4 ms·
It really isn't. History is littered with civilizations that were on top, got complacent, and were swallowed by up to that point irrelevant tiny neighbours. T
by hyperman1 5y ago
It really isn't. History is littered with civilizations that were on top, got complacent, and were swallowed by up to that point irrelevant tiny neighbours.
They all had the wealth, the power, the tech. They didn't have the tolerance for short term pain for greater future gains anymore. So they stood there watching how they went down, slowly but surely . And talking a lot.
I would not be surprised if future historians mark the 1990’s as the peak of the US empire
- ThomPete 5y agoHistory is not littered with civilizations that got universal computation and computers to execute them. Again there is no certainty in life, but to say that this civilization is not very different than others before it is in my view ahistorial.
- robertlagrant 5y ago> History is not littered with civilizations that got universal computation and computers to execute them. All countries have this now. How's this relevant to the point that less complacent countries will eclipse more complacent ones?
- ThomPete 5y agoalmost a billion people dont have reliable access to energy a large part of them dont have any at all
- robertlagrant 5y agoYou're so far away from the original point, that computation etc is available to any up and coming competitive country, and thus this computation is not the most the previous commenter was implying it was.
- ThomPete 5y agoWhat do you need for computation?
- hyperman1 5y agoAll civilizations are very different than others before. I am not convinced that universal computation is enough of a game changer to make us different enough. Older civs each had access to tech the ones before hadn't. The one constant is human behaviour.
- ThomPete 5y agothe difference is that with computers we have ai and with modern forms of energy we have machines and knowledge previous generations couldnt even think about.