I haven't read the book, podcast, etc... But at a glance, i don't think I buy the "hingeyness" concept. Stretching the analogy... A hinge matters because the d

I haven't read the book, podcast, etc... But at a glance, i don't think I buy the "hingeyness" concept. Stretching the analogy... A hinge matters because the door it hangs is flat. It "only" moves at the hinge. History is anything but flat. It can bend at any point and in any direction. The 18th century gave us most of the political and economic institutions we have: nation states, republics, liberal democracy, maritime law, modern philosophy, limited liability companies and stock markets. I don't think this means the 19th and 20th century were determined by those. The US/USSR standoff could have been something else entirely if the nuclear cold war had preceded WWII instead of succeeding it. The "lever" is technology, and this just gets increasingly powerful as we go along. The only way that, in retrospect, any century is a "hinge" is if in the following century, we have less powerful technology and ability to impact the world. So, in a sense, hingeyness simply means "collapse." A century is a hinge inasmuch as it is enough of a collapse to destroy technology. In any case, I think we are currently underestimating the threat of nuclear war. The threat has not really receded much, if at all, since it was at athe top of everyone's list of fears. We're still likely to have mass death and ecodestruction appear out of a clear blue sky.