3 ms·

I think it's bad if runs rampantly forever as eventually someone nefarious (which is more people than you might think) accumulates too much power and turns larg

I think it's bad if runs rampantly forever as eventually someone nefarious (which is more people than you might think) accumulates too much power and turns large swathes of society into a machine that benefits only them to everyone's detriment. But at the same time it seems the pursuit of wealth engenders risk taking that brings about benefits for large swathes of society and turns society into a machine that constantly improves itself. I like the game as it is, but perhaps a healthy modification would be to add a reset button where every couple of hundred years the slate is wiped clean and it all just starts again. Tbh, I think that happens naturally though usually after a society has destroyed itself due to the first problem. It'll happen to this one too eventually, so I don't see the need specifically to try to structure things in a way that will never go wrong or end badly. I don't think you can actually accomplish that with any one structure. It seems to be a game where some people win until it's game over and everyone loses. Just my 2c.

brazzy 6y ago
>I think it's bad if runs rampantly forever as eventually someone nefarious (which is more people than you might think) accumulates too much power and turns large swathes of society into a machine that benefits only them to everyone's detriment. It's bad longe before it gets to that point, just less obvious. > But at the same time it seems the pursuit of wealth engenders risk taking that brings about benefits for large swathes of society and turns society into a machine that constantly improves itself. Putting a cap on inheritance would not impede that in the least. Quite the opposite: inequality prevents a lot of risk taking and improvement from happening. > I like the game as it is, but perhaps a healthy modification would be to add a reset button where every couple of hundred years the slate is wiped clean and it all just starts again. That doesn't sound healthy at all because it represents an unneccessarily huge disruption.
- nullsense 6y ago
  >That doesn't sound healthy at all because it represents an unneccessarily huge disruption It's no different than you or I dying, just on a much bigger scale. It's a huge disruption, sure, but that's sort of the point. Civilizations come and go, as do the people in them. There are just too many variables for things to be able to persist in a stable state in perpetuity.

brazzy 6y ago

>I think it's bad if runs rampantly forever as eventually someone nefarious (which is more people than you might think) accumulates too much power and turns large swathes of society into a machine that benefits only them to everyone's detriment. It's bad longe before it gets to that point, just less obvious. > But at the same time it seems the pursuit of wealth engenders risk taking that brings about benefits for large swathes of society and turns society into a machine that constantly improves itself. Putting a cap on inheritance would not impede that in the least. Quite the opposite: inequality prevents a lot of risk taking and improvement from happening. > I like the game as it is, but perhaps a healthy modification would be to add a reset button where every couple of hundred years the slate is wiped clean and it all just starts again. That doesn't sound healthy at all because it represents an unneccessarily huge disruption.

nullsense 6y ago
>That doesn't sound healthy at all because it represents an unneccessarily huge disruption It's no different than you or I dying, just on a much bigger scale. It's a huge disruption, sure, but that's sort of the point. Civilizations come and go, as do the people in them. There are just too many variables for things to be able to persist in a stable state in perpetuity.