> What are the key parameters that determine renewal versus rot, and how can they be mapped onto systems of global governance? I would say one of the key param

> What are the key parameters that determine renewal versus rot, and how can they be mapped onto systems of global governance? I would say one of the key parameters would be how well a system actor models the system in which it exists. In other words, do the internal rules of a system actor, whether it be an organism or a legal code, anticipate stressors from the outside and avoid them? As two examples, an organism on earth needs to have a model of gravity to avoid falling from a dangerous height and dying. Likewise a legal system needs to have a prohibition against murder to prevent feuds that rip society apart. If a system actor is really well-adapted to its niche it can forestall rot. However because the actor is always just a part of the system, it cannot model everything. There's simply not enough space to store the model. So all system actors rot and die due to unanticipated stressors. The system itself, however large we define its scope (valley, earth, universe), will always outlast a system actor because it does not need to rely on a model but is big enough to contain all the information the model attempts to compress. Renewal is when a failed model is discarded by the system which has more information. Rot is when the model is failing. I'm less worried with an absence of renewal than I am in how long I might have to live with rot. I see no way to construct a world government that does away with conflict. External stressors are necessary to "keep the model honest". We can try very hard to build good models of governance, and we should, but we should also know that we will always fail. The risk is that fear of discarding a failed government, because of the loss of pride, tumult, and short-term regression, pushes us to maintain an oppressive, maladapted order. World government has the potential to rot for a very long time.