permanent as a fact — because the technology to build a real one did not yet exist.
The lock in code Now it does. A database does not forget. A rule enforced in software does not slacken across generations, does not require an official who believes in it, does not leak at the edges where tired people stop caring. It is maintained by machines that do not tire, replicated at zero marginal cost, and amended centrally overnight. And look at what is actually being poured, right now, at a scale that dwarfs the interstates and the railways and every cathedral ever raised. Datacentres. Hyperscale halls the size of small towns, with their own substations, their own water rights, their own transmission lines, sited beside power plants built to feed them. Tens of billions a quarter, from a handful of firms, in the largest private infrastructure build in the history of the species. This is not a metaphor for the ratchet. It is the ratchet, being cast in concrete and copper. Consider its properties. It does not require a public that consents to it next year. It does not require a bureaucrat who believes in it. It is not rebuilt each morning by tired people who might one day stop caring. It runs at near-zero marginal cost per additional citizen enrolled, and it will be there — humming, powered, cooled, replicated across three availability zones — long after every government that authorised it has fallen and every person who argued for it is dead. The Roman roads decayed and the empire went with them. The Victorian rail network rusted and had to be renationalised twice. Every previous piece of hard infrastructure carried within it the seed of its own slack, because it was made of matter that rots and men who tire. This does not. Its maintenance is performed by other machines. Its content is copied, not carried. Its rules are a configuration file, pushed at three in the morning, to every node at once. This is the same project in a material that finally works. The treaty was the prototype. The datacentre is the production version. Everything the three hards were reaching for — permanence, unreachability, freedom from the exhausting need to be re-argued each morning — arrives here not as an aspiration but as a native property of the substrate. And the fourth lock is being installed on top of it now, in every Western jurisdiction at once, and it is hard identity: the digital ID, the age gate, the scanned message. A lock on who you are and what you may see. It is the first lock in three centuries that does not need a single institution to hold it in place, because the concrete is already poured.
Four locks. Money, movement, mind, identity. Rome, Geneva, the genome, the datacentre. One design, four materials, and each material better than the last at the one property that matters.
This is not a plateau. A plateau is flat and it erodes. This is a ratchet — a mechanism that admits motion in one direction only, holds every gain permanently, and never gives an inch back through neglect.
And the war of position was a bet that the other side would tire first. The other side no longer tires.
https://www.linkedin.com/pu...