Was Malthus Wrong – Or Are We Just Too Relaxed? Optimists vs. Pessimists on Population, Resources, and Nature

---

Was Malthus Wrong – Or Are We Just Too Relaxed?
Optimists vs. Pessimists on Population, Resources, and Nature

---

1) “Population grows geometrically, food only arithmetically” – Malthus’ uneasy intuition

In 1798, the English cleric and economist Thomas Malthus published
An Essay on the Principle of Population, where he famously argued:

• Population grows geometrically (1, 2, 4, 8, 16…)

• Food supply grows only arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5…) (oll.libertyfund.org)

If nothing checks this trend, he thought, population will eventually outstrip food production,
and then mechanisms like war, disease, famine, and poverty will step in to “correct” the numbers. (Wikipedia)

In short, his message was:

“A rosy utopia? Not happening.
Humanity will always run up against limits and collisions.”

A cold, sharp warning against easy optimism.

---

2) Why Malthus was called “wrong” for 200 years

For about two centuries after his book, Malthus has often been treated as a failed pessimist.
There are two big reasons why.

① The productivity revolution

Since Malthus’ time in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, humanity has gone through:

• Chemical fertilizers, better crop varieties, irrigation systems, farm machinery

• And, in the mid-20th century, the Green Revolution

Together these drove agricultural productivity through the roof. (Wikipedia)

In the 20th century alone, world population more than quadrupled,
and yet average calories available per person actually increased. (Wikipedia)

If you plug that into Malthus’ simple model, we should have hit a food apocalypse long ago—
but reality refused to follow that script.

② Demographic transition – after industrialization, birth rates fall

The second piece is what we now call the demographic transition.

• In the early stages of industrialization, death rates fall first, so population booms.

• But once a country reaches a certain level of income, education, and social welfare,
  birth rates start to drop sharply, and population growth slows. (ResearchGate)

In many countries—across Europe, and in places like Korea and Japan—
the big worry today is not “too many babies,” but low fertility and population decline.

That’s a situation Malthus never really imagined.

So many economists and techno-optimists say:

“Malthus was wrong because he didn’t anticipate technological progress and demographic transition.”

Which is partly true.

But is that really the end of the story?

---

3) Neo-Malthusianism – tug-of-war between resource depletion and substitution

Over time, Malthus’ core concern has morphed a bit.

The question now is less:

“Will we run out of food?”

and more:

“What happens if we hit limits on resources as a whole—
energy, minerals, water, soil?”

Oil depletion, rare metals, water shortages, shrinking arable land…
Bundle these together and you get what’s often called neo-Malthusianism. (ResearchGate)

On the other side, resource optimists respond like this:

1. When the stock of a resource shrinks, its price rises.

2. As prices rise, firms and researchers:

   • Look for new deposits, and

   • Develop substitute resources and new technologies. (ResearchGate)

3. Thus, simple doomsday stories like “If this resource runs out, humanity is finished”
   rarely play out as advertised.

Oil is the classic case.

Since the 1970s and 80s, we’ve heard repeated “peak oil” narratives about imminent depletion.
Yet technological advances, new discoveries, and the shale revolution have so far kept the
“we literally run out of oil” scenario from becoming reality.

In textbook economics, this all gets wrapped up as:

“Scarcity is largely managed through prices and innovation.”

On that logic, it’s very tempting to side with the optimists.

But there’s a gaping hole in this picture.

---

4) Problem #1 – Nature is not a “background object,” it’s the rules of the game

In traditional economic models, nature usually shows up in two roles:

• As resources: oil, minerals, land, forests, fisheries…

• As sinks: the atmosphere that absorbs CO₂, rivers that carry away pollutants…

In other words, nature is treated as an input warehouse and a waste dump
for human activity.

Our choices are always framed in terms of human utility and profit,
and nature appears only as the object of those utility functions.

That’s why, even when economics talks about “environmental destruction,”
it tends to package it as an externality:

• Firm A pollutes in order to raise its profits.

• The damage is passed on to third parties and to ecosystems.

• If this cost isn’t reflected in prices, the market leads to “overproduction.”

To fix this, economists came up with ideas like the Pigouvian tax. (Investopedia)

The idea is:

• For activities like pollution or carbon emissions that impose costs on society as a whole,

• You impose a tax equal to that social cost,

• So that “private cost + social cost = the real price.”

But in the 21st century, we’re seeing warning signals that go way beyond “fix the externality with a tax.”

• The IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) estimates that current extinction rates are up to 1,000 times higher than natural background levels. (files.ipbes.net)

• Research on planetary boundaries suggests that we’ve already overshot 6 out of 9 key Earth-system thresholds. (Science)

This implies that nature is no longer just a “background” that silently absorbs our externalities.
The rules of the game themselves are starting to warp.

Climate, biodiversity, water cycles, soils, oceans…
These aren’t issues you can fix by tweaking one variable at a time.
They’re signals that the Earth system as a whole is being pushed toward its limits.

At this point, Malthus’ old question comes back in a new form:

“Are our beloved ideas of ‘substitution’ and ‘market adjustment’
actually operating inside the safe zone of the Earth system—
or are we quietly betting beyond that boundary?”

---

5) Problem #2 – What money hides from view

The second uncomfortable question is this:

“If the world produces more than enough food overall,
why are people still starving in Africa and other regions?”

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
about one-third of all food produced globally is lost or wasted every year—
through post-harvest losses, retail waste, and household food waste. (FAOHome)

And yet on the same planet:

• More than 600 million people suffer from chronic hunger and malnutrition, (FAO Open Knowledge)

• And in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, food crises keep recurring
  due to climate shocks, civil conflict, and political instability.

Economics textbooks explain it like this:

• Grain markets are driven by international prices.

• A small number of highly productive countries dominate exports.

• Firms and farmers, aiming at profit maximization, choose among:

  • exporting,

  • holding stocks,

  • dumping surpluses,

  • or switching uses (feed, biofuel, etc.).

In this process, people who are “too poor to pay market prices”
are simply pushed outside the demand curve.

Poor countries may have a clear need,
but from the market’s perspective, that doesn’t count as “effective demand”—
demand backed by money.

So the real picture looks like this:

• On a global scale, we produce enough calories to feed humanity.

• Huge quantities of food are discarded along the supply chain and at the consumer level.

• Yet the poorest people still die of hunger.

Malthus worried about the physical limit of production.
Our 21st-century reality looks much more like a limit of distribution, prices, and power structures.

---

6) Between optimism and pessimism – what we must not overlook

Let’s recap the story so far:

1. Malthus’ population theory is often said to be “historically wrong”

   • because he failed to anticipate technological progress and demographic transition. (Wikipedia)

2. Neo-Malthusian resource arguments are criticized as

   • partial-equilibrium models that ignore prices, substitutes, and innovation. (ResearchGate)

3. Optimists argue that:

   • “Technology, markets, and innovation have solved most problems so far,
     and they’ll keep doing so.”

But as this discussion keeps prodding us to notice,
this optimism rests on two hidden assumptions:

① The central actor is always humanity; nature is just an instrument.
② Ultimately, all values can be translated into money.

