2 ms·

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 su

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.

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.