3 ms·

> Bregman is horrified by the Holocaust, as anyone who believes in the goodness of humankind must be. He suggests that people will indeed do nasty things on a m

> Bregman is horrified by the Holocaust, as anyone who believes in the goodness of humankind must be. He suggests that people will indeed do nasty things on a mass scale if they are convinced that it is for the greater good. It was not inherent nastiness that led to the Holocaust, Bregman suggests, but years of indoctrination. How about all the mega-killers in history - Genghis Khan, Timur, Alexander, Napoleon? It seems to me that will-to-power is innate, it doesn't require indoctrination or appeal to greater good.

vorpalhex 6y ago
Geghis Khan and Alexander would both make the case that they were helping the world by uniting it and ending micro-conflicts - the people they killed along the way were necessary sacrifices who had the option to instead surrender to something greater. There's also an element of "divine right" at play - they believed they were fulfilling a religious entitlement. Napoleon would make a similar argument, likely one more based on a worldview about exporting French culture and values. There are very few cases, perhaps the destruction of Babylon, where someone basically says "yeah, I did it because I was angry and didn't care".
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Would they? It's my understanding that premodern conquerors were quite open about the fact that their primary goal was acquiring wealth and glory rather than optimizing the world.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    I mention the destruction of Babylon by the Assyrians because it's an exception, and because the king goes on in great detail about how much he wanted to remove even the idea of Babylon. Most conquerers obviously felt they were the best person to do the job, but they were not in it for like, direct personal gain. At some point you conquer enough to drown in wine and gold long before you conquer as much as they did - and being in war is not pleasant even as the king. They felt there were doing something for their people by unifying disparate factions.
    - cousin_it 6y ago
      "When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no lands left to conquer." Skyler: "If I have to hear one more time that you did this for the family..." Walter: "I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. I was really alive." The way I see it, conquerors aren't driven by greed or morality. They conquer because they enjoy it, are good at it, and want to be the best and greatest.

vorpalhex 6y ago

Geghis Khan and Alexander would both make the case that they were helping the world by uniting it and ending micro-conflicts - the people they killed along the way were necessary sacrifices who had the option to instead surrender to something greater. There's also an element of "divine right" at play - they believed they were fulfilling a religious entitlement. Napoleon would make a similar argument, likely one more based on a worldview about exporting French culture and values. There are very few cases, perhaps the destruction of Babylon, where someone basically says "yeah, I did it because I was angry and didn't care".

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Would they? It's my understanding that premodern conquerors were quite open about the fact that their primary goal was acquiring wealth and glory rather than optimizing the world.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  I mention the destruction of Babylon by the Assyrians because it's an exception, and because the king goes on in great detail about how much he wanted to remove even the idea of Babylon. Most conquerers obviously felt they were the best person to do the job, but they were not in it for like, direct personal gain. At some point you conquer enough to drown in wine and gold long before you conquer as much as they did - and being in war is not pleasant even as the king. They felt there were doing something for their people by unifying disparate factions.
  - cousin_it 6y ago
    "When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no lands left to conquer." Skyler: "If I have to hear one more time that you did this for the family..." Walter: "I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. I was really alive." The way I see it, conquerors aren't driven by greed or morality. They conquer because they enjoy it, are good at it, and want to be the best and greatest.