The problem is that both assumptions are now cracking.

• Treating nature purely as a tool has boomeranged back at us in the form of
  climate crisis, mass extinction, and overshooting planetary boundaries. (Science)

• A system that pushes hundreds of millions of lives outside the market
  simply because they lack money is becoming morally, and in terms of long-term stability,
  increasingly hard to defend.

So a natural question follows:

“Can our current economic and social system—unchanged—
really deliver what we call ‘sustainable development’?”

---

7) What we need is not “new pessimism,” but a paradigm shift

The point here is not to resurrect Malthus wholesale,
and it’s also not to relax into “technology will fix everything” complacency.

What we actually need looks more like this:

1. Treat nature not as an externality, but as a condition

• Take the planetary boundaries of the Earth system
  and embed them as hard rules in policy, investment, and corporate strategy. (Science)

2. Build an economy with metrics beyond money

• Use tools like carbon pricing and Pigouvian taxes to internalize externalities. (Investopedia)

• At the same time, expand indicators beyond GDP to track
  welfare, environmental health, and inequality together.

3. Global solidarity that starts from the most vulnerable

• The damage from climate and food crises tends to fall hardest on countries
  that historically emitted less and benefited less. (Financial Times)

• Climate finance, technology transfer, and debt relief are not just “charity”;
  they’re closer to insurance for stabilizing the system as a whole.

4. A philosophical rethinking of “development”

• Seeing nature not as something to conquer, but as a “condition we must live with.”

• Shifting the goal from simply “more” to
  “longer, more widely shared, and more livable.”

Original-flavor Malthusian pessimism was too simple.
Twentieth-century optimism was too human-centered.

Now we need a new frame that looks at:

humans and nature, growth and limits, technology and ethics
all at the same time.

---

8) In closing – Why read Malthus again?

Malthus’ math was clearly off in that
he underestimated technological change and demographic transition.

But in trying to think simultaneously about:

• Human desires and numbers that want to expand without limit,

• A planet with real, physical boundaries,

• And inequality and ecological crisis that markets alone can’t fix,

his uncomfortable questions are still very much alive. (Wikipedia)

We don’t revisit Malthus today because it’s fun to say “Humanity is doomed.”
We do it to quietly ask:

“On what assumptions are we basing our optimism?
And are those assumptions really valid for the Earth and for all of humanity?”

At this point, the key issue is not
“pessimists vs. optimists,” shouting at each other from opposite corners.

The real question is:

“If we want a sustainable optimism,
what values, institutions, and ways of thinking
do we need to redesign from the ground up?”

On that question, Malthus, the resource optimists,
and even the anonymous posters on DC Gallery can each still offer
at least one meaningful line in the conversation.

---

Were the “Dongyi (東夷)” Really “Barbarians”?

The Old Stories of Eastern Peoples Hidden Inside the Character 夷

When we learned Korean history in school, most of us had to memorize a phrase like this at least once:

“Eastern barbarians, Dongyi (東夷).”

And next to the character 夷, there was always a small annotation saying
“yi (夷), meaning barbarian.”

That’s where the problem starts.

On the one hand, we hear people proudly say “We are descendants of the Dongyi,”
while on the other hand, the same Dongyi are introduced as “barbarians.”
It’s a strange combination.

So in ancient texts, did Dongyi (東夷) really refer to the kind of “primitive savages” we casually imagine today?
And originally, what kind of “face” did the Chinese character 夷 have?

In this piece, we’ll take a look at classical sources and modern research side by side,
and try to turn over the simplistic formula of:

“Dongyi = barbarians.”

---

1. The Gap Between the “Barbarian Yi (夷)” We Learned and the Classical Tradition

First, in modern Korean, the word “orangkae” (오랑캐) carries the nuance of

“Those outside the civilized center; backward, uncivilized outsiders.”

In ancient China, there was a system of the so-called “Four Barbarians (사이, 四夷)”:

• Dongyi (東夷) – the East

• Xirong (西戎) – the West

• Nanman (南蠻) – the South

• Beidi (北狄) – the North

These groups were often lumped together as the periphery/frontier of the “Huaxia (華夏) central civilization.” (OhmyNews)

This framework later hardened into a dichotomy of

“China = civilization / surrounding peoples = barbarians.”

Within that, the Dongyi were simplified into “eastern barbarians.”

However, the image of Dongyi (東夷) in classical texts is not so easy to summarize that way.
Once we dig only a little deeper, we find surprisingly positive depictions mixed in as well.

---

2. What Shuowen Jiezi Says About 夷 – “Eastern People, a Character from 大 and 弓”

In the classic dictionary of Chinese characters, Shuowen Jiezi (說文解字), 夷 is explained as follows:

“夷, 東方之人也 從大從弓”
“Yi (夷) refers to the people of the East. The character is formed from 大 (great person) and 弓 (bow).” (Encyclopedia of Korean Culture)

In other words, Xu Shen (許慎) interpreted 夷 as:

• People of the East (Easterners)

• Structurally composed of a great person (大) + a bow (弓)

Of course, in modern paleography, scholars point out that the oldest forms of 夷 in oracle bone and bronze inscriptions have a different shape (a bent human figure, etc.), and argue that

“The ‘大 + 弓’ analysis may be a later reinterpretation.” (독단론)

Even so, the exegetical tradition that links Easterners (夷) with “a great person + bow” has persisted for a long time. (Encyclopedia of Korean Culture)

On top of that, figures considered to be of Dongyi origin:

• Yi (羿), the famous archer of the Xia period,

• The king Xu Yan in the Huai River region,

• Jumong, the founding king of Goguryeo,

are all portrayed as heroes of archery, which further strengthens the image of

“Dongyi = Easterners who are skilled with the bow.” (Encyclopedia of Korean Culture)

---

3. The Hou Hanshu “Treatise on the Dongyi” – “Kind and Life-Loving, Land of Gentlemen and Immortals”

Even more interesting is the preface to the “Dongyi Lie Zhuan (東夷列傳, Biographies of the Eastern Barbarians)” in the Hou Hanshu (History of the Later Han).
There, the Dongyi are described as follows:

“‘The Wangzhi (王制)’ says, ‘The East is called Yi (夷).’
Yi (夷) means root (根本). The Yi love benevolence (仁) and cherish life,
so it is like all things taking root in the earth and growing.
Therefore their natural disposition is gentle and they are easy to govern by the Way (道),
and so there exist among them the Land of Gentlemen (君子國) and the Land of Immortals (不死國).” (History & Economy Blog)

Three keywords stand out in this passage:

1. Root (根本) – the Dongyi are likened to “the root.” (Encyves DH Center)

2. Love of benevolence and life – “they are kind and love life.” (History & Economy Blog)

3. Land of Gentlemen / Land of Immortals – a land where gentlemen live, and a land where people do not die. (CRS News)

This is quite far from the image of “eastern barbarians” we were given in school.

In short, in the perspective of Fan Ye (范曄), the Later Han literatus who compiled the Hou Hanshu,
the Dongyi are not merely “savages,” but in some sense appear as “simple, gentle, and easily governed ideal peripheral peoples.”

