3 ms·

I think it takes a very conscious effort for a society to get to that stage. In some countries, you see individual greed being pushed to crazy extremes. Notwit

I think it takes a very conscious effort for a society to get to that stage. In some countries, you see individual greed being pushed to crazy extremes. Notwithstanding dictatorships, some politicians are willingly and wittingly sacrificing millions of people for a single individual objective. But I think the latter is the default position of humanity. The opposite is also a problem: When you justify every action as "for the millions". The vikings were particularly murderous people and have become particularly peaceful. (But I guess the Finns are not vikings for that matter.)

diminish 7y ago
Also smaller countries are more peaceful. I'm curious if Finland had over 100m population, how it would become.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  It would depend a lot on which people went to live there. The Swiss or Japanese? Probably much the same. Afghans? Less so.
  - mosselman 7y ago
    Wtf?
- mikorym 7y ago
  I think that is a fair observation, but there is nothing stopping us (well, maybe there are things stopping us) from organising bigger countries into smaller autonomous regions. I think larger countries do not scale well socially to having a single governing body. It works for a lot of things, especially economies of scale for industries and competition perhaps, but I think the best leaders and leadership situations warrant for personal interaction and personal knowledge. What I also like about this is that it makes leadership a more natural progression where you might say: "I know this person, they are taking my concerns seriously and have our interests at heart." With Trump for example, I would be skeptical of anyone who thinks that he can possibly have all of their individual concerns at heart. And this is not just about Trump himself, but about inherent properties of the US in general. But I guess the question of whether Trump is there because of the US being a big country with inherent populist risks is a good question. One could ask the same question of many presidents before him and so too of presidents of other large countries.
haasted 7y ago
The Finns are not particularly peaceful when it counts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

diminish 7y ago

Also smaller countries are more peaceful. I'm curious if Finland had over 100m population, how it would become.

pinkfoot 7y ago
It would depend a lot on which people went to live there. The Swiss or Japanese? Probably much the same. Afghans? Less so.
- mosselman 7y ago
  Wtf?
mikorym 7y ago
I think that is a fair observation, but there is nothing stopping us (well, maybe there are things stopping us) from organising bigger countries into smaller autonomous regions. I think larger countries do not scale well socially to having a single governing body. It works for a lot of things, especially economies of scale for industries and competition perhaps, but I think the best leaders and leadership situations warrant for personal interaction and personal knowledge. What I also like about this is that it makes leadership a more natural progression where you might say: "I know this person, they are taking my concerns seriously and have our interests at heart." With Trump for example, I would be skeptical of anyone who thinks that he can possibly have all of their individual concerns at heart. And this is not just about Trump himself, but about inherent properties of the US in general. But I guess the question of whether Trump is there because of the US being a big country with inherent populist risks is a good question. One could ask the same question of many presidents before him and so too of presidents of other large countries.

haasted 7y ago

The Finns are not particularly peaceful when it counts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War