4 ms·
I disagree. A critical mass of completely disenfranchised people will always topple any ruling class. Even in the depth of any bunker. Fleeing the planet might
by raxxorrax 5y ago
I disagree. A critical mass of completely disenfranchised people will always topple any ruling class. Even in the depth of any bunker.
Fleeing the planet might work, but that is still out of reach.
Aside from that todays robots still tend to disappoint. Chatbots are the most impressive thing overall.
- danjac 5y agoHistory says otherwise. A mass of disfranchised people can stay disenfranchised indefinitely. A ruling class tends to be toppled by some external cause - such as a foreign invasion (e.g. Iraq in 2003) or long-term changes that slowly undermine their power base. Successful revolutions and coups tend to be carried out by a small, disciplined cadre that is able to seize the moment, such as the Bolsheviks, or a clique of military officers. Unfortunately, that usually results in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" as far as it goes for the disenfranchised masses. Peasant revolts however generally end in failure.
- raxxorrax 5y agoI think empirical evidence suggest there is no such eternal civilization and there were a lot of absolute autocrats, monarchs and whatnot. For one reason or another they came to an end. Libya might be a better example. Gaddafi is still the most recently successful dictator if you measure time of ruling. Allegedly he had good instincts to sense coming revolutions and other dangers. But I have no doubts that he wouldn't have been toppled at some point. I also think he was so paranoid that he didn't really have potential successors. There are some dynasties that survived falling civilizations, but their influence is limited.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]