Of course, this description still carries the subtle viewpoint of “the center looking at the periphery,”
but it is clear that the image was by no means one of pure primitive savagery.

---

4. Confucius and “Yujugu’i (欲居九夷)” – Why Did Confucius Mention the Land of the Nine Yi?

In the Analects, in the “Zihan (子罕)” chapter, there is a famous passage where Confucius mentions the Nine Yi (九夷):

子欲居九夷
“Confucius wished to go live among the Nine Yi.”

When someone asked, “How could you live in such a crude place?”
Confucius replied:

“君子居之, 何陋之有?”
“If a gentleman lives there, how could it be crude?” (건빵이랑 놀자)

The Hou Hanshu’s “Dongyi Lie Zhuan” cites this passage and connects the Nine Yi to the traditional view that

“There are nine types of Yi (夷) in the East.” (History & Economy Blog)

Two points matter here:

1. Confucius clearly sees the Nine Yi as “lands outside China,” a kind of frontier,
   but even so, he imagines them as places where he would actually like to live.

2. When someone calls it “crude” (陋),
   Confucius responds that “a gentleman living there will bring transformation,” thus elevating its potential.

This passage is one facet of the Sinocentric idea of “civilizing the barbarians,”
but at the same time, it shows a stance that does not see all peripheries as inherently filthy or inferior. (문과 字의 집)

In other words, in the classics, the world of the Dongyi was not just a space of hatred and contempt, nor a pure utopia, but a complex realm where imagination and politics intertwined.

---

5. Then Who Were the Dongyi? – Does “Dongyi = Korean People” Hold?

By this point, a natural question arises:

“So does Dongyi = us (the Korean people)?”

Modern historians generally整理 this as follows:

• Dongyi (東夷) is not the fixed name of a single ethnic group, but a “historical concept” whose referent shifts over time. (OhmyNews)

• In the Shang and Zhou periods, various groups in eastern China—Shandong, Jiangsu, Anhui, etc.—were called Dongyi. (OhmyNews)

• As Chinese territory expanded, various peoples of Manchuria, the Korean Peninsula, and the Japanese archipelago—Buyeo, Goguryeo, Yemaek, the Samhan, Wa, and so on—also came to be included under the Dongyi category. (Encyclopedia of Korean Culture)

Thus, it is roughly accurate to say:

“Ancient Chinese referred to a variety of Eastern peoples and tribes collectively as Dongyi (東夷).”

But the sweeping formula:

“All Dongyi = the Korean people;
the ancestors of the Chinese = Dongyi = us,”

is quite far from the mainstream position of current scholarship. (OhmyNews)

Yet one thing is clear:

• In the Hou Hanshu “Dongyi Lie Zhuan,”
  Buyeo, Goguryeo, Ye, and Han (the Samhan) all appear under the heading of “Dongyi.” (History & Economy Blog)

So it is reasonable to say that:

“Among the various groups that later formed the Korean people,
at least some were categorized as ‘Dongyi’ in classical texts.”

What matters here is not insisting that “they were all us” or “all of them were others,”
but adopting a perspective that sees ancient East Asian history as deeply intertwined.

---

6. “Easterners Who Shoot Well with the Bow” and Ourselves Today

One of the traditional images associated with the Dongyi is skill in archery.

Beyond Shuowen Jiezi’s explanation of 夷 as “formed from 大 and 弓, people of the East (東方之人),”
many leaders categorized as Dongyi have heroic stories centered on bow and arrow. (Encyclopedia of Korean Culture)

• The Xia-period lord Yi (羿) is famous as a master archer,

• And Jumong, the founding king of Goguryeo, is also portrayed as “a hero who excels in archery.”

The Encyclopedia of Korean Culture puts it this way in its entry on Dongyi:

“There are many tales of bow and arrow (弓矢說話) concerning leaders of Dongyi lineage,
giving the impression that the Dongyi were a people who excelled at archery.” (Encyclopedia of Korean Culture)

When we consider South Korea’s overwhelming record in modern Olympic archery,
it is hard not to see this traditional image overlapping in our imagination.

Of course, explanations like “an archery gene embedded in the DNA” have no scientific basis.
Even so, linking together:

• The ancient image of Eastern frontier peoples skilled in cavalry and archery,

• The archery and horsemanship scenes in Goguryeo tomb murals,

• And the modern cultures of Olympic archery and traditional Korean archery (gukgung),

can be a very appealing narrative thread—especially from the perspective of a content or revenue-oriented blog.

---

7. Instead of “Barbarian Yi,” What Should We Remember?

To sum up, three layers overlap in the notions of Dongyi (東夷) and the character 夷:

1. A geographic concept

   • The broad meaning of “people of the East”

   • The concrete referent and scope change continuously over time (OhmyNews)

2. An ideological / symbolic concept

   • In Five Phases and directional theories, the East is associated with wood (木) and benevolence (仁).

   • In the Hou Hanshu, the Dongyi carry positive images of root, kindness, and the Land of Gentlemen / Land of Immortals. (History & Economy Blog)

3. A political / ideological concept

   • The “Four Barbarians” scheme of civilization (Huaxia) vs. barbarian periphery

   • Over time, the nuance “frontier = barbarians” becomes more fixed.

So it is difficult to see 夷 purely as a derogatory slur,
but it also cannot be placed on a pedestal as a purely sacred name.

In that case, how should people living today handle this ancient character?

• Self-deprecating version

  • “We were just eastern barbarians…”

• Overly nationalist version

  • “The ancestors of Chinese civilization were all Dongyi,
    the Dongyi were us Koreans!”

Both are exhausting narratives.

Instead, we might整理 it like this:

“Dongyi (東夷) was an old name for ‘the peoples of the East’
who, from beyond the Huaxia center,
sometimes interacted and sometimes competed,
together shaping ancient East Asian history.”

Within that category we find:

• Buyeo, Goguryeo, Samhan, and Ye, which are among the root groups of the Korean people, (History & Economy Blog)

• As well as various groups in Shandong, Jiangsu, and the Huai River region,

• Plus groups that connect to the Japanese archipelago.

Our task is not:

• To remember only the history of contempt contained in this name and use it to belittle ourselves,

• Nor to pull it in as a straight, glorious ancestral line,

but rather:

To use the concept of “Dongyi” as a lens
for imagining more broadly the exchanges, conflicts, and coexistence of ancient East Asia.

---

Conclusion – Why Bring Up “Dongyi” Again Now?

It can be dangerous to grab onto a few characters from texts thousands of years old
and project our current identity straight into them.

However:

• Once we realize that behind the casual textbook gloss of “barbarian yi (오랑캐 이)”,

• There also lies another face—
  “eastern peoples, great figures holding bows, lands that love benevolence and life, lands of gentlemen and immortals”—

our perspective on East Asian history and the place of the Korean people within it becomes much more three-dimensional.

So the next time you encounter the term “Dongyi people (東夷族)” in a textbook or online,
try letting this thought cross your mind:

“This is not just ‘eastern barbarians,’
but a single line in a very long story about the peoples of the East.”

