Orion was a city in ancient Greece that played an important role in the ethos of the rise of the Athenian Empire and the victory of the Greeks over the Persians. Her winning a place in this ethos was not because she took part in the battles (she didn’t), nor because she was where the battles took place (they weren’t). It arose from the fact that on the eve of the Persian invasion, rich veins of silver were discovered nearby, and the general Themistocles took advantage of this special opportunity by convincing the Athenians to use this money to build a fleet of warships. With his fleet they defeated the Persians and changed the face of history.
For Orion in ancient Greece, the rise of the Athenian Empire and the victory of the Greeks over the Persians entered into the ethos, because on the eve of the Persian invasion, veins of silver were discovered near it, and the commander Themistocles convinced them to build a fleet of warships with silver
This is the ethos, but there is a paradox
Silver basically does not build ships, and it is not even used as a material for building ships, and if Themistocles was sitting alone on an island on a mountain of silver and gold he would not be able to build even one ship. Shipbuilding mainly requires carpenters and wood. And trees need loggers, and on the other hand, silver mining also requires a considerable amount of additional personnel. That’s how it turns out that to build a fleet you don’t need money but a lot of free and professional people. Without them, all the silver and gold in the world would not have helped Themitecles.
Seemingly, one can rightly argue that it is true: but it is the money that convinced that crowd to come and engage in the construction of the fleet. But then the question arises, what did those people do with the money? And even if we don’t have documentation for the answer to this question, we can say with certainty that the bulk of the money was earmarked for buying food, clothing, utensils and the other necessities of life for that crowd.
And this is where things get a little complicated. To satisfy the needs of those who do the craft, another group of people is required. Those who will produce the food and other necessities of life required for those builders, so that they can direct all their energy and time to building the ships.
And now for the paradox
And basically to the question: what would have happened in the opposite situation. If we were to leave all the other equation data except the money. What would history look like if these silver veins were not found?
Silver basically does not build ships, and is not even used as a material to build ships. If Themistocles were to sit alone on an island on a mountain of silver and gold, he would not be able to build even one ship, the construction of which requires mainly carpenters and wood
In such a case, what we would see is the same triangle of interests in which one side consists of the group of farmers and other producers, who produce large surplus quantities of food and other goods that consumers seek. On the other hand, there would be a large amount of unemployed population of potential carpenters and potential woodcutters and potential miners, who are looking to turn their skills into sources of livelihood. And on the third rib we would find Themistocles, who demands ships to protect the homeland, and looks at the other two ribs which are certainly capable of providing him with his ships.
And which Themistocles would we find? The one who sits and thinks to himself: “What a shame, if only I could find a mine of silver now I would win the prizes”, or the same cunning and resourceful general that he was, who finds the way to connect, as requested, the triangle for the benefit of all sides.
To us, seemingly, the answer is clear – if it is silver shekels or seashells, something would have caused the ribs to connect, and more so. If we look today, is there a correlation between, say, the gold and diamond mines and the strength of the countries where they are located?
Did those certain African countries, the petitioners in the treasures of gold and diamonds, succeed in turning the wealth of the land into political and economic power? And did the lack of land treasures prevent countries like Japan or Switzerland from becoming economic and political power centers?
So why do we look at the discovery of the silver mines as the miracle that saved Greece? Here we get into human psychology about the place of money. We see ourselves as rational beings, but when it comes to money rationality is not our forte.
Have certain African countries, the petitioners in the treasures of gold and diamonds, turned the wealth of the land into political and economic power? And did the lack of land treasures prevent countries like Japan or Switzerland from becoming economic and political power centers?
in fact, The whole idea of money is not rational, but rather an unplanned connection of our possessive nature to the means distribution mechanism. A spontaneous and unplanned connection that survived and developed because it allowed human society to become more efficient.
So how does this even have anything to do with Ukraine? Well, it seems that the crisis in Ukraine is also producing a psychological effect on the global economy. The world is experiencing an economic slowdown accompanied by inflationary pressures for no apparent real reason.
The global means of production that existed before the Corona and Ukraine crises are still available today. So are consumers. Although the availability of fuels decreased slightly, as well as the availability of grains, those few percentages of decrease in relatively limited sectors cannot explain the heavy effect of an acute global slowdown.
What we are experiencing is a kind of Themistocles paradox, only in reverse – in the same paradoxical logic, we attribute the crisis to the behavior of money, look at inflation and play with interest rates as if money itself has some intrinsic value.
This while what is really happening is the disintegration of the sides of the triangle. In his invasion of Ukraine, Putin removed the mask of global partnership and harnessed Russia to his imperial vision, and the world ceased to be global.
Today, global consumers and suppliers look at each other with concern and not only at Russia. It suddenly becomes clear that maybe Xi Jinping also has a Chinese imperial vision, and maybe others too. In the absence of the cohesive effect of a common goal, the ribs simply fall apart.
What we are experiencing is a kind of Themistocles paradox, only in reverse – in the same paradoxical logic, we attribute the crisis to the behavior of money, inflation and interest rates, as if money itself has some intrinsic value
And the question we have to ask ourselves is whether in such a dense reality where we all depend on each other, can we – humanity – really afford such disintegration? And if not, then what is the common global vision that we need to produce in order to become one world again?