3 ms·

good question. but I think the answer is obvious when you consider the different risks enormous groups and small groups face from disputes. for small groups ne

good question. but I think the answer is obvious when you consider the different risks enormous groups and small groups face from disputes. for small groups nearly every dispute could pose existential risk, but for enormous groups very few disputes pose existential risk. then in the conflict side, enormous groups have MAD, where conflict itself carries existential risk. small groups of course can also be wiped out by conflict (even if they don't possess a bureaucratic mechanism to ensure that,) but the risk side of the calculation is heavier for them I think. and enormous groups still engage in conflict with each other although it happens indirectly via proxy wars. also paradoxically the larger the group becomes the more its interests, or "meta interests" (such as favoring stability and security), tend to align with its competitors but for small groups it's almost like every group for itself. but I believe that the calculation can tend towards cooperation being more beneficial the larger group gets. but I think this factor only applies when groups become very very large. also there's some sort of entropy argument as in large groups cultivate more structure, organization and order and therefore it would take more energy to dismantle them so they're more stable. which not only makes them harder to dismantle but also gives them more to lose if they were to decide to tear everything down and build it up again. that's how I think about it. what do you think?

sushshshsh 6y ago
I think you have posited interesting ideas about the decisions that small and large groups make about when to engage in conflicts and how to ensure long term survival. I am not sure how true they are in reality, but I can certainly see where you are coming from. If I put myself into that situation for a moment, as the leader of a small armed group, I can see two options at first. The first option is to go into hiding and potentially die of resource starvation if I am unable to cultivate the things needed to survive on my own (or be killed by outside attackers). The second is to grow bigger and bigger by forcibly and preemptively taking over the other small groups so I can secure my borders so to speak, but going on the offensive can also lead to premature death as well. As a result I think some hybrid approach is needed, where one goes into hiding in a land so far away and inhospitable that nobody wants to attack, thus there's nobody to fight.
- mongojunction 6y ago
  Definitely. I think there's a pressure between outward expansion to secure resources, and the risk of annihilation through the conflict that results. I guess it's interesting to think of the effect of this "evolution pressure" on successful strategies for small groups. I wonder if looking at small-groups today...they have selected for strategies that worked...over a long time, by this knowledge sort of being passed along somehow. Or if, in a sense, every small group is re-learning the lessons of others from the past... If a small group survives for a long time, I think it has to either become large, or it has to, as you say, go somewhere to survive. Which could just mean, "going underground", and hiding in plain sight in terms of "secret groups" that are persecuted. Maybe the same can be considered for small companies. Do we expand to compete with others for new market share and take on the risks that might involve (including, I suppose, taking on VC money...), or do we stay in our niche. Certainly, probably as Thiel says, the best strategy for a small group at the start is as you say "go someplace there's nobody to fight", and dominate that small area. Interesting to think of Thiel as a survivalist...I suppose that's what he is... Thinking about what you're saying more, it does seem that small groups have an incentive to co-operate as well. Band together to survive. I guess just the risks for small groups, even in co-operating (such as being double crossed), are probably greater, because a small group is easy to annihilate. Conclusion: life is hard for small groups.

sushshshsh 6y ago

I think you have posited interesting ideas about the decisions that small and large groups make about when to engage in conflicts and how to ensure long term survival. I am not sure how true they are in reality, but I can certainly see where you are coming from. If I put myself into that situation for a moment, as the leader of a small armed group, I can see two options at first. The first option is to go into hiding and potentially die of resource starvation if I am unable to cultivate the things needed to survive on my own (or be killed by outside attackers). The second is to grow bigger and bigger by forcibly and preemptively taking over the other small groups so I can secure my borders so to speak, but going on the offensive can also lead to premature death as well. As a result I think some hybrid approach is needed, where one goes into hiding in a land so far away and inhospitable that nobody wants to attack, thus there's nobody to fight.

mongojunction 6y ago
Definitely. I think there's a pressure between outward expansion to secure resources, and the risk of annihilation through the conflict that results. I guess it's interesting to think of the effect of this "evolution pressure" on successful strategies for small groups. I wonder if looking at small-groups today...they have selected for strategies that worked...over a long time, by this knowledge sort of being passed along somehow. Or if, in a sense, every small group is re-learning the lessons of others from the past... If a small group survives for a long time, I think it has to either become large, or it has to, as you say, go somewhere to survive. Which could just mean, "going underground", and hiding in plain sight in terms of "secret groups" that are persecuted. Maybe the same can be considered for small companies. Do we expand to compete with others for new market share and take on the risks that might involve (including, I suppose, taking on VC money...), or do we stay in our niche. Certainly, probably as Thiel says, the best strategy for a small group at the start is as you say "go someplace there's nobody to fight", and dominate that small area. Interesting to think of Thiel as a survivalist...I suppose that's what he is... Thinking about what you're saying more, it does seem that small groups have an incentive to co-operate as well. Band together to survive. I guess just the risks for small groups, even in co-operating (such as being double crossed), are probably greater, because a small group is easy to annihilate. Conclusion: life is hard for small groups.