From that point on,
a more mature humanistic conversation can begin—
about how we name ourselves and our neighbors.

An Age Where Two People Can Feed Twenty, So Why Are We More Anxious Than Ever?

 

An Age Where Two People Can Feed Twenty,

So Why Are We More Anxious Than Ever?

“In the past, ten people had to work so that twenty people could live.
Now, thanks to advanced technology, even if just two people work, twenty can live.”

On the surface, this sounds like a complete utopia.
We are surrounded by an abundance of goods, and thanks to automation, AI, and smart factories, human labor is decreasing.
Yet reality looks almost the opposite.

• Precarious work, temp jobs, part-time gigs, and platform labor are more common than stable full-time jobs.

• “Labor flexibility”—the idea that you can be laid off at any time—has become a daily keyword.

• On paper, GDP and productivity are rising, but people keep saying their quality of life doesn’t feel much better.

Surprisingly, there was someone who more or less foresaw this situation:
Albert Einstein. We know him as an icon of physics, but he also left behind some sharp observations on economics.

---

1. The Dilemma of Capitalism as Seen by Einstein

Around the time of the Great Depression in the 1930s, Einstein wrote pieces like
“Thoughts on the World Economic Crisis” and “Why Socialism?”,
where he pointed out structural contradictions in capitalism. (Monthly Review)

His core concern is unexpectedly simple:

1. As technology advances, the amount of labor actually needed keeps decreasing.

2. But in a laissez-faire market, reduced labor demand appears as unemployment.

3. If unemployment grows, purchasing power shrinks → goods don’t sell → firms fail → even more unemployment.

In other words, we repeatedly end up in the paradoxical situation where:

“We have more than enough capacity to produce what is needed,
yet the wallets of those who might buy it are empty.”

Einstein also played with the term “overproduction.”

• Just because warehouses are full of goods does not mean
  human needs have truly been met.

• The issue is not that there are “too many goods,” but that
  people lack the wages and income to buy those goods. (Grademiners.com)

So he took a bold step and began to think about:

• A planned economy and

• Social coordination of working hours and wages.

Of course, the socialist model he imagined never took shape exactly as he envisioned,
and real-world socialist states collapsed under other kinds of problems.
Still, his basic critique remains striking:

Instead of “technological progress → shorter working hours and better lives,”
we get “technological progress → unemployment, insecurity, and polarization.”

That structural direction of travel is exactly what he warned about.

---

2. The First Wave of Globalization, 1870–1914: A Game We Already Watched Collapse

Today we talk as if “globalization” were the spirit of the age,
but in fact the globalization we’re living through now is not humanity’s first experiment.

Economic historians call the period from about 1870 to 1914
the era of “First Globalization.” (Wikipedia)

Back then, the world looked strangely familiar:

• Railways, steamships, and the telegraph sharply lowered the cost of transport and communication.

• European capital flowed around the world, building railways, plantations, and mines in colonies and emerging regions.

• The gold standard and free trade combined to create a vast network of trade and finance.

In today’s language, it was “a 19th-century version of global supply chains plus financial globalization.”

But that system was rocked by two massive shocks:

1. World War I (1914) – arms races and imperial rivalries exploded into war.

2. The Great Depression (1929) – followed by protectionism, financial collapse, and mass unemployment.

As a result, the first globalization ended in the upheavals of the 20th century:

• Some countries tried to survive through reformed capitalism, welfare states, and New Deal–style policies.

• Some raced toward fascism and militarism.

• Others opted for Soviet-style planned economies.

As the original DC post puts it, this shows that capitalism is not some
“gentle system that has never gone through crisis,” but rather:

“Version 1.0 of globalization already blew up once and had to be rebuilt from the ground up.”

---

3. Second/Third Globalization and Neoliberalism:

If the Economy Is Growing, Why Isn’t My Paycheck?

The era we live in now is often described as one of
“neoliberal globalization.”

From the 1970s and 80s onward, we see a push for: (Wikipedia)

• Deregulation

• Privatization

• Fiscal austerity

• Labor market flexibility

• Free movement of capital and goods

The stated goal is always roughly the same:

“Free up markets, remove regulations, maximize efficiency and growth.”

And indeed:

• World GDP has risen substantially.

• Many emerging economies have successfully industrialized.

• Global corporations have seen explosive gains in productivity.

Yet what many people actually feel is closer to this:

• Stable full-time jobs are declining, while non-regular work, temp jobs, and platform gigs are on the rise.

• Companies are doing well, but my own wages and sense of security are stagnant—or even declining.

• Workers feel like “easily replaceable labor,” with weaker bargaining power.

Why?

In very simplified form, the picture looks like this:

1. Thanks to technology and automation, we now have the capacity for “two people to feed twenty.”

2. From the perspective of capital, there is no reason to employ all twenty.

3. The remaining eighteen are pushed into precarious, low-wage sectors—non-regular, platform, or service work.

4. Productivity soars, but labor’s share of total income shrinks,
   and income and wealth concentrate at the top.

Many studies argue that when neoliberal policies, financialization, and automation are combined,
inequality and precarious labor tend to intensify together. (People UMass)

In this sense, the scenario Einstein feared—
“technology reduces the need for labor, but the fruits of that progress do not reach everyone”—
has taken on a more complex, updated form in our time.

---

4. If There Is Enough Food, Why Do Hundreds of Millions Still Go Hungry?

One especially striking part of the original DC post was this:

“In some places, surplus food is dumped into the ocean,
while in others, tens of millions starve to death.”

The phrasing is extreme, but the core concern is quite realistic.

• The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that
  about one-third of all food produced globally is lost or wasted. (FAOHome)

• At the same time, as of 2024,
  about 673 million people (over 8% of the world’s population) suffer from hunger,
  and more than 2 billion people cannot afford a stable “healthy diet.” (FAOHome)

So the problem is not:

• That we lack the capacity to produce food, but that

• Because of prices, incomes, debt, conflict, infrastructure, and policy failures,
  people cannot access that food. (AP News)

This lines up exactly with Einstein’s argument:

“Humanity has the capacity to produce enough goods to sustain everyone,
but because of market structures and income distribution,
countless people cannot reach those goods.”

Between our productive capacity and human lives,
a massive “wall of distribution” has been erected.

---

5. The Age of Labor Flexibility and “Bullshit Jobs”

The original post makes another intriguing point:

“The amount of necessary labor declines,
but because we can’t just let people sit idle,
we create unnecessary ‘bullshit jobs’ to burn off the surplus productive power—
the former is communistic, the latter fascistic.”

Put more gently, it means this:

1. Thanks to technology, the amount of essential labor has decreased,
   but people’s income is still tied to “having a job.”

2. So society can either move toward
   “Let’s all work less and share life more” (shorter working hours, stronger welfare, etc.),

3. Or it can move toward
   “Let’s create jobs, even pointless ones, to keep people busy”
   (military buildup, bloated bureaucracy, purely formal tasks, and so on).

British anthropologist David Graeber used the term
“bullshit jobs” to describe such roles—jobs that persist structurally,
even though it is hard to articulate why they are really needed.

