3 ms·
If we're talking "what would work best for everyone in the world", then I kind of agree that many small "states" (or whatever) would perhaps be for the best, bu
by lomnakkus 10y ago
If we're talking "what would work best for everyone in the world", then I kind of agree that many small "states" (or whatever) would perhaps be for the best, but that opportunity has passed with the existence of superstates like the US, China, India and Russia. In the world we currently exist, the only rational[1] thing to do is to amass as much power[2] as possible. There are upsides, though, e.g. the ability to divert away from fossil fuels and to invest in renewables. I mean, it's possible such a thing could happen in a decentralized system, but I think it would require "perfect" information, the majority of citizens being "rational" and/or perfectly "self+offspring-interested", etc.
[1] For a "state" to do.
[2] Economic, political, military, etc.
- d0mine 10y agoGermany alone has GDP larger than Russia. Other than the number of nuclear devices in unknown condition, what makes Russia a superstate?
- lomnakkus 10y ago> Other than the number of nuclear devices in unknown condition Exactly that + Putin, I think. (Plus they control a number of very important pipelines, etc. etc.)
- rbanffy 10y ago> Plus they control a number of very important pipelines, etc. etc. Which makes the push towards renewables (which wouldn't happen without a centralized organization) so very inconvenient. They have a respectable military. That beats any GDP.