Of course, we cannot simply declare soldiers, civil servants, or managers “useless” across the board.
But:

• There clearly are organizations that have grown big not because of real social need,
  but because of politics, ideology, or power maintenance.

• There are also inefficiencies that remain because of vested interests,
  even though technology could automate or streamline them.

Meanwhile, critical areas like care work, education, environmental protection, and public health
struggle with staff shortages,
while other areas are overloaded with work that looks a lot like “making reports and staying in line.”

---

6. So Where Can We Go From Here?

At this point, the important move is not to shout “Let’s overthrow capitalism right now,”
but to calmly examine the debates that are already underway.

Some of the key discussions in real-world politics and policy include:

1. Shorter working hours and work-sharing

   • Four-day workweeks, strict limits on overtime, expansion of part-time options, etc.

   • Sharing the same total volume of work among more people.

2. Stronger minimum wages and income floors

   • This connects directly with Einstein’s intuition that
     “we must secure a minimum level of purchasing power to avoid repeated crises.” (Grademiners.com)

3. Basic income and social allowances

   • Ideas to redistribute part of the gains from automation directly to citizens.

   • The debate is intense, but the goal is to loosen the tight linkage between “labor = right to exist.”

4. Expansion of public services and public goods

   • Moving basic domains like education, healthcare, housing, and transport
     closer to “social rights” and further from pure “market-priced commodities.”

5. A recalibration of globalization

   • Shifting away from totally unregulated, fully open markets toward
     new rules that include environmental and labor standards.

   • Stronger regulations on excessive financialization and tax avoidance by multinational capital.

What counts as the “right answer” will vary by political position.
But one thing seems clear:

We live in an era where the old formula
“as long as we grow, everyone will naturally prosper”
no longer works automatically.

---

7. Conclusion – Technology, Capitalism, and a Life Worth Living

Let’s return to where we started:

• We have technologies advanced enough that two people can support twenty,

• Yet we live in a society where those twenty include eighteen people
  struggling with precarious work, unemployment, or low wages.

Almost a century ago, Einstein anticipated this kind of situation and argued that,
while preserving the advantages of capitalism (creativity, efficiency),
we should think seriously about how to ensure that:

“The fruits of technological progress are shared by everyone.” (Monthly Review)

Today, we face that question again, now entangled with:

• The first, second, and third waves of globalization,

• The achievements and side effects of neoliberalism,

• Automation, AI, and the platform economy,

• And the contradictions of food, environment, and inequality.

The proposal of this piece is simple:

As technology increasingly frees us from necessary labor,
we can no longer avoid the question of
how to reconnect labor, income, and a life worth living.

In the next installment, we’ll look at historical attempts to answer that question:

• Fordism,

• The welfare state,

• The 40-hour workweek,

• And more recent debates over basic income and the four-day workweek—

all in one sweep.

If we want to move from a society obsessed with “producing more”
to one focused on “living more humanely,”
what exactly needs to be redesigned?

That question will be a useful starting point
for the humanities, political, and economic discussions to come.

How Did Sedentary Societies Manage to Defeat Nomadic Peoples?

---

How Did Sedentary Societies Manage to Defeat Nomadic Peoples?

– Survival Strategies Through the Cases of Han China, Rome, Hungary, and the Mongols

Mounted nomadic warriors galloping across the steppe,
and farming kingdoms plowing fields behind city walls.

Once human history moved into the era of full-fledged “states,”
a clash between these two lifestyles was almost inevitable.

• Nomadic peoples held mobile assets like horses, livestock, and furs,

• While sedentary peoples controlled fixed assets such as grain, textiles, and metalwork.

The friction point was the terms of trade.
From the perspective of settled societies, nomadic goods were often “nice to have, but not strictly essential.”
From the nomads’ perspective, however, agrarian products like grain, cloth, and iron tools were very close to a lifeline.

Because of this imbalance, disputes over trade very often escalated into:

Trade conflicts → Raiding and war.

On top of this, climate acted as an additional variable.

Recent research suggests that when the Huns (often regarded as the western offshoot of the Xiongnu) began battering the borders of the Roman Empire, the severe droughts and climatic instability of the 430s overlapped with this process. ([University of Cambridge][1])
As their means of subsistence collapsed, they effectively chose to “move with sword in hand.”

Anyone who has played the strategy game Civilization V will know exactly what this feels like in game terms: Attila the Hun’s early-game aggression is absolutely terrifying. The designers effectively turned that historical sense of desperation into raw in-game aggressiveness.

The expansion of the Mongol Empire shows a similar pattern.
There is research indicating that a period of heavy rainfall and high grass productivity in the Central Asian interior deserts coincides with the period of Mongol expansion. ([ScienceDirect][2])
When there is more grass for the horses, the mobility and long-range operational capacity of a nomadic army naturally increase.

So let’s go back to our core question:

Under what conditions could an agrarian, sedentary state avoid being overwhelmed by nomadic powers, survive, and even claim to have “won”?

Drawing on historical examples, we can organize the answer into three stages:

① How to prevent war from breaking out in the first place →
② How to split and co-opt nomadic powers →
③ If you absolutely must fight, how to avoid losing and sometimes even win.

---

1. The Best Outcome Is Not “Winning,” but “Preventing War”

1-1. From the Nomads’ Perspective, War Is a “Risky Investment”

Even when nomadic confederations use powerful cavalry to invade a sedentary state,
war itself is a high-risk gamble for them.

• Even if they win a battle, if they can’t break into the grain stores behind city walls, the gains are limited;

• If they lose, they may forfeit horses, livestock, and warriors, risking the collapse of the entire tribe.

So nomadic powers generally seek one of three outcomes:

1. “Tributary relations” – a system where they regularly receive grain, silk, silver, etc.

2. “Favorable trade terms” – obtaining cheap grain and silk through border markets (the chekmen / frontier markets).

3. Short-term raids – “hit-and-run” campaigns during climatic crises or political vacuums.

If the first two are reasonably satisfied,
the nomadic confederation has less incentive to risk everything in a full-scale war against a single state.

1-2. Han China’s Heqin Policy and Managed Truces

Early relations between Han China and the Xiongnu are a classic example.

During the period when the Han frontier defenses were incomplete and Xiongnu cavalry was at its peak,
the Han court sent princesses in marriage alliances (heqin, 和親) and provided huge quantities of silk and grain to buy time. ([ResearchGate][3])

From a modern viewpoint this can look like “humiliating tribute,” but:

• While they were doing this, the Han were also fortifying their frontier defenses,

• Preparing to seize control of the Silk Road routes to the Western Regions,

• And building up their internal economic strength.

In other words, it functioned as a kind of “purchased peace”—an insurance premium.

1-3. A Strategy for Buffering Climatic and Economic Stress

Research on the interaction between the Huns and Rome also points to severe climatic and economic stress.

Droughts in the Danube region between the 4th and 5th centuries appear to have hit both the Huns and Roman frontier populations hard, and the Huns responded with frequent raids and pressure. ([University of Cambridge][1])

In such circumstances, if a sedentary state provides nomadic groups with at least a minimal “survival mechanism,” there is a chance tensions can be channeled away from war and toward regulated trade or mercenary contracts.

To summarize:

Stage 1 victory for a sedentary state = “Avoiding war by giving nomads fewer reasons to draw their swords.”

---

2. If War Is Unavoidable, “Split and Draw Them In”

At some point, however, war does break out.

At that point, the smartest move for a sedentary state is to split the nomadic confederation from within.

Nomadic empires and confederations tend to have these traits:

• When faced with a strong, obvious external threat, they can unite very quickly;

• But if war drags on or spoils decline, competition and division among the constituent tribes rise to the surface almost immediately.

One of the most effective uses of this structure can be seen in Han China vs. the Xiongnu.

2-1. After Emperor Wu: From All-Out Offensive to Division Strategy

Under Emperor Wu of Han, the empire poured enormous financial and human resources into large-scale campaigns against the Xiongnu. ([위키백과][4])
Economically, the Han state came close to being exhausted,
but in the process they stripped away Xiongnu bases and alliances one by one.

The core of this offensive was not just winning battles. It also involved:

• Planting Han-controlled commanderies and colonies in the frontier, and

• Cultivating pro-Han factions within the Xiongnu,

• Ultimately encouraging a split of the Xiongnu confederation into Southern and Northern Xiongnu. ([Open Research Repository][5])

In short:

“Break them with a frontal blow, then split them, defeat each part separately, and turn some into our allies.”

2-2. Creating “Our Nomads”

The ideal scenario for a sedentary state is:

• To turn certain nomadic groups into military partners of the empire or frontier defense forces.

In practice:

• Chinese history contains many cases where northern nomadic or semi-nomadic groups were absorbed as “border troops” (藩兵) or cavalry units;

• The Roman Empire accepted Germanic and Hunnic groups as foederati (allied troops) and used them to defend its frontiers.

Once this stage is reached, the nomadic confederation is no longer

“A single external enemy,”

but rather

“Multiple fragmented groups, some of whom are on our payroll.”

From the perspective of the sedentary state, the burden of fighting a unified external enemy is greatly reduced.

---

3. When You Actually Have to Fight: Cavalry vs. Infantry, Who Wins?

Sometimes diplomacy and politics are not enough,
and full-scale field battles become unavoidable.

One of the most famous examples is the Battle of Carrhae: Rome vs. Parthia.

3-1. The Battle of Carrhae: Disaster for Infantry Without Cavalry

In 53 BCE, Crassus—Rome’s wealthy magnate—invaded Parthian territory in pursuit of glory and wealth.
The result was the catastrophic defeat at Carrhae. ([위키백과][6])

• The Roman army: centered on heavy infantry legions with insufficient cavalry.

• The Parthian army: a combination of mounted archers and heavy cavalry (cataphracts).

On the flat plains of Mesopotamia, Roman infantry:

• Were subjected to relentless arrow fire from mounted archers, and

• Whenever their formations wavered, they were smashed by heavy cavalry charges.

They were effectively annihilated without being able to counterattack properly.
This battle is an extreme demonstration of the rule:

“On open plains, without cavalry and long-range firepower, infantry have no good answer to nomadic/steppe cavalry.”

3-2. Hungary vs. the Mongols: Lacking Infantry–Cavalry Balance and Fortifications

In the early 1200s, as the Mongol Empire expanded into Europe,
the Battle of Mohi (1241) against the Kingdom of Hungary presents a similar lesson. ([위키백과][7])

Hungary possessed one of the most formidable cavalry forces in Europe at the time, but:

• Early strategic mistakes,

• Poor choice of battlefield,

• And, crucially, a weak network of stone fortifications on the Hungarian plain
  (partly because Hungarian kings had long restricted the construction of private castles by the nobility for political reasons) ([위키백과][7])

all contributed to a crushing defeat at the hands of the Mongols.

After this experience, Hungary drastically changed its national defense strategy by heavily promoting stone fortress construction.
Subsequently, the Mongols never again swept across Europe at a similar scale, and Europe developed increasingly dense systems of:

“Fortifications + cavalry/infantry + missile/ artillery defenses.”

3-3. Military Conditions for Sedentary States to Beat Nomadic Cavalry

Summarizing historical cases, the conditions under which a sedentary state could hold its own—and sometimes win—against nomadic forces in the field were roughly:

1. Integrated use of cavalry + infantry + long-range firepower (archers / artillery / siege engines)

   • Infantry: form shield walls and spear lines to blunt enemy cavalry charges.

   • Archers / crossbowmen / artillery: block or disrupt enemy cavalry’s approach.

   • Cavalry: protect the flanks of friendly infantry, and execute counter-encirclement and pursuit.

2. Choice of terrain

   • Avoid direct confrontation on wide, open plains when possible.

   • Choose battlefields anchored on rivers, marshes, hills, or fortifications
     to limit the mobility advantage of nomadic cavalry.

3. Networks of fortifications and supply

   • Even if they lose a field battle, forces can fall back, regroup, and counterattack around strongholds.

   • Ringing grain-rich regions with fortresses ensures the enemy cannot maintain long campaigns without supply.

In modern gaming terms, this is very close to a question of:

“How do you build a team composition that blends solid front-line (infantry), mobility (cavalry), and long-range poke (archers/artillery) in a balanced way?”

No single arm can dominate on its own.
What matters is how each role covers the others’ weaknesses as part of a larger whole.

---

4. Bonus Factors: Climate, Fortifications, and “Assimilation”

4-1. Climate: The Invisible Hand Behind the Rise and Fall of Nomadic Empires

As briefly mentioned earlier, recent research suggests that:

• The rapid rise of the Mongol Empire is linked to wetter conditions on the steppe and increased grass productivity; ([ScienceDirect][2])

• During the 1241 Mongol invasion of Hungary, warm and dry weather favored Mongol cavalry,
  while the following year’s sudden cold and heavy rainfall hampered their operations. ([MIT News][8])

In other words, no matter how clever the strategy of a sedentary state may be,
if climate shifts decisively in favor of nomads, defense becomes dramatically more difficult.
Conversely, abrupt climatic changes can also make it nearly impossible for nomadic powers to sustain long-distance campaigns.

4-2. Fortresses and Cities: “The Final Line of Defense and the Graveyard of Nomadic Armies”

Compared to the vast regions the Mongols conquered across Eurasia,
the areas they failed to completely subjugate tend to share a common set of features:

• Dense networks of strong fortifications,

• Mountainous terrain, and

• Maritime barriers.

Examples include:

• Japan: typhoons (“divine winds”) and the difficulty of maritime logistics.

• Mamluk Egypt: strong cavalry and military slave system combined with the Nile and fortified cities.

• Some European regions: high density of fortifications and mountain/river terrain favoring defense.

When a sedentary state:

1. Builds a dense network of fortresses and cities;

2. And successfully operates cavalry, infantry, finances, and logistics within that system,

nomadic armies may score a spectacular early victory,
but run into severe difficulties in long-term occupation and administration.

4-3. Assimilation: Turning “Enemy Limbs” into “Imperial Arms and Legs”

The final stage is this:

“Bring the nomads fully into the system of the state.”

In Chinese history:

• Northern nomadic groups repeatedly end up either founding dynasties in China proper (Northern Wei, Liao, Jin, Yuan, Qing, etc.),
  or being absorbed into existing dynasties as officials and military elites. ([Oxford Research Encyclopedia][9])

In the Roman case:

• Germanic and Hunnic groups were first accepted as allied troops and frontier defenders,
  and eventually the Western Roman Empire itself effectively passed into the hands of Germanic generals.

When this assimilation proceeds smoothly,
the empire gains new mobility and reinforced border defenses.

But if control fails, the process can end with:

“The heart of the empire falling into the hands of elites of nomadic origin.”

---

5. Conclusion: What It Really Meant to “Defeat” Nomadic Peoples

Looking across history, the situations in which sedentary states can truly be said to have “defeated” nomadic powers usually share the following conditions:

1. They replaced war with managed trade and tributary structures, giving nomads a reason not to draw their swords.

2. When war was unavoidable, they split and played off nomadic confederations against each other and drew some tribes over to their own side.

3. When it was clear they would lose in the field and be forced into temporary retreat,
   they sometimes resorted to scorched-earth tactics, denying even the opportunity for effective plunder.

4. They built a military system capable of integrated use of cavalry, infantry, and long-range firepower,
   and used fortifications, terrain, and supply lines to neutralize the mobility advantage of nomadic cavalry.

5. Over the long term, they absorbed nomadic groups as allies, border troops, or ruling elites,
   transforming them from an external enemy into internal participants in the imperial system.

In that sense, for sedentary states, “defeating” nomadic peoples rarely meant simple battlefield domination.
More often, it meant successfully managing and re-embedding nomadic powers within a broader political, economic, and military system.

---

[1]: University of Cambridge – Evidence for severe drought and Hunnic incursions in the 430s
[2]: ScienceDirect – Climate variability and the expansion of the Mongol Empire
[3]: ResearchGate – Han–Xiongnu relations and the heqin policy
[4]: Wikipedia – Han–Xiongnu War
[5]: Open Research Repository – The division of the Xiongnu and Han frontier policy
[6]: Wikipedia – Battle of Carrhae
[7]: Wikipedia – Battle of Mohi and fortifications in medieval Hungary
[8]: MIT News – Climate analysis of the Mongol invasions of Europe
[9]: Oxford Research Encyclopedia – Nomadic empires and China

There is no Jesus in Israel

 the relationship between Judaism and Jesus

Kim Jong-chul, a documentary director, quotes from the book "There Is No Jesus in Israel," which contains the relationship between Judaism and Jesus, which he summarized while covering Jews.

The documentary video 'Recovery' related to this is also attached in Part 2.

Jerusalem has the Golden Temple, the most sacred place for 1.7 billion Muslims around the world, and is also a sacred place for 2.1 billion Christians and 14 million Jews. In Jerusalem, a Christian holy place with 2.1 billion believers, how does Jesus exist? In conclusion, no trace of Jesus can be found anywhere in Jerusalem, the holy place of Christianity. 

Ambulances carrying emergency patients around the world have red cross marks on them. But Israeli ambulances don't have a red cross mark. This is because the cross of the Red Cross means the cross of Jesus. Instead, in Israel, ambulances are painted with blue stars of David instead of the Red Cross.

In the equation 1+2=3, all countries share the same equation 

' Use +'. However, Israel does not use the '+' symbol, but instead uses '''. Also, as we drive along, we meet the intersection where the road meets. The intersection is almost '+'. What does it look like in Israel? In Israel, a round flower bed is installed in the center of the intersection, unless it is inevitable, to make a rotary so that the road does not become a cross. 

Why is it so taboo in Israel to even think of Jesus as a cross? 

Jews are classified as orthodox, conservative, and reformist within Israel. Among them, orthodoxy can be called conservative, which is called 'Hashidim'. They are proud that their people are the people chosen by God. God is a holy man. Therefore, the people who have been chosen by God are also holy people. They think that holy people should be different from ordinary people in everything, such as eating, wearing, and living. They don't have jobs and they don't work to make money. He reads only the scriptures 365 days a year and only prays for the country and the people. And I think the general public should support and feed them. And Judaism doesn't do missionary work or evangelism. Although there are differences in degree from sect to sect, Jews think that they are the only people chosen by God and that even if black or Asian people believe in Judaism, they cannot be chosen by God. 

Why do Jews not recognize Jesus as the Messiah? 

You have to go back to Genesis to know it. The Israelites have been colonized for thousands of years, invaded by other countries such as Persia and Rome. So the Jews always wanted someone powerful to emerge and save them from this tedious reality of oppression. The savior is the Messiah. 

Messiah, the son of God, wanted to come down to earth with a huge army of angels and save the Israelites oppressed by Rome. But Jesus was out of touch with the messiah they had expected. He was the son of a carpenter in Nazareth, an unknown rural neighborhood, and had no strong organization or military power, and only 12 disciples from the countryside were gathered. He did not think of defeating the Romans, but only said to love the enemy. 

Jesus also spoke and acted contrary to the existing Jewish laws. 

Jews, for example, observe the Sabbath thoroughly. There is a clear distinction between what can and should not be done on the Sabbath. The criteria are things that change when I do something. Today, for example, you should not move your car, bake, cook, or buy things. Therefore, it is unimaginable to travel by car on the Sabbath. In the case of high-rise hotels, you should not press the elevator button. So on days like this, hotels set elevators to stop on all floors. Also, you cannot turn on or turn off any power switch at home. However, we cannot live without electricity. So the alternative is that all appliances have timers so that they work without people touching them. In this way, in everything in life, the Jews kept the Sabbath thoroughly. 

On the Sabbath, Jesus healed a 38-year-old sick man in the pond of Bethesda. He also ordered the sick person to "get up and go there." Jesus' act of "acting to change the situation" was a direct violation of the law to law scholars and rabbis. 

But Jesus answered, "If a sheep falls into a pit, shouldn't they be taken out on the Sabbath? What is the problem with treating a sick person on the Sabbath? The Sabbath is for men, not for the Sabbath." 

In addition, the law prohibits conversation with strangers or having meals together, and Jesus met the stranger and sat at the table and ate together. In addition, Serijang, a lowly profession at the time, treated Sakgaeo equally with religious leaders. These words and actions of Jesus were unacceptable to Jewish law scholars and rabbis, and were also acts that fundamentally shook their position. So at that time, for Jewish law scholars, Jesus was not recognized as a messiah, but was an object to be removed.

about Freddie Mercury

 Freddie gave off a lot of charisma and energy on the stage, but he was an introverted, shy man in real life

I was always lonely off stage.

He had numerous believers all over the world, but as he said in his will, he was discriminated against for not being the original Englishman and was tired of the unusually harsh critics' bad reviews.

None of the pop musicians who had such great success as Queen would have received such poor reviews from critics.

Before his death, he said in his will, "I don't want people to know about his tomb," and his family built his tomb in a place where no one knew.

But Freddie's congregation finally finds his tomb in a park cemetery in London.

His real name Farrokh Bolsara and the same simple grave from birth to death...

One day, the tomb suddenly disappears as his followers gather from all over the world.

It is a song about the winter scenery of the lake seen out of the window at Queen's recording studio in Montreux, a small city by Lake Lehman in Switzerland where Freddie Mercury was once said to be the most beautiful place in the world.

It is the most lyrical song among Queen's songs and comes to mind every winter.

People only think of Freddie Mercury's outstanding singing ability among his musical talents, but he was as outstanding as his singing ability in composition.

It's the last song he wrote in his life and it's from Queen's last album, Made in Heaven.

 

"When we're behind the stage, the lights go out in the audience, and the enthusiastic shouts of the audience are heard, I love it like Freddie and I don't really accept the affection and worship that the audience gives.

I praised him for being able to do that. I was jealous."

---Kurt Cobain---

The Largest Library of the Joseon Dynasty - Gyujanggak

 In March 1776, King Jeongjo, a 25-year-old young king, became the 22nd king of Joseon. The day after King Jeongjo ascended to the throne, he ordered what he had planned since his time as Seson. It was to install Kyujanggak. -Gyujanggak, which used to be located in the best-viewed background in Changdeokgung Palace, had several annexes, but now all other annexes besides Juhapru and Seohyanggak have disappeared, so you can only guess the old appearance from Donggwado Island, which depicts the palace's topography in detail. During the 25 years of King Jeongjo's reign, more than 5,000 books of 168 species were compiled in Gyujanggak, which was worth taking the academic culture of the Joseon Dynasty to the next level. King Jeongjo's personal collection, Hongjaejeonseo, King Jeongjo's diary, Ilseongrok, and Far Away, which records the 60th anniversary of Hong's death in Hyegyeonggung Palace, are compiled in Gyujanggak. King Jeongjo was also eager to import books from China. In particular, King Jeongjo ordered the collection of 10,000 volumes of ancient and ancient books, which were compiled from Chinese history during the Ganghui Festival of the Qing Dynasty. Gyujanggak had a printing shop outside the palace, and the woodblock prints stored in it suggest the printing level of Gyujanggak, which was active at the time. In addition, Gyujanggak was built on Ganghwa Island to systematically store books, and it was comparable in size as a royal library. King Jeongjo placed Gyujanggak at a close distance, especially favorably, to make it an instrument to strengthen his royal authority. Therefore, the minister of Gyujanggak was with King Jeongjo from morning to night, and he was able to directly express his opinions on various matters of the court as well as his studies, and participated in the competition held by the king. As such, Gyujanggak Gaksin, who gained the absolute trust of the king, was the highest honor as a civil official. Gyujanggak was the closest organization to the king throughout the functions of major national institutions such as Seungjeongwon, Saheonbu, Saganwon, and Hongmungwan. It was a powerful authority in itself to have the nation's supreme ruler close by day and night. Moreover, King Jeongjo treated Kyujanggak specially so that he would not be influenced by other departments of the government or the party, and the privilege was very unconventional. Even if customers came, they were not allowed to get up from their seats, and if each of them made a mistake and had to investigate, they had to obtain permission from the king. In this way, King Jeongjo gave them independence and autonomy so that Kyujanggak's officials would not be interfered with by the ruling forces in the government. - King Jeongjo was 11 years old when his father, Crown Prince Sado, died tragically. After that, until he ascended the throne at the age of 25, King Jeongjo was always in danger. King Jeongjo was always checked and threatened, and the safety of his life was also in danger. During the time of King Jeongjo's death, he always had to live nervously, and even when he slept, he could not take off his clothes and went to bed. Under these circumstances, King Jeongjo, who became king, was most urgent to establish the authority of the king, weakened by the Dangdang, and needed the closest hands, feet, and brains to help his politics. The role was entrusted to Kyujanggak. King Jeongjo established a personnel system that could not be interfered with from outside so that each minister could work according to his conviction, and selected each minister carefully. What was particularly important in selecting each member of Gyujanggak was to evenly appoint talented people without leaning toward the party. Thus, fresh and outstanding talent was selected to help King Jeongjo's politics regardless of the no-ron, the no-ron, and the men. In addition, those who did not see the light because of their high ability and knowledge were appointed as inspection officers who corrected and compiled Kyujanggak's books so that they could fulfill their will based on the studies and knowledge they encountered at Gyujanggak. Gyujanggak had a patrol tattoo system. The patrol tattoo system was a so-called elite curriculum that selected young people under the age of 37 from among the past tattoos and required them to study at Gyujanggak until the age of 40. The reason why King Jeongjo selected and educated young officials as patrol tattoos was to change the habit of being negligent after the past because he was busy only in the past, along with the intention of selecting young officials who were not colored by party colors. King Jeongjo, who was deeply educated enough to teach his subjects, not only directly educated the patrol tattoos, but also directly involved in tests and rewards. From the 5th to 24th of King Jeongjo's reign, 138 people were selected as patrol tattoos 10 times, more than half of them advanced to high-ranking positions, and according to the list of Yi Jo Pan-seo, who was in charge of 52 officials from the late King Jeongjo to the reign of King Sunjo, 29 out of a total of 65. King Jeongjo carried out his politics through carefully selected Kyujang Cabinet ministers. -First of all, King Jeongjo selected excellent local Confucian scholars nationwide through Minister Gyujanggak. It was used as an opportunity to engage in public opinion politics by listening to local residents' grievances and evaluations of the central government from selected Confucian scholars. In addition, King Jeongjo dispatched secret royal inspector more often than before and left school directly for details to be investigated, mainly sending Kyujanggak patrol tattoos to the temple. This was for King Jeongjo to directly correct the discipline of lax local officials. In other words, he allowed his will to spread throughout the country. In addition, King Jeongjo abolished the "golden sovereignty," which had previously been the privilege of merchants during wartime. This led to the development of commerce in the late Joseon Dynasty, and at the same time, it took a heavy toll on the forces that had benefited from the economic benefits of privileged merchants. In addition, King Jeongjo published many books, including "The Great Traditional Edition," which was supplemented with "Sokjeon" to systematically organize and spread the political achievements, and "Hwanggeuk Edition," which revealed the cause of the party conflict from King Seonjo to King Sukjong. Gyujanggak was always next to King Jeongjo, who reformed practices and systems and led academics and politics. As a result, Joseon entered a period of brilliant literary revival about 300 years after King Sejong. ---------------------------------------------------------- King Jeongjo had the Chogye tattoos stay overnight in the palace for a week, reading the Analects and memorizing two or four books every day. And I took oral and essay tests once a month, and sometimes I took as many as five tests a month. Chogye Tattoo studied mainly the Three Sages, including university and Analects, and King Jeongjo especially encouraged free scriptural interpretation and academic discussion. This was possible because King Jeongjo himself was well-educated enough to teach his subjects. Oh, and if you fail the test, you'll be investigated by the Department of Medicine or something. a saying that is true